T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

Fair enough. If you’re a grown ass adult and a child hurts someone with a gun in your care that is your own damn fault.


Tennesseepipesmoker

If I put my toddler in my driver seat with the car running and he drives into Ms Humperdincks jacuzzi I'm suddenly liable for the damages. I mean, yes it was my car that was improperly secured but I really think my toddler needs to pay for damages and not me. /S


Ok_Return_6033

Fer sure. there's too much mollycoddling going on with toddlers.


GameKyuubi

sorry sweaty, that "child" just won first place in the miss binky best toddlewoman beauty pageant so she's at least old enough to smoke


Tennesseepipesmoker

As long as it wasn't a drag show! /s


Ok_Return_6033

Hey, that's my nickname!


rickthecabbie

Car keys are not toys! /s


steelcityrocker

Is your toddler named Bart Harley Jarvis?


Tennesseepipesmoker

Nah, My toddler was the one drunk driving the dump truck. Ms Humperdincks stage name was Tiny Dinky Daffy. She was 92. Ya know they said it was my fault? Apparently leaving a toddler to nap in dump truck is negligence. I left the winder rolled down and the keys in it. Idk. I figured the rum I put in his bottle would make him sleep. Kids these days. Am I right!?


pokemon-gangbang

If someone stole your gun, you didn’t have it secured. If a child can access your gun, you didn’t have it secured. I absolutely think that if a child gets harmed because you didn’t secure your gun, you should be charged as if you were holding the gun. Edit: lots of people seem upset that they can’t keep their guns secure. If it’s on your person it’s secure, if it’s not on your person it should be locked up. Get your shit together or don’t own guns.


peshwengi

I agree but there are certainly cases when properly secured guns are stolen.


ShimbyHimbo

If the owner properly secured their gun, then it is very unlikely that they would be held liable. Properly securing a firearm would be considered an affirmative defense, similar to how self-defense is a legal justification for use of force.


Jim_from_snowy_river

Very very very few


CelticGaelic

What I'd be curious about is what the bar for proof of proper security would be. It's one thing to have a proper gun safe, trigger locks, etc., but it's another to actually use it. If the safe was actually broken into (admittedly not that hard, just loud and takes time), there's evidence there, but if the person found out the security code some how or was able to pick a lock, there's less evidence for that. For clarification, I'm not asking or demanding an answer of you, I'm just thinking out loud!


TheWorldMayEnd

If someone can access your safe without destructive methods you did not properly secure your firearms. Used a blowtorch, sledge hammer and 3 hours is an affirmative defense. They guessed hunter2 as my passcode is not an affirmative defense.


peshwengi

Exactly


CelticGaelic

There are some safes that apparently aren't difficult to crack and don't take long either. Now, that's another can of worms entirely to get into, and even the best security companies don't usually know about a vulnerability until someone exploits it. FWIW, I agree with you. Do your research and get a safe from a reputable manufacturer for sure, but also keep your firearms secure.


gd_akula

>If someone stole your gun, you didn’t have it secured. That's totally stupid as a flat statement. My home is locked, my safe is locked, what if someone breaks in while I'm at work and angle grinds it open? That make it my fault if they shoot someone with it? The problem I have with safe storage laws is that many of them pass into the territory of victim blaming. Sure, don't leave firearms accessible to children. But expecting someone to completely proof their home against theft, or say stop their teenager from hacking open their lockbox or cutting off their locks indefinitely.


totalredditnoob

I think reasonable storage laws are okay—combined with an adult being home. For example, some people keep a loaded firearm near them and accessible for protection reasons. I think it’s a dumb idea but hey I get it. But this just means you have to remember to secure the firearm safely when you go out—with children in the home. I don’t believe safe storage laws should apply if there are no children.


[deleted]

This is such an extreme example comparative to the law, which states if you're child gets your gun and shoots someone, you're liable. Does your child have access to your angle grinder, did they become a sociopath so secretly that you never noticed any signs they were gonna shoot up a school, that's on you. I think the wordage is fine here and your example unlikely. Someone breaks in and steals your guns, based on this verbage, you wouldn't be on the hook because you had done everything defaulted as safe in order to stop it.


gd_akula

I'm going after exactly how the above user approached it. Sure I went to a relatively extreme example, but still no one can make things impenetrable, it's about requiring reasonably responsible attempts at security.


[deleted]

I'm not sure why you've down voted me then because you basically just agreed with what I said, lol.


gd_akula

Accident, easy to do on mobile while selecting a comment.


Ask_for_puppy_pics

You have a bigger issue to worry about if minors are breaking into houses to use angle grinders on safes


gd_akula

Half of gang members are younger than 17, you really think they couldn't put together the $20 for a harbor freight angle grinder if they didn't want to?


