Is gun compromise possible?

[Formless]

There are definitely pros and cons to gun safes. That's why there is a market for them, after all. They can keep your guns out of reach of children, potentially prevent burglars from stealing them (most burglars pawn guns off to the black market, by the way), potentially protect them from the heat of a house fire, etc. Cons is that they cost money (duh), that if the safe is not as fireproof as you hoped you won't be able to save your guns which can easily represent hundreds or thousands of dollars to you, that the safes don't always have the best locks on them despite the advertising, and lastly that the bigger the collection you have the bigger the safe you are going to need, making it an inefficient way to store large collections (especially of long guns). Oh, and yeah there is the "accessibility" issue if you want a gun for home defense.

So people aren't against the existence of safes, but mandatory safes are unpopular because of the cons. People like having a choice, and being treated like adults who can make wise decisions. Plus all the other reasons I listed upthread.

[Jub]

So people aren't against the existence of safes, but mandatory safes are unpopular because of the cons. People like having a choice, and being treated like adults who can make wise decisions. Plus all the other reasons I listed upthread.

That last bit especially rankles a bit. It's rather like seatbelt and helmet laws in that their designed to acknowledge that adult humans can still be rash dumbasses that we need to save from themselves more often than we'd like to admit. People are also more likely to overestimate the home defense scenario and underestimate a scenario like theft or fire.

Plus, I don't think cost should be a factor. If you can afford several gun safes worth of guns you can almost certainly afford the safes to put them in especially with advanced warning.

[Formless]

So people aren't against the existence of safes, but mandatory safes are unpopular because of the cons. People like having a choice, and being treated like adults who can make wise decisions. Plus all the other reasons I listed upthread.

That last bit especially rankles a bit. It's rather like seatbelt and helmet laws in that their designed to acknowledge that adult humans can still be rash dumbasses that we need to save from themselves more often than we'd like to admit. People are also more likely to overestimate the home defense scenario and underestimate a scenario like theft or fire.

Plus, I don't think cost should be a factor. If you can afford several gun safes worth of guns you can almost certainly afford the safes to put them in especially with advanced warning.

A quick pricing on gun safes shows me that the new ones almost always go for over 1000$ at least, often several times that. Meanwhile used safes aren't much cheaper. Remember, its the economic problem that most makes people go "nope." Gun owners come from every economic class in America, and poor people can more easily afford the guns (especially given that guns are a common item in an inheritance) than the safe. Plus again the issue black people have with mandatory safes... actually, let me just simplify this and say that before you can do mandatory safes you need a gun registry. And we all know how well those go over with gun owners.

[Jub]

A quick pricing on gun safes shows me that the new ones almost always go for over 1000$ at least, often several times that. Meanwhile used safes aren't much cheaper. Remember, its the economic problem that most makes people go "nope." Gun owners come from every economic class in America, and poor people can more easily afford the guns (especially given that guns are a common item in an inheritance) than the safe. Plus again the issue black people have with mandatory safes... actually, let me just simplify this and say that before you can do mandatory safes you need a gun registry. And we all know how well those go over with gun owners.

You could always offer subsidies on the first safe people purchase to ease the burden on the poor.

That and $1000 gun safes are nuts. I can find a cheap 18 gun safe here in Canada for $350. If you're poor and only own a single pistol you can pick up a small general purpose safe for like $70. Unless the US market for safes is just crazy inflated I don't see cash being the issue.

[Batman]

I think the US lost the right to be treated like adults who make wise choices a LONG time ago

[Formless]

You could always offer subsidies on the first safe people purchase to ease the burden on the poor.

That and $1000 gun safes are nuts. I can find a cheap 18 gun safe here in Canada for $350. If you're poor and only own a single pistol you can pick up a small general purpose safe for like $70. Unless the US market for safes is just crazy inflated I don't see cash being the issue.

