Thursday, October 3, 2013

6 Risky Gun Storage Products Sold by the NRA



Mother Jones


NRA Amendment II Peacemaker Wooden BoxWith decorations "reminiscent of 19th century Western designs," this pine, birch, and poplar box features images of an American flag, three Peacemaker revolver, and the full text of the Second Amendment on a removable lid covering enough space for a real Peacemaker. The box is recommended for storing a flag, jewelry, documents, or "other items in need of old fashionedAmerican protection" (hint, hint).


No wonder they oppose safe storage legislation. It would negatively impact upon the sales of these specialty items.

72 comments:

  1. Mike, if there are no children in the house, these items are viable options.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's thinking like that which allows a half a millions a year get stolen. And you guys want to take no responsibility for it.

      Delete
    2. Even the Brady campaign hasn't gotten around to pushing for storage requirements to prevent theft, yet. They are simply grading based on laws for storage that will prevent access by children.

      Delete
    3. Right you are, ssgmarkcr. I've said this several times, I don't think there is a single law in this country that can be considered a theft prevention storage law. If it can be satisfied with a trigger lock, then it has nothing to do with theft.

      Delete
    4. TS, I don't think that's quite right. I seem to recall some talk of safe storage somewhere.

      ss, thanks for pointing out that my ideas are even more advanced than those of the Bradys.

      Delete
    5. More advanced? No. Sillier. And that's something, given how silly the Brady Bunch is.

      Delete
    6. Can you show me where? Look, here’s a paste of DC’s storage policy. Even in DC the requirements only apply if there are small children in the house, and they just say the box has to be locked. No mention of the box needing to be secured to an immoveable object. If there are no kids in the house, and kids don’t come to the house, that doesn’t even apply. Look at the last line. If a 14 year old kid breaks into your house and grabs a loaded shotgun which was sitting on the kitchen table, the penalty does not apply. And that’s in DC!

      Storage of firearms
      • Policy: It is recommended that each registrant keep any firearm in his or her possession unloaded and either disassembled or secured by a trigger lock, gun safe, locked box, or other secure device.
      • Criminal Offense: The law requires that no person shall store or keep any loaded firearm on any premises under his control if he knows or reasonably should know that a minor under the age of 18 is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the parent or guardian of the minor unless such person:
      o Keeps the firearm in a securely locked box, secured container, or in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure; or
      o Carries the firearm on his person or within such close proximity that he can readily retrieve and use it as if he carried it on his person.
      • Penalties:
      o A person who violates subsection (b) of this section is guilty of criminally negligent storage of a firearm and, except as provided in paragraph (ii) of this subsection, shall be fined not more than $1,000, imprisoned not more than 180 days, or both.
      o A person who violates subsection (b) of this section and the minor causes injury or death to themselves or another shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
      o The provisions of paragraphs (i) and (ii) of this subsection shall not apply if the minor obtains the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry or burglary to any premises by any person.



      http://mpdc.dc.gov/page/firearm-registration-general-requirements-study-guide

      Delete
    7. I don't remember where it was, bit I'm pretty sure I've seen it. I'll keep my eye out and you'll be the first to know.

      Delete
    8. Yeah, it must be one of those places more strict than DC. I'd look there ;)

      Delete
  2. Because it's impossible to think that a person would put a collectible, new in box, in a safe to store and protect it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Man, I'm surprised the goofballs here aren't touting the smooth transition of Obamacare.

    orlin sellers

    ReplyDelete
  4. "IF"
    They sell these items to families with children.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jim, that is the responsibility of the purchaser to make that determination. I hope you aren't suggesting that the seller of a box has a responsibility to question the buyer and then decide if that person "qualifies" to buy the box.

      Delete
    2. Obviously gun owners need to be constrained by law to do what's right.

      Delete
    3. They are selling unsafe storage boxes, they have a responsibility. Do they have a disclaimer for families with children saying this would not be a safe choice if children are in the house?

      Delete
    4. How about we let people make choices for themselves? Such a radical solution no control freak could tolerate.