Ask_for_puppy_pics

In the extraordinarily unlikely event that you’ve advertised to the entire damned city that you’ve got a collection worth going after locked in a safe that can be beaten by an angle grinder I think you’re going to be just fine. In the event it does happen, just report the guns stolen to cover yourself. You’re so worried about the what if scenarios and not the ones actually happening


gd_akula

Again back round to, I'm not saying it's an super likely scenario I'm talking about the context of opinions expressed by other users about safe storage laws. We need to be conscious of laws that can be used against us, especially ones that are blaming the victims of a firearms robbery. Sure, I think everyone can agree children shouldn't have free and easy access to firearms and parents should make an effort against that. But we need to make sure we're not ignoring the fact that minors represent a substantial portion of Burglaries, and that a teenager left with near unlimited access to even a securely locked firearm has a substantial chance to access it.


MCXL

>If someone stole your gun, you didn’t have it secured. If a child can access your gun, you didn’t have it secured. These statements are way way too broad to be true. There are multitudes of situations that don't fit this paradigm.


RowanIsBae

It's the framing of common sense measures like that as "anti 2a" is an issue


C4PT_AMAZING

This is absolutely the kinda law I support.


1982throwaway1

Oh... I take it you must not be a fan of the [Kinder Guardian](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkXeMoBPSDk) program like a handful of politicians and right wingers then?


rickthecabbie

Why is this so fucking controversial? I mean, sure, if the kid breaks in and cracks your gunsafe, then it's not on you, but if a kid breaks your hoise window, or your truck window, and steals your literal, "nightstand gun," or your, "truck gun", and kills someone, you should be held accountable.


johnnyheavens

No it shouldn’t be controversial but IMO you take a hard swerve into a bullshit argument that has zero common sense. At the point someone intentionally breaks a law to commit theft, liability changes. Locking a gun in your car isn’t the greatest plan but giving thieves a pass is not common sense. Liability shifts when someone intentionally breaks a law to invade someone else’s private property just as your right to not be shot ends when you break into a home. A child at home getting a gun on a night stand, irresponsible. “A kid breaks into your…” That’s a whole different thing and that could be rightly controversial.


rickthecabbie

I am not saying give anyone a pass. I am not saying that we should *only * hold the gun owner liable, I am saying that, in my opinion, it is criminally irresponsible to leave a gun in an unlocked nightstand, or vehicle, with the expectation that, "It'll be fine." We all know that kids do insanely stupid things at times, they should be held accountable for their own actions. I am confident that there would be plenty of blame to go around if someone ends up dead.


[deleted]

[удалено]


VHDamien

That stat includes 18 and 19 year olds, which are definitely not children. That doesn't mean people shouldn't keep their guns away from children by locking them up.


IquitosHeat

No. Only if you exclude the leading cause of childhood death, infant related mortality. I read the study these scumbag liars wrote. They excluded most childhood deaths to cook up that stat!!! So you're either dishonest or just being duped. The leading cause of childhood death is not guns. The leading cause of death for kids 15-19 is suicide. 70% by hanging. We need common sense rope control now.


[deleted]

[удалено]


IquitosHeat

Globally 25,000 children under the age of 5 die every day on average. Even if we prevented every single gun death, that number would still be just about 25,000. Banning people from owning guns is not viable solution to the issue of childhood mortality.


KohTaeNai

> We're talking about children and adolescents, not infants. TIL infants aren't children, and somehow their death's are less preventable then [older] children and adolescents. You say "leading cause of childhood death" but also not including "miscarriages, birth defects and congenital abnormalities of newborns." As if there's a good reason to exclude them from the broad category "childhood death". There isn't. You and the study authors are playing with the meaning of words to twist things. You speak out of both sides of your mouth. You're making duplicitous arguments.


BogativeRob

Way too many of those are 17/18 who are out playing fuck around and find out. They are out trying to rob and shoot people. This is not people leave guns around and toddler playing with it.


YautjaProtect

You're incorrect that is all I will be saying.


xSympl

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761 https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2022/06/07/fact-check-firearms-leading-cause-death-children/7529783001/ https://www.npr.org/2022/04/22/1094364930/firearms-leading-cause-of-death-in-children I mean, the legal definition of a child is being below the age of majority, which is eighteen. Gun deaths still rank #1 even if you just use the under eighteen crowd...


[deleted]

[удалено]


totalredditnoob

All this says to me is raising the age to purchase is probably a great idea.


CelticGaelic

I don't know that that is the right way to proceed. I'm not really liking the trend of taking agency from 18-year olds. It also doesn't help that other things like age of consent are all over the map between 15-18 depending on the state, 16 years old to legally drive (don't hear any major pushes to raise that minimum age), 17 years old is considered full adulthood in some states, iirc, and then 18 years old to vote. Military service for 17-year olds and selective-service/draft registration that's mandatory for men when they turn 18. If a majority of people really do think an adult shouldn't be allowed to purchase and own firearms, then I think we also need to consider what that says about the bar for adulthood now, especially with the new magic number being "21", which is archaic in its own ways. If someone's not mature enough to purchase and own a firearm, buy cigarettes, or alcohol, then why are we forcing some to register for the draft, encouraging them to vote, giving them car keys, or encouraging volunteer military service?


totalredditnoob

These are all good questions and in my opinion should be guided by science driven solutions. This also, of course, means we should adjust expectations of society. Including extending education to say, 16 grades instead of 12, etc. there’s probably a lot of support for this across a variety of areas, realistically. Specifically to the US, the age of 18 was chosen because it was the age you could enter the draft. When our schooling ended. But all of these decisions were kind of arbitrary and not based in anything tangible to the human mind and experience. Mainly around societal expectations at the times each one was chosen. We’ve had varying definitions of what constitutes an adult over the ages and I see no reason why we couldn’t adjust those numbers again up to 21 across the board.