Checking the website for Home Depot, it looks like yes, cheaper safes are available down in the... 400$+ range, but again 400$+ can get you the gun to put in it (a cheap one, but still). And you can't be sure such a cheap safe will even be secure in the first place. A safe is only as good as the lock on the door. And the owner has to remember to lock it first. A lot of people who steal guns are acquainted with the person they are stealing from, and know their habits before hand. Though that's true of a lot of thefts, actually.

I think the US lost the right to be treated like adults who make wise choices a LONG time ago

Who asked for your opinion, bat-brain?

[Jub]

Checking the website for Home Depot, it looks like yes, cheaper safes are available down in the... 400$+ range, but again 400$+ can get you the gun to put in it (a cheap one, but still). And you can't be sure such a cheap safe will even be secure in the first place. A safe is only as good as the lock on the door. And the owner has to remember to lock it first. A lot of people who steal guns are acquainted with the person they are stealing from, and know their habits before hand. Though that's true of a lot of thefts, actually.

This sounds a lot like whining because a solution isn't perfect. A cheap safe is still better than a dresser drawer or a closet and we know that most law-abiding gun owners will follow this law and lock up. This onus hasn't killed Canadian gun ownership either and we technically need two safes one for the gun and another for the ammo, though you can get away with a lock box for the ammo.

[Formless]

This sounds a lot like whining because a solution isn't perfect. A cheap safe is still better than a dresser drawer or a closet and we know that most law-abiding gun owners will follow this law and lock up. This onus hasn't killed Canadian gun ownership either and we technically need two safes one for the gun and another for the ammo, though you can get away with a lock box for the ammo.

Its not whining when some gun safes sold in the US provide such woefully inadequate security that a child can break into them. For the price, the safe has to actually do something to protect the things inside, or else its providing nothing more than a false sense of security.

Besides, like I said the point is moot unless a gun registry can be passed to find out who has guns in need of being locked up in a safe.

[Jub]

Its not whining when some gun safes sold in the US provide such woefully inadequate security that a child can break into them. For the price, the safe has to actually do something to protect the things inside, or else its providing nothing more than a false sense of security.

Besides, like I said the point is moot unless a gun registry can be passed to find out who has guns in need of being locked up in a safe.

Canada dropped our long gun registry and still require gun safes so you don't actually need this.

1) Most gun owners abide by the law and thus will get a safe if the law forces them to do so.

2) You can charge people if they're reported for not having a safe or if via some circumstance, say a stolen firearm, you have reason to check on how they're storing their weapons.

Again, you don't need perfect. You just need better.

As for those particular safes... Well, that's easily legislated as well. Require safe manufacturers to sell a product fit for purpose. You know, actual consumer protection laws like other nations manage to have. It's really not difficult.

[Formless]

Maybe, but my point still stands. In order to mandate safes, you have to pass other legislation on top of it just to maybe make the scheme work, and the fact remains that there are other cons to both using and mandating them. Plus, of the safes tested by Forbes, at least one was from Vancouver, meaning the gun safes used in Canada aren't all fit for purpose either despite the law. edit: wait, they mean Vancouver Washington. Stupid reused city names.(/edit) Furthermore, in that proposal, a lot of Americans will simply not report when their guns have been stolen for fear of being arrested, and you don't want that either. You want to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals (and maybe protect kids while you are at it). Safes to me are another one of those things that sound like a good idea, but you have to be skeptical about them. Its a technological solution to a social problem. Those kinds of solutions have a tendency to not work the way you want them to.

[Jub]

Maybe, but my point still stands. In order to mandate safes, you have to pass other legislation on top of it just to maybe make the scheme work, and the fact remains that there are other cons to both using and mandating them. Plus, of the safes tested by Forbes, at least one was from Vancouver, meaning the gun safes used in Canada aren't all fit for purpose either despite the law. edit: wait, they mean Vancouver Washington. Stupid reused city names.(/edit) Furthermore, in that proposal, a lot of Americans will simply not report when their guns have been stolen for fear of being arrested, and you don't want that either. You want to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals (and maybe protect kids while you are at it). Safes to me are another one of those things that sound like a good idea, but you have to be skeptical about them. Its a technological solution to a social problem. Those kinds of solutions have a tendency to not work the way you want them to.

