It's just such a large pistol I rarely ever carry it these days.

It's just not worth the risk to life and limb going into public these days without some form of firearm....

I used to carry a small frame revolver, but now I need to qualify with any weapon I intend to carry. I can't imagine trying with that little five shot wheel gun. So I've been carrying a full sized glock, and it doesn't conceal well at all.

I will look for something else eventually, but I'm not a fan of sub-compacts.

I would agree with you about sub-compacts.

Now, accuracy with my laser equiped P3AT is rock solid.

Semper Fi,

but still pretty darned wide....too wide for me to conceal without winter clothes on considering I refuse to carry IWB.

I really like my LCP...

I looked at the ruger LC9 this weekend....I really like the Glock 36.

do people who carry constantly feel the need to justify their decision?

Just asking.

I think the fewer people who know, the better.

Just waiting for the excuse to murder someone, polluting society, trying to intimidate everyone else with their carefully hidden weapon, etcetera.

It seems a very private matter to me. I expect and know that most of the people in the gun clubs I am a member of carry, but outside that circle it is quite a private matter. I have close friends who do not know.

There are psychopaths everywhere, even legal gun owners can lose it, but isn't that part of the point the op was trying to make? Lots of stress vectors in today's USofA. That may be a larger issue than the fact that people carry to defend themselves.

I don't have many friends in real life who carry and I'm not a member anywhere so I read this forum (even if I don't post much) and I assume everyone here is carrying and has no need to justify anything to me. I do like to read articles about when the good guys win though so I'm glad folks post them here.

I don't even carry but only because I have only recently decided I wanted to so I haven't taken the ccw class yet. My son and I are going to take it together. (he works in armed security but can only carry on the job. his boss is licensed to teach the class though and we are just getting all our schedules lined up to do it.)

lol, maybe after that I'll know enough people to get into a club.

I read this forum (even if I don't post much) and I assume everyone here is carrying and has no need to justify anything to me.

In your time, you have noticed, I assume, that this is not actually called Gun Club?

It's a forum for discussion of issues relating to firearms.

It is not a gun club.

Why it would even occur to you that "everyone here is carrying" is utterly beyond me.

But what the heck, maybe that really is what it looks like to an outside eye.

A club for a segment of the tiny proportion of the US population who carry firearms around.

There ya go, I guess.

Just because we aren't sitting around in some meeting hall drinking beer and talking guns doesn't mean we aren't still a bunch of people meeting up here to sit around and talk about guns.

I assume most people here are interested in guns and most probably carry if they are interested enough to come here and talk about it.

Is there some special rule in the definition of "club" that says it can't be online? Does a gun club HAVE to meet in person and shoot stuff to be called a club?

People with similar interests getting together to talk about those interests seems pretty clubby to me.

I want to read about guns and various gun related topics. I'd rather do it here with people who I also assume are democrats like me. It's kind of your problem, not mine, if you don't like that I think it's kind of clubby.

But hey, I am not above being corrected if I'm wrong so I'll ask: Do any of you folks who carry guns or like guns and are interested in talking about guns mind if I consider this group a club? Do we need some kind of club control? I wouldn't want clubs to fall into the hands of the wrong people.

Why did you say it if you thought nobody should care?





I assume most people here are interested in guns and most probably carry if they are interested enough to come here and talk about it.

Is there some special rule in the definition of "club" that says it can't be online? Does a gun club HAVE to meet in person and shoot stuff to be called a club?

I assure you that I have no desire to be, or intention of being, rude, but ... has it occurred to you to read things like the "about this group", and maybe the general information readily available to you about what this website actually is?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1172

See where it doesn't actually say "meeting up here to sit around and talk about guns"?


I dunno, does it look like a gun club?

It actually never has to me.

Some of them favorably even?

Am I not allowed to experience a feeling of camaraderie when I talk to those people about guns?

Does the stated purpose of this group exclude people talking about guns favorably with other like-minded gun enthusiasts?

I still have to wonder why it is so important to you that I not think of this place as a place I can talk about guns.

Well, I hope not. I don't want to be consorting with people who either approve or disapprove of inanimate objects!