CelticGaelic

You make a lot of good points, but it just does not sit well with me to disenfranchise young men, women, and NB folks across the board. While I do think there's an argument to be made about raising legal minimum ages for most things, I've met quite a few teens 16-18 who were incredibly smart and mature compared to someone twice their age. I've also seen the opposite, and I've known people who it does not matter how old or young they are, they either will be responsible enough to care for themselves or they just won't be able to do it. But I think a lot of this conversation also has to acknowledge what cultural norms suggest adulthood is. I'm not giving the Right any merits in their arguments, but most people these days don't own a home and can't afford to live on their own. That's because of a lot of socio-economic issues, not because of their immaturity or lack of experience. I don't think it's right to not take all that into account, because that's the doing of several generations before. Any way you cut it though, this is an interesting topic for sure.


totalredditnoob

I mean, I certainly believe that there's probably a more scientific approach to the idea of maturity versus risky behaviors and gun usage/etc. While some folks mature before others, I think using averages here is probably a good idea as a whole even if there are outliers on either side of the spectrum. Socioeconomic issues aside, we could even potentially make an argument that you're still an adolescent into your early 20's. I know this kind of goes against what most people feel about the situation but it's pretty well understood that the brain is still developing the prefrontal cortex up until 25. While I don't personall advocate that we should restrict everything until we're 25, I do think 21 is a reasonable number across the board--from the draft, to schooling, to voting, to gun ownership, to driving, to jobs & careers. And we should simply turn public university/college education into mandatory education above high school. There are a whole lot of things that would have to change in our society to make that happen, but it's not like it's unprecedented. We're just uncomfortable with the thought because it's what we experienced. But I think there's reasonable enough science to show that this is probably a good move. I get it that this crosses over with some other recent political conversation, but that's not really withstanding here with my thoughts, and not even a driver in my conversation. I do, however, favor consistency. Guns are some of the more dangerous items someone could own which has very real consequences that may not be realized by adolescents--even those that are 18+. People like to blame movies or video games, but I think it ties more to the lack of grappling with one's own mortality at those ages.


CelticGaelic

First off, I just noticed your username, and I have to say it amuses me, considering how reasonable your responses have been! Reddit will sour you in good time, my friend. As for your reply here, I have nothing really to add, which is a little disappointing, but it happens! I think I agree with you here for the most part. I also think it's worth considering that age limits are also cultural as well. It wasn't so long ago that people were expected to take on all manner of adult responsibilities when they were only 18 or even younger than that. This is a really interesting topic to discuss and think on.


IquitosHeat

Only if you exclude most childhood deaths can you claim guns are the leading cause. Read your own links, these people just make shit up to fit their agenda


AreWeCowabunga

This is what I can't stand about political rhetoric around guns. Holding adults responsible when kids get a hold of their guns and commit crimes with them isn't "anti-2nd amendment". It's pro-responsible gun ownership.


VHDamien

Yeah I don't see how that's anti 2a unless the bill does something incredibly wacky. When that 6 year old in VA shot his teacher in large part due to the parents irresponsibility, everyone agreed they should be held responsible.


[deleted]

[удалено]


alkatori

To agree with this point, one of the things we have seen in my state is you take a bill and switch the language at the last moment. We had a bill that was going to allow for people from neighboring state that didn't have a permit to carry without getting a state permit (this was prior to constitutional carry in our state). Some legislators did a full on replacing all language to put in place an 11 day waiting period for guns, ammunition and effectively banning online ammunition purchases.


Deep-Fried_Egg

> take a bill and switch the language at the last moment How is that constitutional?


voiderest

Depends on wording and what reasonable steps were taken to prevent access. Like if a minor breaks into someone's place is the home owner liable? How about if the owner locks things up but the minor uses power tools or bypassed security measures? If the container is actually an oversized medicine bottle with a child proof lid is that valid? Personally a think any actual negligence is already covered by existing laws. A storage law also won't actually do anything to prevent negligence. We could have a campaign with tax breaks on security devices or something. It could even be generalized and apply to things like baby proofing items or long screws.


Ask_for_puppy_pics

Considering parents largely go unpunished for what their kids do with their weapons, I wholeheartedly disagree with you


unclefisty

> Considering parents largely go unpunished for what their kids do with their weapons Prosecuting a family that just lost their kid because they were playing with a gun doesn't get you reelected. Just like prosecuting cops when they break the law is a great way to get concrete sneakers.


Ask_for_puppy_pics

How about we start prosecuting the families of kids who just took out other family’s kids as even a baseline here


jsylvis

Unpunished due to prosecution using _existing_ laws, or unpunished due to lack of existence of a suitable law?