Flip-side. Would you suggest that other nations get rid of legislation requiring gun safes? If so, why and if not then explain why those same reasons don't apply to the United States?

Plus, people already don't report stolen guns. This law would likely reduce gun thefts to a point where a new reason not to report them doesn't even come close to canceling out reducing the sheer number of thefts will have.

It really seems like you don't want a solution to gun crime in the US unless it's a social one when the reality is the US probably needs to tackle things from both sides to make a dent in a reasonable time frame.

[Formless]

Flip-side. Would you suggest that other nations get rid of legislation requiring gun safes? If so, why and if not then explain why those same reasons don't apply to the United States?

Plus, people already don't report stolen guns. This law would likely reduce gun thefts to a point where a new reason not to report them doesn't even come close to canceling out reducing the sheer number of thefts will have.

It really seems like you don't want a solution to gun crime in the US unless it's a social one when the reality is the US probably needs to tackle things from both sides to make a dent in a reasonable time frame.

Instead of answering the question directly, let me instead say what exact information I would need to answer it, because I don't think anyone has done the research:

1) data showing that safes reduce the rate of theft in countries that mandate safes relative to countries that do not. The fact that your gut says "well, obviously" conveniently misses the problem that a safe is only as safe as the idiot who owns it.

2) data showing that the safes used in countries that mandate them are actually secure given the known problem that many safes sold in the US are crap that can be bypassed with ease.

3) a financial impact study on the cost of requiring safes with demographic information on who is most impacted. This would allow us to do an honest cost-benefit analysis, since the poor are disproportionately effected by crime and thus are ironically the ones who have the most need for self defense tools like guns and other weapons. All of this would help alleviate concerns of classism, or might confirm that its economic discrimination that I cannot endorse. Keep in mind, I come at the RKBA issue from a Marxist perspective. The right to self defense and the means to defend oneself is one of the people and should not be a privilege granted by the powerful.

Then I would be able to answer the question. But personally, my gut says that its effectively a safety blanket compared to the problem of shady FFLs in this country. Stolen guns are used in crime, but they probably aren't the majority of such guns. And indeed, I think most mass shooters have used lawfully purchased weapons, not stolen ones or black market weapons. When the goal is to come up with a true compromise, its important to prioritize what will work and what will pass the approval of the other side of the issue. At least, that's how it works in a Democracy.

[Jub]

1) data showing that safes reduce the rate of theft in countries that mandate safes relative to countries that do not. The fact that your gut says "well, obviously" conveniently misses the problem that a safe is only as safe as the idiot who owns it.

Okay, well this one isn't that hard.

...the number of gun thefts edged downward in 2017, with 1,175 incidents last year.

Given that Canada had a population of 36.5 million in 2006 and we know that there are roughly 34.7 guns per 100 people that means we have 12.67 million firearms in Canada of which some number greater than 1,175 were stolen.

The US had a population of ~317.5 million over the span of 2012 to 2015. That means around 377 million guns floating around in the US over that same span. This source* claims, ~1.2 million firearms were stolen between 2012 and 2015, which is around 300,000 stolen guns per year. Now we don't know the average number of guns stolen per theft which makes a proper comparison impossible but we can use placeholder numbers to look at ratios.

Obviously, the number of guns stolen per theft will be greater than one so we can discount that one. I'm going to use 2, 3, and 4 guns taken per theft to get our ratio.

If we go with 2 guns stolen per theft we get:

2,350 stolen firearms out of 12.67 million for Canada. A ratio of, roughly, 18.5 guns per 100,000 stolen.
300,000 stolen firearms out of 377 million for the US. A ratio of, roughly, 80 guns per 100,000 stolen.