Am I not allowed to experience a feeling of camaraderie when I talk to those people about guns?

Hey, and again forgive me if this should sound rude, but: you are allowed to stand on your head and spit nickels! Who would ever say you aren't?

Does the stated purpose of this group exclude people talking about guns favorably with other like-minded gun enthusiasts?

Actually, yes. Try reading it again. And consider how it might sound to a disinterested eye to see someone talking "favourably" about a mere object. It might just strike them as, well, a little odd. It sure does me.

I still have to wonder why it is so important to you that I not think of this place as a place I can talk about guns.

How about: because I've been here for over a decade, I know what this forum is for, and I'd like to share that knowledge with you, in your own interests, but of course.

And you are right. The fewer people who know, the better.

The vast majority of CC folks will not discuss the matter and, if asked by other than a LEO, may well deny the fact that they are carrying.

Other than LEOs, it is no one's business.

Semper Fi,

But certainly your last example of a Rally's in Gary Indiana is true. Growing up next to Gary, it was the murder capital of the world and you could here gunfire every, single, night.

Out of the millions of restaurants in the US!
Three examples!

I hope you drive your Bearcat to these no go zones called restaraunts!

I like this quote:

“The way you get shot by a concealed weapons permit holder is you point a gun at him,” the sheriff said.

That should clear up a lot for the thug, if he/she would only get over their juice problem.

I find full body armor chaffe me after five hours, what's your secret to stop this?

Also, how do you get a stain out of the bomb shelter carpet?

Street legal, all I have to do is rebuild the engine, got overheated.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

That's where armor chafes most people with an extra pound or two.

That's a fire hazard.

with the demands of the thug, he might be doing the exact opposite.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life//#.TyW1BpilAso

“Their efforts at reaching out to minorities and women have failed,”

Can't say how the out reach is with minorities, but given the number of women purchasing firearms (see Gallup) over the last few years, he should make a major revision in his propaganda.

of women I see at the range has been increasing over time. Part of the reason might be that there is a very knowledgeable, helpful and amiable female employee, and one with less experience. Can't help but make women feel more comfortable and dispel the notion that shooting is strictly a male activity.

I don't feel like googling more. If I found 100 examples it still would not be enough for you.

if Applebees can be called a restaurant.

dangerous to go to a restaurant I need to take my gun, I'll eat at home.

I'd guess your life is in a lot more danger driving down the road to get there. Should someone post some news articles about people getting killed in car accidents too? I'd bet you could find a lot more than three examples, every couple of hours, in fact.

Violent crime can happen anywhere, including restaurants. So we carry everywhere, including restaurants. The point is that restaurants aren't special crime-free places, nor or they more dangerous than other routine places.

I have a CCW and only carry when I think I might run into trouble, which is not often.

I don't talk on the phone or text while driving. I drive the speed limit. I feel pretty safe.

I don't hang with gangs or drug dealers and I don't get involved with others girl friends or wives.
I don't were jewelry or flash a lot of cash. All of those precautions keep me safer than carrying a gun all of the time. My chances of getting killed by a crook are less than flying in a plane, even so, I fly in em. I have no problem with you carrying all of the time anymore than I care if someone carries a parachute on an airplane. I just kind of shake my head and say "oh well".

and I play the odds. While you might find it fun or reassuring to lug around a handgun 24/7, I pretty much find it a pain in the ass. I've lived 62 years and have never been killed in a crime. Dad lived 90 years and died of old age. If 99.999% of the citizens of this country never get killed by a criminal, the odds don't justify carrying 24/7.

> Life is a gamble and I play the odds.

I have no problem with that. Out of laziness I do the same much of the time. However, to suggest that it is the better thing to do is rather foolish. While I may not have a gun always with me, I am not necessarily unarmed.


> While you might find it fun or reassuring to lug around a handgun 24/7, I pretty much find it a pain in the ass.

A better holster and belt would probably help with that.


> If 99.999% of the citizens of this country never get killed by a criminal, the odds don't justify carrying 24/7.

Depends on how much you value your life. If that 0.001% catches up with you, you will not get a do-over. Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. The Boy Scout motto: Be Prepared.