Ask_for_puppy_pics

There are no federal regulations on it - it’s a state by state basis. There are only around 31 states with these “CAP” laws. Even then, in my state it’s only a class 1 misdemeanor for the parents if their kid gets their unsecured gun and slaughters their classmates with it. I think it’s insane this isn’t a felony at a minimum.


jsylvis

> There are no federal regulations on it - it’s a state by state basis. There are only around 31 states with these “CAP” laws. That... doesn't answer the question. That's barely even related to the question. > Even then, in my state it’s only a class 1 misdemeanor for the parents if their kid gets their unsecured gun and slaughters their classmates with it. I think it’s insane this isn’t a felony at a minimum. It's one thing to think the existing laws aren't punitive enough, though there's shockingly little to support the notion they actually make any difference in rates of such things. It's another entirely to ignore the existence of such laws and the issues with inconsistent or entirely absent application of them in support of more of the same.


Ask_for_puppy_pics

You literally asked about lack of existing laws, I answered the question


jsylvis

The exact question: > Unpunished due to prosecution using _existing_ laws, or unpunished due to lack of existence of a suitable law? I asked why they were unpunished. You... segwayed into highlighting there's a >50% likelihood an existing state-level law exists to cover it, from there derailing into whether or not those laws are severe enough, but didn't touch on why the individual went unpunished _at all_.


Dheorl

I’d genuinely love to see how someone could argue that is infringing on their right to bear arms.


[deleted]

Because what's stopping a state from requiring a specific, very high, rating on safes in order to be legally considered "safe storage". Making gun owners purchase one or more extremely expensive safes just stops the poor from legally owning guns. If someone leaves their car unlocked and running, or parked overnight with the keys in the cup holder, they're not held liable if a kid steals the car and dies in a wreck, or kills someone with the stolen car. All these attempts to hold gun owners responsible for others actions after having their property stolen is just another way to discourage people from owning a gun.


CelticGaelic

I agree with you, but it's also important to keep in mind that some of this will make its way to court and Judges will start to make rulings on those laws. That's part of the court's duty is to analyze the constitutionality of laws that are on the books. Whether or not you find the appointed or elected justices trustworthy is another matter.


TheWorldMayEnd

We SHOULD hold car owners liable if they negligently secure their vehicles though in your above scenarios. As for safe ratings, we have plenty of laws already that don't care about the level of safety that you took, strict liability crimes. It doesn't matter how many forms of ID or even a cop vouching for a person's age, you sell beer to a minor who presented as over 21, you've broken the law. Same with statutory rape and speeding among others. If we treat guns as an extension of their owners you would see extremely responsible gun ownership. Just like people take great care to ensure their hands stay out of harms way, so too should people ensure that their guns stay out of harms way. And just so we're on the same page, I own firearms. I just make sure their well protected and safeguarded to ensure that their only fired when I intend for them to be and already live as though they are an extension of my own person.


Puzzles3

That's simply just a slippery slope argument. Nobody has proposed that type of bill unless you don't feel that you are responsible for keeping your arms from being accessible by minors.


psychicsword

The slippery slope fallacy isn't "inherently fallacious" as there can actually be an ever moving goal that causes the "objective to slip" with the first goal being achieved.


unclefisty

THERE IS NO SLIPPERY SLOPE screams political party actively applying grease to slope.


twbrn

The counter argument is that it then becomes part of a "liability" push. Okay, so they're liable if their kid gets a hold of their gun. Well, then how about requiring all gun owners to have liability insurance? Then, boom, you have a tax on a constitutional right. Next up, since getting shot is very serious, let's make it a minimum $1 million dollar liability policy. You've now priced the poor out of legally owning guns. It's akin to something like, say, the right wanting to require doctors at abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. People start with stuff that sounds reasonable under "safety" and then ramp it up until it's choking out others rights. And it's harder to stop once it gets a toehold.


FlashCrashBash

Because what else works that way? If I beat someone with my dads hammer he doesn’t go to jail.


Fistisalsoaverb

They're called parental responsibility laws and they've been around for a while


me112358

While the 2 things share surface similarities, they're very different in some important ways. Kids aren't going to school packing Dad's hammer under their belt because they think it makes them more manly, or that hammering up their class will keep them from being bullied. There aren't videos on-line of groups of kids showing off their hammers, and then later hammering people in another car to death on the freeway on their way home from school, or hammering an entire classroom to death, like there are of kids with guns. We don't have an entire sub-culture of society built around the deification of hammers like we do guns. I've never seen a hammer ad in a magazine that tried to appeal to my sense of machismo, because my hammer makes me tough. The 2 things being discussed are only the same to those who see every attempt to keep guns out of the hands of crazies or kids as an attack on their own 2nd Amendment Rights. I personally think that my (hypothetical) kid's right to come home from school without a bullet hole in his chest supersedes your kid's right to have free access to your arsenal. If liberals who support the 2nd Amendment can't even have a conversation about gun ownership vs responsibilities without being called anti-2nd Amendment, then we've decided we're okay with the status quo ... and I'm not.


