Iâm perplexed; how is this relevant to Boingboing? How does this post contribute to a âdirectory of wonderful thingsâ?
Remember, folks, guns donât kill people, they just make it easier for whackos to go on murderous rampages.
Itâs more a âplace where the people in charge post things that they find interesting or discussion worthyâ. The great thing is, we all have the ability to simply ignore posts that donât interest us.
Now, my (only tangentially related) one story related to firearms and San Francisco:
When I was living there in the summer of 2000, and working in a sketchy (at the time, no idea now) SoMa neighbourhood at a converted warehouse space, I was walking to the bus early one morning after an all-nighter at work. One bus was leaving just as I approached the stop, and a mostly-normal looking dude was chasing it calling after the driver to stop. He did not stop. The guy came back to the stop, and muttered to himself âDammit, if only I hadnât left my gun at home today.â
Ahh San Francisco⌠you were an interesting place to live.
In this case is the interesting discussion to be had is not mentioned by either Mr. Weisberger and barely glossed over in the linked article. The Supreme Court allowed a lower ruling to stand that blatantly contradicts a precedent set a mere 7 years ago. I doubt itâs going to lead to the end times but I donât think itâs good for fans of rule of law that this happened.
I loved it!
The NRA could be the loudest voice in the room calling for gun owners to behave responsibly and lock up their guns. If they did that, we might not need laws like this.
There was a time when the NRA was the number one gun safety voice in this country. Now the lobbying, politics, and litigation dwarf the education and training aspects of the organization.
There is a difference between encouraging education and proper handling - which the NRA does more than any other entity - and passing additional laws.
In general I donât like laws like this - which includes seat belt laws, helmet laws, etc. All those things are good and one SHOULD use them. But really, does it HELP anything? Education and awareness to use your seat belt I think helped things, not the law. People who didnât properly store their guns probably didnât do so out of ignorance, but rather they donât care. Do you think a law is going to change their level of care?
There are not that many accidental deaths to begin with when comparing the number of users. And this would only prevent very specific accidents (an even smaller number).
If we should pass laws like this, should we also pass, say a law making those breathalysers in car (the kind where you have to blow into it to start your car) mandatory? That alone would save WAY more lives (10000+ vs 800 per year) and help prevent ~2 MILLION crashes a year. Why would or wouldnât you support such a law?
Do you live in San Francisco? Do you believe in democracy? The people of this city believe that tools with no use other than killing and injuring human beings should at least be stored safely so children cannot kill themselves and their playmates and so that the gun cannot be stolen or borrowed by someone who wishes to use it for its intended purpose. And we think there should be a law enforcing that requirement. You obviously disagree, and you can live in 99.99% of the country that does not have such a law. But for some reason you want to deprive me of my wish to live in one small place in the country where guns have to be locked up. Why do you hate democracy?
um
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
Firearm deaths (accidental, drunk and otherwise)
33,636
Motor vehicle traffic deaths (accidental, drunk and otherwise)
33,804
Every year a townâs worth of people are killed due to only the above causes. Many of them never had the opportunity to develop a chronic disease.
Should comparitive hazards be taken into consideration when considering laws? Should there be no laws against murder because it isnât as destructive as mass murder? Should a municipality regulate tubes that move metal at a high velocity?
Itâs tough to find a stopping place on the spectrum of auto safety. Iâm not convinced that breathalyzers will really help, but Iâd be willing to give it a try. If there were an easy way to prevent senseless death, I think Iâd be for it. I would also like harsher penalties for driving under the influence.
Re: the NRAâs public safety campaign, Iâve purchased firearms twice and theyâve never said a thing to me about keeping them safe. Not even an ad on TV or the internet. The full extent of the safety message I received from anyone was a free cable lock with each purchase.
Accidental firearm deaths are not a very big problem in the US, as compared to seemingly trivial causes of death like accidental poisoning. However, it appears from a very brief Googling that ~220,000 firearms were stolen per year in the US from 2005 to 2010. Those firearms go on to be used in a LOT of firearm-related crime (not just homicides, but also robberies, sexual assaults, etc.).
Iâm not sure how much this law will help reduce accidental deaths or stolen firearms. How much of a reduction would you need to see in order to feel that the law is effective?
How much and what kind of harm is this law likely to do?
Isnât it awful when the owners of this site fail to meet your expectations? They act as if they owned the damn place, and just let you enjoy it for free.
I donât hate democracy. I can still find displeasure over a law passed by the people or their representatives. Should I use your argument when discussing other laws voted into power, (ie Jim Crow laws, Patriot Act, etc).
While guns require proper precautions, they have many other uses other than killing and injuring humans. You probably only see guns used on TV and the movies, so your view on their use is mainly grounded on fantasy and misuse. Millions use their guns for sport and recreation with out hurting anyone.
Guns have no recreational or âsportingâ purpose when in a personâs home in San Francisco, which is the only time this law applies.
Genuine question; How does this law get enforced? Do police come around and check the homes of registered gun owners? Do people obey it or just do what they will with their guns in their own homes anyway?
while nobody noticed, corporate legal entities, aka persons, showed up all over the place, expecting you to accept their world of: âEverything is subservient to the making of moneyâ.
Er - thatâs not my point. You said there was âno other useâ. But there is.
And forgive me for not wanting the government to tell me what I can or canât do in my home. Should they also make us lock up our poisons and medicine cabinets? 38000 people a year die from poisoning (vs 800 accidental gun deaths).
Probably in hindsight. Someone injures themselves or an authorized user uses it in a crime, the owner would be charged.
If you have poison in your home with no other use in the home than poisoning someone (e.g. its not a cleaner or a medicine) then yes you should be required to lock it up. Or, better, you should be locked up because wtf are you doing with such a thing?
What? So because your pain killers or Tilex has a use in the home, we shouldnât have it properly stored? Even though these lead to 37x more accidental deaths than guns? Where is the logic in that?
