The ostensible purpose of the “safe storage” laws is to keep guns out of the wrong hands. In reality, the requirement to keep weapons locked up and separate from ammunition contributes to criminal acquisition of arms. A gun owner whose weapons are inaccessible for immediate defensive use as mandated by law is easy prey to thugs able to barge in and force him to unlock the safe. Voluntary use of safes reduces the incidence of gun theft from unoccupied dwellings even as criminals switch to crimes of stealth for fear of getting shot by the law-abiding.
Similarly, the ostensible purpose of reducing the number of weapons in private hands is crime reduction. It has the opposite effect in reality. In a society where most adults are armed, having a weapon gives little advantage to the thug. In a disarmed society, being armed gives an overwhelming advantage, making acquisition of arms a much higher priority. Moreover, peaceable people unfamiliar with firearms greatly overestimate their effectiveness, making them more likely to surrender and be raped and/or executed rather than fight on even terms and likely win.
Registration of firearms, in theory, is to make solving crimes easier. It also criminalizes such acts as friends accidentally mixing up two identical firearms at the range and each person taking the wrong one home. How does criminalizing an action which harms no one make any sense, unless there’s an ulterior motive to the registration?
“Registration of firearms, in theory, is to make solving crimes easier.”
Except it doesn’t. Massachusetts has had a registry for DECADES and I’ve never heard of it being used to solve a single crime. Same goes with the other states that have similar registries.
I know Canada with their whole nation-wide registry only used it in a few crimes that I suspect were solved anyway.
Nope, the ONLY thing registries have been used for across the board is rounding up the guns when they decide to ban them.
Criminals prefer unarmed victims. No one ever tried to disarm a population out of compassion.
It not be unreasonable to assume criminal intent then, behind anyone calling for restrictions on personal arms. In the U.S. one must already have ignored or have contempt for the Bill of Rights before calling for restrictions. If that person is a public office holder sworn to uphold the constitution, he’s indicting himself by the very act of calling for restrictions.
It would be as though you’d hired a grounds keeper, who had signed a contract to take care of your garden and swimming pool according to your wishes, and then he set right out and dug up all your flowers, cut down your fruits trees, killed your vegetables, and shit in your pool. But much worse. More like hiring a nanny who then slowly poisons your kids.
What drives me to distraction is that our elected officials are immune to prosecution for this undermining of our Constitution.
Their absolute hatred of our BOR is legendary, and it should be the basis of treason charges leading up to their execution…if JUSTICE prevailed.
Instead, we have a presidential candidate who is still on the campaign trail while it is crystal clear to everyone that hundreds of felonies were committed via the unsecured storage and transmission of state secrets. If this person is not indicted for these crimes, all our trust in the rule of law will be nought.
My idea of safe storage is on my person.