It fits comfortably in my trousers pocket. It only take a second to slip it into my pocket. Not a pain in the ass at all. Considering how trivially easy it is to be armed, the odds do justify carrying when away from the house.

The pistol itself is virtually the same as the P3AT, but the ammo is lighter. It's no more trouble to carry than my wallet and keys.

With my home made holster it imprints just like a wallet. It is still a pain to carry because you have to always be aware that you have it when you to do things like go into the Post Office, court house or malls with the sign on the door. It is just not needed all the time. I have a very dangerous job, hold ups all of the time and I still only have it with me occasionally. Just not worth the hassle, for me.

Texas has specific signage law. Unless the sign conforms to section 30.06 of the code it may be ignored. For that matter, even "no guns" signs are extremely rare. Lots of places have a "no unlicensed guns" sign. Those are by places that are trying to have it both ways. The anti-gun folks think it means "no guns", while those of us with CHLs know that we are allowed. Criminals, of course, don't bother about signs at all.

I was at a McDonalds (yuck) with my kids one fine afternoon taking them out for a "treat". So my wife and the boys were at a table and I was waiting for the food like substance to be handed over the counter. A man approaches me, gets into my personal space, and asks "Do you remember me?". Sure I did. I helped take him to prison for murder several years back. And it was not a pleasant ride in the country for either of us. Talk about every warning bell in your head going off all at once. I shifted slightly so as to be able to push him towards the door. "Hey, how are you? You look good.", I replied. He went on to tell me that he had just been released from prison and was stopping by to get some fries on his way home. We discussed his situation a bit and I offered advice about feeling overwhelmed by freedom and crowds. He told me he was having trouble handling it but had no intention to ever go back to prison. I told him to call me if he wanted to talk or needed to find help. His son joined us and led him over to their table. When I took the "food" over to my table my wife asked me if what she just witnessed really happened.

Oh, and I was unarmed that day and really feeling dumb for leaving it at home. My plan was basically to get him out the door and then deal with it as best I could if he took a swing at me. The man was just boiling with rage in that prison sort of way. It takes them a while to come down from that.

Monsters are real. And they are walking around you every day. The good part for you is they are kind of anonymous until you get to know one. I arrested a guy one time for attacking me with a knife. Guess who I ran into the next day at Wal Mart. Yep, out on bail and as drunk as ever.

We all play the odds. And most of us do quite well at the game. I just prefer to buy a little insurance for when life comes at you hard.

A guy approached you in a public place and talked to you.

Your story had me on the edge of my seat, I must say. Such danger, such risk. Such a crying need for a gun ...

... in whose incarceration jeepenstein had played a role. The potential for a violent confrontation was there, but fortunately no such confrontation took place. This was especially fortunate because jeepenstein was not armed at the time. Some departments (NYPD is one) require their officers to be armed whenever they are in their jurisdiction area, even when off duty. This makes a lot of sense for several reasons, including (but not limited to) self-protection in potentially problematic encounters such as the one described by jeepenstein.

ide impact protection, a spare tyre, a fire extinguisher, a first aid trauma kit, and a tool bag.

Shit happens everywhere. Some of us prepare for these events. A firearm is one more tool, one more protective measure. That's all.

And yes, I might have need of it in a restaraunt, so I carry.

The only excitement was when we were given a bill for $40. It should have been $26.32.
No problem getting it straightened out, either. Didn't have to shoot anyone or even show a weapon. Amazing, huh?
I don't have nor feel the need to carry a gun. And as another poster said, why do some people here need to brag about why they think they need to?

Oh, and I gave the waitress a $5 for excellent service. I didn't use the mistake to stiff the waitress. Liberal and Progressive, Tolerant, I am. Peace, man.

The reality gun-controller/banners don't want to face is that gun-owners -- including those carrying concealed -- aren't upset, paranoid, or the need to brag about their self-defense practices.

Ask yourself this this next time you are in a restaurant: Which is the concealed-carry person who is "excited?" Sure he/she's got a gun? Should they announced themselves in advance so you can work up resentment, fear, anger, angst, etc.? Or should they just be quiet and leave you confused?