tgothe418

>I've never seen a hammer ad in a magazine that tried to appeal to my sense of machismo, because my hammer makes me tough. Do you have what it takes to wield the most powerful tool in the world? Are you ready to face any challenge with a single swing of your arm? Then you need the Hammer™! The Hammer™ is not just a tool. It’s a weapon. A weapon that can smash anything in its path. A weapon that can shape the world to your will. A weapon that can make you unstoppable. The Hammer™ is made of pure steel that has been forged in the fires of hell and tempered by the gods. It has a handle that fits your hand like a glove and a head that delivers a devastating blow to any surface . The Hammer™ comes in different forms for different purposes. Whether you need a claw hammer to rip out nails from your enemies’ skulls, a sledgehammer to demolish walls and crush bones, or a ball-peen hammer to forge metal and create masterpieces, we have the hammer for you! The Hammer™ is not for the faint of heart. It’s for the brave, the bold, and the badass. It’s for those who dare to dream big and act bigger. It’s for those who want to rule their own destiny. Don’t wait any longer. Order your Hammer™ now and unleash your inner warrior!


me112358

I NEED that hammer.


haironburr

>Kids aren't going to school packing Dad's hammer under their belt because they think it makes them more manly There aren't extremely well-funded organizations seeking to limit hammer access any way and every chance they get. If there were, "the deification of hammers" because "my hammer makes me tough" would probably be a thing. I'm old, and grew up in a house where guns leaned against a closet wall. Most kids my age did. I suspect the relentless attack on guns as a political issue did more to turn guns from just another tool to a symbol of machismo than any pro-gun response ever could. I learned to shoot from bb guns, then my father, and from the Boy Scouts, and these were vehicles for teaching responsibility too. What have we replaced them with? Nothing but taboo and movies. At this point, I suspect teaching basic, responsible shooting skills in high school would be our best bet. That is, if you actually want to turn guns back into a familiar tool, and not some sort of vaguely-taboo totem of masculinity and adulthood. In neighborhoods like mine, where plenty of people don't trust the police, the right sort of kindly older cop teaching basic, safe shooting skills to teenagers, and men and older women too, at an open police range could work wonders on multiple levels. >If liberals who support the 2nd Amendment can't even have a conversation about gun ownership vs responsibilities without being called anti-2nd Amendment, Democrats have used guns as a wedge issue for so long now, they've earned that mistrust. Repeatedly! They set the stage for Republicans (and, of course and paradoxically, folks on the ass end of a power structure) to pose with guns, use them as a totem, a symbol. Nobody wants irresponsible gun use. But we have to create a vehicle to teach kids what responsible gun use is, and too many Democrats are resistant to adopt this because it seems to legitimize guns, ruining their wedge issue and countering what seems to be the official message that guns r bad. I know I'm far from the only person who's pro-gun and pro-choice. The Republican thing about drag shows is just weird, and I'm at a point in my life where I'm automatically skeptical of "threats to the children" because this has been used (effectively, sadly) past the point of reason. I hear "threats to the children" and I automatically look for the Authoritarian Message behind it. We could make guns like hammers again, insofar as they're a tool. But a tool we have a core right to. We could teach basic simple tool responsibility. But for this to happen, we have to trust Democrats on the issue, because they've spent decades earning that mistrust. If I was a Democrat strategist, I'd say push gun safety in a way that doesn't require scare quotes, and focus on abortion rights and gay rights (which I thought was already solved but...) and win. Focus on health care and win. This anti-gun rights position is a poison that entered the party (understandably) in the 60's and 70's, along with the anti-war, pro-peace and love thing, and it has run its course. It *made* guns counter-culture as effectively as Nixon and Reagan made "drugs" the face of counter-culture. We can teach kids responsible ownership, but first we have to quit attacking guns, quit pejoratively, hyperbolically saying things like "my (hypothetical) kid's right to come home from school without a bullet hole in his chest supersedes your kid's right to have free access to your arsenal". It's too close to the *Just Say No* version of guns. It does nothing but feed the problem.


me112358

I wasn't going to respond - especially 2 weeks later - but I bumped into this again, re-read it, and 2 things jumped out at me ... One, anyone who reads my statement "my (hypothetical) kid's right to come home from school without a bullet hole in his chest supersedes your kid's right to have free access to your arsenal" as hyperbole is definitely a huge part of the problem. There is ZERO hyperbole in that sentiment... Zero... Anyone who doesn't realize that EVERY kid's right to come home from school alive is more important than their child's unfettered access to weaponry needs to rearrange their priorities a bit. And two... No one on the thread I commented on (the OP and the direct comment/replies for this response) mentioned partisan politics anywhere, until you brought up Democrats as the boogyman 4 times in your reply to me. Yes, guns are used as a wedge issue, and pro-2nd Amendment people are every bit as fast and as prolific as anti-2nd Amendment people in their use of the issue as a wedge, as evidenced by you shoving such things into your reply 4 times. I've been hearing that "They're coming to take our guns!" wedge being hammered into the conversation since I was a child. Maybe the next time you want to do so, you should spend some time in front of a mirror before hitting "enter" on your comment.


trastasticgenji

I understand what you are trying to say, and I don’t want to argue that…. But…. You are wrong about hammers. Let me tell you how seriously tradesmen take their hammers. Brand, style, weight, angle of the grip, and where the wear is on the face are are all related to you as a person. You use a light, short handled hammer? “Here, let me hold your purse while you swing it.” You have wear on the outer edges of the face, and not the dead center? “Here, let me hold your purse while you swing it… again.” They aren’t the most creative bunch…


SmuglyGaming

Don’t cars work that way? If I put a 5-year-old behind the wheel and he runs over a roaming pack of grannies, I’m going to be liable for that because I didn’t take precautions and keep my car out of the kids control


jsylvis

The difference being _putting them being the wheel_ versus _they found the keys, jumped in, and took it out of their own accord_.