      Delete
    5. How about we care about people and warn them of dangers. I know you and the NRA could care less about human life, to the point of selling products that are unsafe and "pushing" intended to kill.

      Delete
    6. I think you misunderstand. I would never recommend to anyone with children, the storage methods in this article. That being said, suggesting that salespeople question an adult and making them responsible for that adult's purchases heads you down a slippery slope which removes an individual's responsibility.
      I understand that you feel that the NRA is the root of all evil, and that is your choice. But it's a box. The seller isn't responsible for the buyers' bad decisions.

      Delete
    7. So if you are buying a car the seller has no business asking if you have children to help chose which care is right for your needs?
      Selling a product to store a deadly weapon, the seller should not advise customers that their product is not safe if children live in the home?
      Sick hillbilly thinking

      Delete
    8. "How about we let people make choices for themselves?"

      Sure, Greg, that's a genius idea. Let's allow the people to determine how fast they want to drive or whether they should get car insurance or not.

      Delete
    9. Actually, on highways, there shouldn't be a speed limit, and drivers should be liable for damages without requiring insurance. Most would have it anyway, given the risk of accidents.

      Delete
    10. Pseudo-Libertarian bullshit. You're trying too hard.

      Delete
    11. How is that pseudo-libertarian, Mike?

      Delete
    12. Mikeb, would you be willing to have the government feed you what they thought you should eat & drink? or do you think you can makke your own choice without government's help?

      If the government didn't put white lines on the roads, would you be smashing into people in the oncoming lane?

      It's a good thing government has drug laws or you'd probably go out and shoot up an overdose of heroin.

      SHEESH!

      orlin sellers

      Delete
    13. Seriously, please explain the Pseudo part. I'm dying to hear this one.

      Delete
    14. The pseudo part is in reference to Greg's famous admission that gun control laws would work but the cost is too high. He recanted that and retreated into his pretend-Libertarian purist mode, saying he favors no gun control laws whatsoever. To me that's a pseudo, pretend, fake, bullshit guy.

      Get it?

      Delete
    15. Ah, so one's not a real libertarian if one agrees that a non-libertarian idea might work, even a little bit, but one still opposes the idea based on principle, on thinking that a libertarian idea will work better, or thinking that gains in safety aren't worth the costs.

      Delete
    16. Mikeb, how about you stop lying about me? I said nothing of the kind. What I did say was that a national policy such as what you demand would make gun ownership exceedingly difficult for those who wish to follow the law and would make those who want to own guns become criminals.

      Delete
  5. We oppose what you call safe storage laws because we don't want meddlesome types like you running things.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, you want to keep supplying the criminal with guns.

      Delete
    2. No, I want you to mind your own business.

      Delete
    3. This is why government steps in and makes laws and regulations to protect the innocent. If you are stupid enough to use this box to store your gun and have children in the home, then obviously someone else has to make the decision for you. We have to many government regulations. But if people are that stupid, then I will agree with that regulation to protect innocent life. You will not.
      Wow, what a toothless grin NRA hillbilly idiot! You are the reason government needs to regulate. You don't have the brains, or even common sense to keep people from being harmed by your idiocy, so government has to. With less hillbilly idiots like you, we could have less regulations and concerns about innocent people (children) being hurt and killed by your idiocy.

      Delete
  6. Mike, you were seemingly ok with wood being the weak point in our last discussion about what constitutes safe storage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A metal box screwed into wood wall studs. You said that was acceptable safe storage. The system is only as strong as its weakest point- which is wood.

      Delete
  7. These products are not for the purpose of preventing child access. Ironically, some of them are not too bad as anti-theft storage. A thief isn’t going to have time to check every book on the bookcase, or check to see if a clock has a hidden compartment. They would work better than having a simple lock box mounted to a wall in plain sight that can be easily pried off, but hey- Mike knows best.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. About the disguised book, I think you're right.

      Delete
    2. So, are you going to write clever concealment into your safe storage law?