I agree on the tips, what is it, 20% in your area?

The propaganda is we need more hand guns to defend ourselves against all the hand guns already out here. Somehow that just doesn't seem to be the proper solution.

There is little evidence to link the number of guns in civilian hands to any crime rate, up or down.

People acquire hand guns (and other types) for self-defense. That should not be difficult to understand.

You should know by now that the chief proponent of a relationship between guns and crime have been controller/banners who for years said "more guns = more crimes." They have not proved their case, and the evidence is a lower crime rate.

The number of guns in people's hands matters little to me because there is little evidence of any real social consequence as a result of that number.

Or do you deny the empirical evidence?

For myself, I will not be an easy victim.

I'm not paranoid about being a victim either, even when out and about after dark.
I pay attention to what is around me. Maybe that's why.

The world reflects how we view it.

I choose not to trust to luck.

For many people it is definitely not the right solution. However, for those who exercise the discipline to train and practice often enough, concealed carry is a reasonable and responsible choice.


Your decision to not carry is a personal one for you. There is nothing wrong with that. Your decision to not carry does not make the opposite choice wrong for anyone else.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/theblotter/2016476406_acidental_shooting_is_3rd_in_s.html

Anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything.

BTW, do you know the statistics on firearms accidents, esp. in relationship with injuries/deaths from other types of accidents?

http://med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm

According to the CDC, the rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. American children are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die in a firearm accident than children in these other countries [3].

What do we know about kids and gun accidents and suicides?
When researchers studied the 30,000 accidental gun deaths of Americans of all ages that occurred between 1979-1997, they found that preschoolers aged 0-4 were 17 times more likely to die from a gun accident in the 4 states with the most guns versus the 4 states with the least guns. Likewise, school kids aged 5-14 were over 13 times more at risk of accidental firearm death in the states with high gun ownership rates. The findings indicate that gun availability is associated with accidental death by shooting [4].

Most guns involved in self-inflicted and unintentional firearm injuries (that is, in suicides and accidents) came either from the victim's home or the home of a friend or relative [5].

Where and how safely do families with kids store their guns?
More than a third (35%) of homes with children—that's 22 million children ages 18 and under in more than 11 million homes—had at least one firearm, found researchers in a RAND-UCLA study [6]. But only 39% of these families keep their firearms locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. 43% of these U.S. homes with children and guns reported keeping one or more firearms in an unlocked place and without a trigger lock. Nine percent keep their guns loaded as well as unlocked. This analysis is based on data from 1994 interviews conducted in tens of thousands of households by the National Center for Health Statistics. (See Guns in the Family: Firearm Storage Patterns in U.S. Homes with Children for a fuller report.)

So, what does this mean to me?
If you have kids in your house, and you keep firearms, keep the guns locked and unloaded, with the ammunition locked in a separate location.

First, while those kids would have been prevented from shooting themselves, but no prevented from hanging themselves. Many of those industrialized countries have higher suicide rates. With or without firearm, does not matter. US suicide rate is about 11/100K. Japan is 22/10K, South Korea is 37/100K, and France is 14/100K.

The number of pre schoolers are very rare when compared to swimming pools for example.

If you have a good safe, separate locations are unnecessary. If you keep one loaded, certainly use pistol safes like these
http://www.amazon.com/Gunvault-MV500-STD-Microvault-Pistol-Safe/sim/B000TG9RCC/2
http://www.gunvault.com/

Back in the day, my oldest brother joined the local police force. His wife was concerned about keeping his service revolver loaded with her daughter and me (in second grade, or grade two. None of the guns in the house were loaded otherwise. We didn't even bother locking our doors, this is Mayberry were are talking here. Darth Cheney even did a stint as our Otis. But I digress.) His solution was to satisfy curiosity by demonstration. I learned what a .357 semi-wadcutter can do to a block of ice. My niece saw me get learned it was not a toy. It became a nonissue after that.

at a friend's house knew what damage guns could do (his father was a hunter). But that didn't stop another kid from picking up a gun and having it go off.