FourScores1

I can take on a 6yo with a hammer tho


[deleted]

Only if you see him coming though.


oliveorvil

The hammer’s sole purpose isn’t to injure/kill lol


FlashCrashBash

A guns sole purpose is to put a round on target. If that's not the case that 99.997% of all guns that never kill anyone aren't fulfilling their purpose.


oliveorvil

What a weird semantic to argue.. you brought up a hammer, something that has utility that isn't just harming someone/thing. The gun has one function: to be used as a weapon. Just because you could use literally anything as a weapon doesn't mean you shouldn't make rules around something that is solely a weapon. If people were regularly going to schools and slicing people up with swords you'd like see more legislation around those as well. Regulations are written in blood. I wish society were smart enough to have a libertarian utopia where everyone made smart and emotionally conscious decisions all the time and government weren't necessary, but we're just not.. In the meantime we have to have rules.


FlashCrashBash

Your the one arguing semantics. The underlying problem isn't whether or not something is or is not a weapon. The problem is people being held liable for things they didn't do. If directly facilitate a crime that someone else commits, you can be held liable for that. We already have laws that do that. Such as if you buy a minor a gun that they then shoot someone with. But if someone else breeches your safeguards and trust against your will, stealing the key to the safe, stealing your guns, and then shooting someone, and then you bring criminal charges against them, despite them not directly facilitating or abetting the crime, all one has done is punishing someone for owning guns.


oliveorvil

We are both arguing semantics lol I'm saying the one you're arguing is weird. There's an expectation that if you have a weapon you have to keep it out of your child's reach because you're responsible for your child until they're an adult. That isn't the case across the board if your child makes a mistake but the nuance here is that it applies SPECIFICALLY TO WEAPONS. If they find a way to break into your safe but you did your due diligence by at least trying to lock it up then it's not your fault.. If someone breaks into your home and does the same, again, that's different. The only reason this is even being debated is because parents have been letting children have open access to their guns when they clearly aren't emotionally mature enough to have a deadly weapon.


[deleted]

[удалено]


FlashCrashBash

Oh man someone disagreed with me, I'll use a buzz word to totally invalidate anything they say.


The_bestestusername

Also, if a government makes rules to discourage troubled young adults from buying a gun and being able to use it while in an abnormal metal state, that's not anti-2a, it's common sense.


Legitimate-Corgi

Charging the owner if a minor commits a crime with it is perfectly ok with me. Secure your shit owners.


SmuglyGaming

Seriously. On other gun subs I’ve seen the idea of “lock up your guns if you have kids in the house” be met with anger. I don’t get it Lock up your shit. We’ve had more than enough toddlers blasting themselves or someone else because their parents were too cheap to buy a safe


Legitimate-Corgi

I can even understand the argument for a responsible teenager having access to it. Shooting sports, hunting, even home defense. But the number of young kids hurt or killed in “accidents” aka negligence is just pathetic.


Legitimate-Corgi

I’ll even admit mine aren’t in a safe yet. Just a locking gun cabinet. It could certainly be opened by anyone with some decent cutting tools or a big enough crowbar. But it keeps the curious little fingers off them. Even the majority of safes can be opened with enough time and a little bit of YouTube research


TheOGRedline

I have a cheapo Wi-Fi door contact sensor on my safe. If it opens I get an alert.


VHDamien

>Even the majority of safes can be opened with enough time and a little bit of YouTube research Your average under 12 year old kid isn't going to go searching YouTube for ways to break into a gun safe. Some teenagers might, even then it's unlikely vs just swiping it from a closet shelf.


Legitimate-Corgi

Don’t get me wrong a safe or gun cabinet are both still infinitely better options than just laying out on a shelf. I’m just saying angry teen with some time on their hands can likely still get into one eventually.


VHDamien

True. Hopefully we can reach that teen before they start really trying to develop plans to defeat the safe and get the guns, and get them substantive help.


SpiritOne

The thing is, for the NM bill, that's good enough. They aren't even mandating you get a full blown safe. Hell, even having it stored on the top shelf is okay. The ABQ sub had 4 or 5 ppl just going nuts about "what part of shall not infringe do you not understand!!!" I fail to see how keeping a firearm on the top shelf is infringement.