      Delete
  8. Jim,
    I took a minute to look over the comments and didn't see a single one suggesting that leaving an unsecured firearm laying about was acceptable. I have commented here and on other posts that the owner of a firearm is responsible to insure that children don't have access to them.
    The fact that someone is selling products to people who don't have children doesn't make them irresponsible. I cant speak to the author of the article's intent, but if you were to go to the link provided and spent a couple of minutes looking, you would see that the online store run by the dreaded NRA also sells gun safes that would be totally acceptable to secure firearms from access by children.
    These items somehow didn't get mentioned at all, but then it is an editorial, which permits the author to show a bias and also lets them decide not to include data that doesn't support their position.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "didn't see a single one suggesting that leaving an unsecured firearm laying about was acceptable."

      You didn't see Greg's pseudo-Libertarian remark about letting people decide for themselves?

      Delete
    2. I'm sorry mike, I misspoke, though the overall attitude of the pro gun people in this thread has been that keeping kids from accessing guns is important, however, these products wouldn't be bought by people with children. That is why the web site also carries gun safes for people with children.

      Delete
    3. "the owner of a firearm is responsible to insure that children don't have access to them."
      Since they are not and statistics prove that, hence the need for regulations.

      "The fact that someone is selling products to people who don't have children"
      But the are selling to people who have children.

      Your claim that the seller has no responsibility is bogus; and I offer the restrictions on other products whose intent is not to kill. Like lead paint.

      Delete
    4. 1. "Statistics" prove nothing of the kind, since the number of accidental child deaths from firearms is around 200 per annum. That's out of the more than 100,000,000 gun owners in this country.

      2. Sellers have a responsibility to provide honest information about their products. It is the buyer's responsibility to use the product in an appropriate manner.

      Delete
    5. "Your claim that the seller has no responsibility is bogus; and I offer the restrictions on other products whose intent is not to kill. Like lead paint."

      The difference between the two items you mention is that the use of lead paint in residences was outlawed in 1977. As far as I know, there are no laws requiring businesses to question buyers as to how they intend to use boxes made of wood or other material, and if they intend to use it to hold a firearm, they then must determine if children live there and refuse sale if there are children in the home. Until then it really isn't your call, or mine.
      I have young children, so it's my responsibility as a parent to insure my firearms are properly secured at all times. People who don't have children, don't have that

      Delete
    6. Why do you keep saying "pseudo-libertarian"?

      Delete
    7. The difference is, they are selling the box as a gun storage box. If you want to use some box to store a deadly weapon, go ahead hillbilly. Gee, last time you said 600 per annum. Which is it? Thanks for stating again that you support even one death to have your way. I guess you cannot read, again, since idiots continue to misuse guns and cause injuries and death, then regulations are needed to protect society from your idiocy.

      Delete
    8. The 600 figure includes adults.

      Delete
    9. ss, I don't see any restrictions on folks with kids buying these items. Nor does the fact that safes are also for sale intend that they wouldn't.

      Everyone agrees that people with kids should keep their guns locked up but most of you object to the government making it law. Don't you see a conflict there, you know damn well that many of your fellow gun owners are too stupid or too don't-give-a-fuck to do the right thing unless constrained by law. Then, if there were such a law, they still wouldn't all do it, but many (most) would.

      Delete
    10. No, Mike, I don't see a conflict there. There are lots of things everyone should do that the government doesn't have any business legislating--especially in the sloppy manner you recommend.

      Delete
    11. Exactly, Tennessean. I don't want to live in a society in which the government mandates what it calls good behavior in every situation.

      Delete
    12. We're not talking about EVERY SITUATION.

      Delete
    13. Mikeb, in your case, we're talking every situation that you deem appropriate. But once you make the decision to micromanage people, where is the end to it?

      Delete
    14. Geeze, Mike, you are calling for restrictions on the sale of a wooden box. Is there no end to how far you will go? Even if you have all the safe storage laws you demand, why can't someone own this little freaking box if they want it? What if they want to put pencils in it? Or what if they want to put a gun in it, but inside their $100,000 gun vault? Why can't you limit your restrictions to actions?