If you have a gun in your house, and the gun and ammunition are not secured, you aren't just at risk that one of your presumably reliable and well-trained children will get hold of it -- but that another child will, who hasn't had any experience or training with guns.

I know another teen who shot himself to death. Who knows if he would have used another method, like hanging, that wasn't instantaneous.

and I have a meth head proof safe. No grand kids yet.

I do agree with you about clueless kids.

No way of knowing that. I do know that a high school chum of my other brother chose battery acid, even there were guns in the house.

...and my daughter is well aware of where they are and that she is absolutely not to touch them without permission. My child is also fully aware of what they can do.

If another child is in my home and proceeds to go poking through areas in which he is not allowed in order to find one of my firearms, the problem there is not that I have firearms but that the child's parents did not teach him anything resembling respect for others or their property. If he ends up finding my guns, loading one, and putting a hole in himself, that's on him and his parents - not me.

I am not responsible for the actions of others.

As the adult and the gun-owner, you are responsible for securing your guns in a way that minors can't get hold of them and use them.

What you're referring to are commonly known as "safe storage" laws. Very few states have them and none of them work in the way you think. To my knowledge, the only state which actually has such a mandatory law is Hawaii. In fact, in most states, were a minor to search my home, find and use my firearms without permission, said minor has committed a criminal act. I have neither legal nor moral responsibility for the actions of a criminal.

if you don't believe me.)

And in many states you could face criminal liability too, as long as the minor had been allowed into your home.

For example:

http://www.ralphdsherman.com/LegalOpinion/How%20to%20store%20guns%20-%20What%20the%20law%20requires.htm


The second statute on firearms storage is Section 53a-217a. It provides that a person is guilty of a Class D felony when he violates Section 29-37i (the misdemeanor statute) and a person under 16 obtains a firearm and causes the injury or death of himself or any other person. The felony statute does provide an exemption for any case in which the minor obtains the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry to any premises by any person. This means that if you leave a gun unsecured in your home or other premises, and a burglar (of any age) steals the gun, and a person under 16 obtains the gun and hurts someone with it, you cannot be prosecuted under the felony statute. But note the words "unlawful entry." If the gun was stolen by a lawful visitor—friend, relative, repairman, etc.—you may be on the hook.

The third statute on firearms storage is similar to the felony statute. Section 52-571g provides that if you violate the misdemeanor statute, and a person under 16 obtains the firearm and hurts someone with it, you can be held liable in civil court for the third party’s injury or death. This liability is based on your negligence (carelessness) as defined in the misdemeanor statute: failure to store the firearm in a way that "a reasonable person would believe to be secure."

but it will succeed there too.

I don't leave firearms just lying around the house, so yes, any miscreant who located them had to go looking for them. I am under precisely no obligation, legal or moral, to secure a firearm against all possible attempts to take it. I honestly do not know where you got the idea such a thing was even possible.

I'm sorry you don't understand this, but in most of the country, when you illegally take and use something from someone's home, you don't get to sue them if you hurt yourself. Check with a lawyer if you don't believe me.

Do you really believe someone is obligated to secure anything which may hurt someone against all possible unauthorized discovery or use? If you do, then perhaps you should educate yourself a bit on the actual realities of life, rather than the fantastic utopia in which you seem to think you live.

He'll explain to you why you DO have a legal responsibility to make sure your guns are secure so that no child allowed into your house can get a hold of them.

"Do you really believe someone is obligated to secure anything which may hurt someone against all possible unauthorized discovery or use?"

Yes, against any foreseeable use by a minor, authorized or not. For example, if you keep a loaded gun "hidden" under a bed or in a closet, a reasonable person could foresee that a child might get hold of it and hurt someone with it.

Really - you are. I understand that you do not want to accept this, but facts are facts.

Different states, different laws, and other than Hawaii, I am unaware of any state which has had the audacity to even attempt to tell the people how they must live in their own home.

As far as talking to my homeowner's insurance agent, sorry, but they are not an authority on criminal law - especially the agent who is merely a salesman. My homeowner's insurance company has a legal team which is tasked with finding any legal method possible to avoid paying a claim, or to enable them to bring a claim against another. That's it. They are not obligated, or even qualified, to give me legal advice on criminal issues.