If we go with 3 guns stolen per theft we get:

5,250 stolen firearms out of 10.88 million for Canada. A ratio of, roughly, 41 guns per 100,000 stolen.
300,000 stolen firearms out of 377 million for the US. A ratio of, roughly, 80 guns per 100,000 stolen.

If we go with 4 guns stolen per theft we get:

7,000 stolen firearms out of 10.88 million for Canada. A ratio of, roughly, 55 guns per 100,000 stolen.
300,000 stolen firearms out of 377 million for the US. A ratio of, roughly, 80 guns per 100,000 stolen.

Now due to the small number of total thefts in Canada a few large thefts could easily skew ratios one way or the other. and our lack of precise numbers on how many guns are stolen per event which could be below two or above four will change things further. However, with the data we have, we'd need to hit 6 guns taken per theft to get Canada to pass the US in terms of ratio. Unless you strongly feel that the number if 6 or greater stolen per break in it seems like Canadian gun safes work.

*https://www.americanprogress.org/issues ... s-america/

2) data showing that the safes used in countries that mandate them are actually secure given the known problem that many safes sold in the US are crap that can be bypassed with ease.

That's impossible to say but I can't imagine the safes sold in the US are that much better than the ones sold by the same companies in Canada.

3) a financial impact study on the cost of requiring safes with demographic information on who is most impacted. This would allow us to do an honest cost-benefit analysis, since the poor are disproportionately effected by crime and thus are ironically the ones who have the most need for self defense tools like guns and other weapons. All of this would help alleviate concerns of classism, or might confirm that its economic discrimination that I cannot endorse. Keep in mind, I come at the RKBA issue from a Marxist perspective. The right to self defense and the means to defend oneself is one of the people and should not be a privilege granted by the powerful.

Why does this matter? The law in Canada doesn't say that you have to have a gun safe unless you're poor it hits all gun owners. I've even suggested a subsidy for poor gun owners that should help with this so there's little reason to bring economics into this especially as things will swiftly normalize after the law has been passed.

Most other democracies have gone the other way on that whole self-defense issue because it turns out that removing weapons from situations automatically deescalate them. In Canada, 21% of homicides are done with handguns in the US that number is 47% that's huge. Stabbings and firearms are actually trading places in Canada as the murder weapon of choice, which isn't even close to the case in the US. There are other reasons for the lower rates of violence between Canada and the US in general, but I think our weapons and use of force laws help some.

*https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/20 ... able-4.xls

Then I would be able to answer the question. But personally, my gut says that its effectively a safety blanket compared to the problem of shady FFLs in this country. Stolen guns are used in crime, but they probably aren't the majority of such guns. And indeed, I think most mass shooters have used lawfully purchased weapons, not stolen ones or black market weapons. When the goal is to come up with a true compromise, its important to prioritize what will work and what will pass the approval of the other side of the issue. At least, that's how it works in a Democracy.

My numbers disagree and mass shootings aren't my main issue. If we can cut those great, but my goal would be to tackle gun crime in general.

[MKSheppard]

Mexico had the same laws until 1917 when they amended the right to bear arms to the right to possess arms and further cracked down in 1971 where they restricted ownership of certain classes of weapons. So why couldn't a 1920's US in the midst of gang violence and prohibition pass similarly restrictive amendments?

Jub, you'd be interested in the history of state constitutions in the US.

There have been two generations of state constitutions passed in the southern states which are basically generically:

Round 1: 1866~ Fuck the confederates and fuck confederate sympathizers. (Republican Reconstructionists in power)

Round 2: 1878: Fuck the damnyankees and fuck their lackeys (Democrats regain power)

As part of Round II, a lot of right to bear arms provisions were generally removed so that dem dirty negroes couldn't have guns.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Liberals will always compromise, but the worker needs to be armed.