      Delete
    15. And let's not forget that people sell wooden boxes of all kinds. If you're a gun owner, you won't be allowed to have a cigar box, a peach crate, a wooden tool box, a coffin, or any of a number of other such items that might store a gun.

      Delete
    16. TS, please show us where I was "calling for restrictions on the sale of a wooden box."

      You've been hanging out with T. and Greg too much. They're rubbing off on you.

      Delete
    17. TS, I believe it was Jim that was suggesting that sellers have a responsibility to question the buyer as to whether there are kids in the house, and then if there are, refuse the sale.

      "If you are stupid enough to use this box to store your gun and have children in the home, then obviously someone else has to make the decision for you. We have to many government regulations. But if people are that stupid, then I will agree with that regulation to protect innocent life. You will not."

      Delete
    18. Mikeb, you toss around the idea that we need to be constrained by law, but you're slippery as to what those constraints should be. Now you're saying that we can buy a wooden box, but we mustn't ever use it.

      Delete
    19. MikeB Oct 5, 11:57AM: "ss, I don't see any restrictions on folks with kids buying these items"

      That's the comment I was responding to.

      Delete
    20. I see, sorry for the misunderstanding. I let Jim's aura bleed over to Mike's. I better get my shades on. Hard to see with both of them in the same room.

      Delete
    21. Greg took too much oxy again: "Now you're saying that we can buy a wooden box, but we mustn't ever use it."

      Is that what I said, Greg?

      Delete
  9. What I do with my property is my business. You busybodies always want to invade people's privacy to save them from themselves, but the fact is that you're not welcome in my home. Mikeb, you have adovcated for the police to do home inspections of gun owners. What we see here is that there is no right safe from your desire for control.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think I ever advocated for police to do home inspections, unless of course there's probable cause. Then you better have a gun safe.

      Delete
    2. You keep saying that about police inspections, but they have been a part of many safe storage proposals in the past. Have you opposed those laws based on that violation of privacy?

      Delete
    3. Yes, Mikeb, you have said that home inspections would have to be a part of gun control. Now do we have to play memory games again?

      Delete
    4. Trying to save other innocent people from your idiocy. I could care less if you go blow your brains out.

      Delete
    5. "You keep saying that about police inspections, but they have been a part of many safe storage proposals in the past."

      Please explain, T., or I'll be forced to assume you're making shit up again.

      Greg, what I said was that registered firearms would have to be brought to the police with the paperwork after three months and yearly thereafter. That's to stop straw purchasing. Maybe that's what you're thinking of.

      Delete
    6. Mike,

      I don't have a list of failed gun control bills from the past several years, but I remember the discussions I've had about them. I look up the statutes to see what they actually say, and I remember some sold as safe storage that required inspections. Others that did the same were licensing schemes where the inspections didn't kick in for everyone, but did for people with an "armory" which was defined, in the law, as more than 3 guns, or some such low number.


      By the way, when you make a habit of "fleshing things out" and defending doing so, you sound even more silly when you falsely accuse people of making shit up. Almost as silly as you sound when you call someone a liar by lying about what they have just said.

      Delete
    7. T., I didn't notice you were talking about PROPOSALS. Big deal. You could find anything you want if you want to talk about proposals.

      Delete
    8. Clearly you didn't read my comment for comprehension, even though you managed to copy where I said that this was a feature of many past proposals.

      Now that we went back and forth, maybe you'll take back the charge of "making shit up" (not holding my breath since you've not taken back past accusations made based on lying about what I said), and finally get around to answering the question I asked back up there:

      Have you opposed those laws based on that violation of privacy?

      Delete
    9. It still sounds like you made it up. Proposals could include anything.

      Delete
    10. As was covered before, I was talking about proposed laws, specifically some federal proposals from the late 90's/early 2000's. But go ahead, keep accusing me of lying and refusing to answer my questions.

      Delete