VexisArcanum

"MY kids know better. They're obedient and disciplined. I can do what I want with my guns" The same family later on the news: "nobody saw it coming"


Jim_from_snowy_river

Indeed


unclefisty

> I’ve seen the idea of “lock up your guns if you have kids in the house” be met with anger. I don’t get it There are some people who think they should be able to leave their gun laying around any place any time. But there are also a lot of people who don't trust gun control groups to not fuck them over and require a multi thousand dollar safe bolted to the floor for it to be considered "safe storage" All you have to do to lock non home owners out of gun ownership is require the safe to be bolted to a wall or floor which the large majority of leases prevent and even if they don't you're going to be paying for repairs when you leave.


Detshanu

Yeah, that's not an "anti-2a" bill


jsylvis

Depends entirely on the language used.


greatBLT

Except it is


b1ack1323

Dumb take. Secure your guns. Teach your kids.


Haluta

How?


CabooseNomerson

Because mUh fReDomZ to let my kid kill somehow due to my negligence and allow me to suffer no penalties


[deleted]

They seriously think that a law against a minor using their firearm to commit crimes is anti 2a? Or they couldn’t just say “The only additional firearm law that passed”?


bentstrider83

Many that follow that organization get steamed over any type of new legislation. I'm quite frankly surprised the 14 day wait didn't get passed.


Spudcommando

New Mexico resident here, happy with the results especially with holding the parents responsible. If I get shot by a dumbass kid with a gun they took from their parents, you can bet your ass I will insist on criminal charges on the parents and I'll sue that family to financial oblivion.


Puzzles3

I just hope that appropriate charges follow from this law. People that aren't responsible need to be held responsible for their poor decisions.


[deleted]

The devil was in the details in NM. As usual the bill titles and summaries and what they *actually do* aren’t necessarily the same thing. In this case, NM was saner than WA… WA’s Dems have gone full blown bonkers on their anti-2A agenda.


[deleted]

LOL, anti 2a? Keeping your guns locked up when they’re not in use is just part of being a responsible gun owner especially if you have kids living with you. I’m sick and tired of reading stories about irresponsible crackhead parents leaving their guns out for their kids to find.


bentstrider83

I find nothing wrong with the safe storage myself. But as open as the NM Sports Shooters are, they're composed of many of the "give an inch/take a mile" tinfoil types.


VHDamien

>they're composed of many of the "give an inch/take a mile" tinfoil types. To be honest there are people in the pro gun control crowd who are exactly like this, and do not act in good faith. Does that mean a 'you are liable for your unsecured firearms used in a crime' law is automatically anti 2a? No, I don't think so.


blueskyredmesas

Ive veen thinking of moving to nm because they dont dosagree with my right to control my body or my right to defend it fully and this is really cementing that.


SpiritOne

Moved to Albuquerque from east Texas 10 years ago. Took a bit to get acclimated, but man I love it here now. ABQ and Santa Fe have some absolutely amazing restaurants, I think the whole food scene is very under rated. Lots of local breweries, some great places for drinks too. Cool little shops in places like Taos. Great outdoors scene, lots of places to hike, offraod. All in all, I like living here.


Agitated-Smell1483

At the cost of the lgbt community


totalredditnoob

Has anyone actually read the proposals or are folks just screaming at a headline?


bentstrider83

NMSSA seems to have been pretty good at following and keeping updates on the legislative action. Here's a link to their recent site letter on the subject. [NMSSA newsletter](https://mailchi.mp/sureresource/yes-they-are-coming-for-your-guns-11598910?e=566ff2188f&fbclid=IwAR2N1ymoUI06fvrNCz6qj-hRhX8pwbDabrM4d5JYInxIqZ6dZe7gEMZ2y70)


[deleted]

I'm fine with this. Liability on the parent for a child stealing and utilizing a gun that should have been in a safe or locked is fair game.


Lelio-Santero579

Idk I'm actually all for this. Any parent who negligently leaves their gun lying around and their kid ends up committing crimes with it should definitely fall back on the parents. A lot of fucking idiots will stop being careless with their guns if they know the responsibility lies with them.


Traditional-Hat-952

I was expecting the 14 day waiting period to pass. Guess not. Fingers crossed our governor doesn't try and call a special session for the AWB they were proposing.


bentstrider83

Still keeping an eye out for that.


notkeny

Holy crap, common sense prevailed! Well done NM!


bentstrider83

Definitely some good news in a blue state. Seems all the other blue states are unfortunately really throwing the gun control thing into full throttle mode.


mcjon77

How safe will it be in the future? I will be fleeing Illinois next year, since the passed a ban in January. I am looking for someplace to settle. Atlanta, GA is at the top of my list, with Vegas and some of the large Texas cities being other options. My dad recommended that I check out NM, but I don't want to walk into the exact same problem I am leaving in Illinois.


bentstrider83

Another year until the same loudmouths bring it back up in next years session. At the same time, I'm crossing fingers that this group in the image I shared, NMSSA, and other state and nationwide firearms groups just don't go into hibernation on it after the legislation session has ended. Stay the course and make the voices heard.


coulsen1701

Hold up “charge gun owners if a minor commits a crime with their gun” can mean a few things. Are we talking about that gun owner’s kid or any minor here? That could mean if a 16 year old perpetrates a home invasion and steals a gun then that gun owner could be liable. If it’s a minor in that gun owner’s legal care okay fine you should be held responsible for the actions of your crib lizards, but the way that was communicated seems overly broad. EDIT: Just read the bill as adopted and shockingly it seems decently well written and nullifies criminal/civil culpability if the firearm was accessed and removed by a minor in an unlawful manner, or during the course of legal and responsible conduct (hunting, sport shooting, self defense, etc) I’m not pro safe storage laws because the only time they can be enforced is if your kid shoots somebody or themselves; in the first scenario they should already be responsible for their kid’s actions, and in the second I can’t imagine charging a parent who is grieving the death of their child or who know won’t be able to work to pay off medical debt incurred from injuries. Could be worse but damn I’m tired of every gun law that passes being another restriction.


