Gun Control and Katrina Aftermath I haven't heard it mentioned yet, but I hope one of the lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina, and the resulting anarchy is not lost on people. Common citizens were able to protect themselves because of personal firearms. Imagine if the gun control advocates had their way, and people couldn't bear arms? Think the looters and hoodlums would have had guns? Hmmmm.... I'd LOVE to hear the gun control advocates talk their way through this scenario. Seems to me that the purpose of the right to bear arms was played out in front of us over the last couple of weeks. Any thoughts?
Re: Gun Control and Katrina Aftermath Whew. I got really worried when I read the title of the thread, thinking that you were going to see we need more gun control. Glad I was wrong. I think the gun control advocates would say that "the criminals would be unable to use guns if they weren't available. Thus, we wouldn't be having these problems down in New Orleans." Of course, this is incredibly short sited & ignorant. Criminals don't obey laws. That's why they are criminals. They sure as hell aren't going to start listening to laws that don't allow them to have guns.
Re: Gun Control and Katrina Aftermath This situation called for a different kind of gun control. Many looters were using weapons stolen from gun shops, Wal-Mart, and abandoned private homes. I think gun-sellers should have to provide more secure lock-ups for weapons, especially during a civil crisis. Like a vault big enough to hold all of the guns on the premises and secure enough to keep the average steet hoodlum from getting to them easily. Insurers could insist on gun safes in the home in order to secure insured weapons from theft. This would also serve to make it hard for unarmed hoodlums to arm themselves.
Yea, gun safes in homes don't make a helluva lot of sense to me. Seems that if you NEED the gun, the last thing you have time to do is go unlock a safe. Red, I see your point but would be concerned about the additional expense of doing it. Most of the gun stores (Wal Mart excluded obviously) seem to be secured like Fort Knox anyway.
Re: Gun Control and Katrina Aftermath I understand & agree that stores should have safer gun control to stop them from getting stolen. Business should be held responsible for keeping the weapons safe & not letting them get into the wrong people's hands. That includes protecting them from burglary. I disagree about private owners. Forcing people to buy a safe to store guns is a little unreasonable. Say someone is breaking into my house, I don't want to have to open a safe to get to my weapon. What about in vehicles or people with permits to carry concealed weapons? This opens & whole can of worms & should never happen. Some gun control is needed, but let's be realistic about this.
Re: Gun Control and Katrina Aftermath Can't speak for him, but I think Red was going for locking up most of your weapons at home to secure them. You would still have 1 or 2 ready to defend yourself, family, and property. But your "extras" like hunting rifles and shotguns would be secured. My dad and I each use this scenario. 1 or 2 hanguns at the ready, and the remaining guns and ammo securely locked away a gun safe. We choose to lock our ammo in a different safe in a different room so that access to one doesn't provide access to both. I have small children, and his step children are 17 and 14.
Re: Gun Control and Katrina Aftermath That's not what it sounded like to me. He said insurers could INSIST on putting guns in safes. You have made a smart decision, especially with children running around. But it was your decision to make... and that's the key.
Re: Gun Control and Katrina Aftermath Insist is a double-edged sword. Under Red's scenario, if you don't put your weapons in a safe, the insurance company won't insure them against loss from theft. I don't think they can force you to buy a gun safe. Flip side is you may pay a higher premium to insure your hardware if you refuse to buy a gun safe. Gun safes aren't all that expensive, as compared to the potential loss of your hardware. And for the lay criminal, if they see a safe, odds are, its too much trouble to try and break open. They will just pass on it in favor of easier access.
That's not what I said, doofus. I said that private citizens who want their guns covered by their insurance should get safes. As a pleasant side effect it would also make it hard for criminals to get their guns. Gun safes are not all that expensive and anyone with more than a couple of expensive guns probably already has one. I do. If you want to leave your guns in your closet and let your local crips and bloods take them when you aren't there, it's your choice. And it makes you part of the problem.
Your rant had nothing to do with what I said. I said nothing about "telling people the way in which things should be held or organized in their own home". I said absolutely nothing about "blaming the victims" or "not holding criminals accountable". Where do you come up this this crap? You are arguing with yourself or with somebody else. Here is what I'm saying: I am a responsible, law-abiding gun owner and I have nine firearms in this house at last count. All of them except an old shotgun leaning up behind the front door and the PPK in my nightstand are locked up securely. I'll shoot you if you come into my house and fug with me. It is my belief (note: NOT telling anybody what to do) that part of being a responsible gun owner is taking steps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and kids. I can't be there guarding them all of the time. What the hell is wrong with that? Not a damn thing. Why don't you spell it out for us. Just get it out. Three comments: 1. Not all gun safes are expensive. Many guns are. Hell, put a big honkin' chain through them, it worked for Andy and Barney. 2. People who lock up their guns are being responsible, not "holding criminals unaccountable". 3. Mississippi didn't have anarchy in the streets like New Orleans did with no police control. They were blown away but the police were able to get right in there. That could not happen with the flooding in New Orleans.