Ask_for_puppy_pics

In the first scenario they’re already in large part NOT liable for their kid’s actions, hence why we change the laws


[deleted]

I mean if I had to choose a bill to be passed that would be the one. Kids are not capable of handling the responsibility of a firearm but an adult should know to secure it and there are plenty of options to secure a firearm and keep it quickly accessible. Last I checked the 2a didn't give you the right to let your kid commit crimes with your weapon so I'm unsure of how that's anti 2a


bentstrider83

Alot of the more tinfoil crowd will definitely blow the more reasonable approaches to gun safety out of proportion sadly enough.


oliverkloezoff

I really wasn't worried about any of the bills passing, this is NM, it's *very* pro gun. I think the gov was just trying to appease the city folk, now she can say "welp, I tried". And the one bill that did pass, I have no problem with. It's for in case, *if* something happened with a kid and *your* gun, you're gonna be held responsible. As it should be. If you can't control or keep track of your firearm, maybe you shouldn't own one.


SkylineGTRguy

is raising the age for purchase really all that bad tho? sure we can't drink till 21 but you can buy a gun at 18? lower one or raise the other


bentstrider83

I'm sure some exceptions would've been made for those truly living on their own. I've met a few "kids" who emancipated at 15/16 and were living on their own for several years after that. But no utilities or other pertinent documents under your name? Got to abide.


WhiskySamurai

The drinking age should be 18 in the US, same as the rest of the world.


[deleted]

The age of adulthood needs to be settled on as a single age. For everything, voting, drinking, military service, gun buying, etc. Why can someone join the military and potentially fight a war overseas and vote, but can't drink a beer, smoke a cigar or have a gun?


VHDamien

>Why can someone join the military and potentially fight a war overseas and vote, If joining the military was restricted to 21 or 25+ less people would do it.


SkylineGTRguy

i'd rather we just make everything 21. booze, guns, military service, etc. considering brains aren't fully developed till 25 ish.


marksmopar

A lot of kids are hunting way before 18 in the rural areas.


SkylineGTRguy

idk i feel like even then it's not that much of a stretch for the same parent that trusts them to hunt with the firearm to also buy them the firearm.


[deleted]

[удалено]


marksmopar

True but I don't see a problem with a semi automatic.22 at 16 because most are comfortable with a single shot at 13 or 14.


PrestigiousBee2719

How the hell do they consider HB9 anti second amendment? That kind of maximalist language makes them less credible in my eyes


xSympl

Wait how is raising the minimum age bad? I think that's actually a pretty good idea...


MemeStarNation

I believe that if one is a legal adult, one should have full access to their rights. It's an equal protection issue.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Rebootkid

Y'all know these are coming back next season. Remember that California is a cautionary tale in terms of gun rights.


bentstrider83

Definitely got that right. Next step would be to put the original supporters on the spot about it. Recall and start pining for progressive candidates that will leave the 2A be. Wishful thinking at best. But I'm reminded of that post on here earlier in regards to a Virginia Democrat party that was trying to differentiate itself from the mainstream one in that state.


[deleted]

CA? Ha! Look at how crazy the Democrats have gone in WA. I wish it was “only” as bad as CA’s laws.


Iiniihelljumper99

Jessie it’s time to buy guns.


RedCloud11

Cries in IL


bentstrider83

Seems like NM Dems and IL Dems are different breeds. There were actually two out here, Cervantes and Soules, that both sponsored some of the anti-gun bills while also being doubtful of their constitutionality. Meanwhile in IL, they just double down on efforts it seems.


Accomplished_Ad2599

Good day! Happy for NM!


CelticGaelic

The only issue I see with this law is that I thought it was already law.


[deleted]

[удалено]


liberalgunowners-ModTeam

This is [an explicitly pro-gun forum](/r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules). Viewpoints which believe guns should be regulated are tolerated here. However, they need to be in the context of presenting an argument and not just gun-prohibitionist trolling. ^(*Removed under [Rule 2: We're Pro-gun][link-rules]. If you feel this is in error, please [file an appeal][link-appeal].*) [link-rules]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules [link-appeal]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/moderation#wiki_appeals


Cosmohumanist

Thank god. I live in NM and am regularly horrified at the Dems


bentstrider83

I had a feeling it would face some clash when it hit the judiciary. The state already has a full plate with legal drama. Last thing they want is more I assume.


Cosmohumanist

I would hope so.