Of course, if you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know this. Since you don't, and you're going to any extreme to justify your position (wrong as it is), you're now at the point of making false appeals to authority in an attempt to convince me you are correct.

which would pertain if you allowed someone's child to access a loaded weapon. Homeowner's policies typically cover a certain amount of claims for civil liability, so your agent would be in a position to explain this to you.

Even if you wouldn't go to prison for leaving a gun accessible, you could end up losing your house in a civil, wrongful death lawsuit.

He would be able to discuss liability as it pertains to the insurance policy - not as it would pertain to the civil liability laws of the state. Further, my AGENT would be the last person with whom I would check, He is a salesman - nothing more.

On top of that, you made very clear claims of legal responsibility - not civil liability - those are two radically different things.

Last but not least, no, the criminal actions of another person who harms himself with my property does not turn into a wrongful death lawsuit - not in Texas anyway. We have laws to prevent that sort of suit from seeing the light of day.

You bet. And next time I have a serious medical condition I'll book an appointment with an attorney.

It seems there is a group of people in this world who believe because someone is an expert in one specific area they must be experts in all areas. Hence the belief that doctors who try to treat firearms as a disease must obviously know more than people who actually understand criminology and/or firearms law.

I've never understood that blind following of false authority. If i have issues with my car, I don't ask my CPA for advice. If i need help with my computer, my doctor is the LAST person I'm going to turn to and when I need assistance with criminal law, I'm calling a criminal attorney not my insurance agent.

must obviously know more than people who actually understand criminology and/or firearms law."

A very important point, this.....for three reasons.

1) Physicians are statistically less likely to know the truth behind gun laws, as their political leanings alone make them unsympathetic to gun rights. (even otherwise very intelligent persons are affected by the gun control reality distortion field)

2) In some cases, the constant exposure to gun shot wounds creates a contempt for firearms that makes calm reasoned thought difficult.

3) The most sinister point - virulently anti-gun physicians abuse the public trust. The public generally perceives doctors as holding empirical evidence above all else. (w/regard to medical issues) So there is an assumption that they bring said respect for the facts into the gun restriction issue - which they clearly do not.

confronts a pro gun rights physician in debate. The same dynamics that always play out in our debates play out in the following one.

*The anti-gun doc displays a striking lack of technical knowledge about what he's arguing about.

*Said physician argues noticeably from an emotion-based framework rather than an evidence based framework.

*Pro gun rights physician is able to counter all objections of the pro-restriction doc in a point-by-point manner with facts.

This e-mail exchange was originally posted on the Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws website - an organization which, if memory serves, is no longer active:

http://wagc.mohicanwebware.com/an-email-exchange-between-a-dsgl-doctor-and-an-anti-gun-physician/

and so those agents are in a position to caution you against actions that could lead to liability. Such as owning vicious dogs or leaving loaded weapons in places where children could reach them.

Their area of expertise is the issuance of insurance policies and maintenance thereof.

They might point out that insurance policies will not cover violations of law, but that will be about it.

...don't know shit about the legal side of the policy. They may think they do, but they're not the people you want giving advice. They are SALESPEOPLE, not attorneys.

Further, I would not get advice on what my policy contractually covered from an attorney that worked for the insurance company. Can you see where there might be a tiny conflict of interest perhaps?

They can caution me all they want about certain choice in my life, but their opinion does not guide my life. They pay what they are contractually obligated to pay, and they don't pay what they do not have to. Simple as that - and honestly, that's all I expect them to do.

like leaving guns where a child could get hold of them -- don't be surprised when you find your homeowner's insurance doesn't cover your liability.

First you said I had a legal responsibility. Then, when pointed out to you that safe storage laws only exist in one state, you claim civil liability. Then when I point out to you that my state exempts me from civil liability as a result of a criminal hurting himself, you claim my homeowner's insurance wont cover it...

You COULD simply admit you were wrong and look a lot less foolish...


Leaving it lying on the coffee table in the living room? Yeah - stupid idea, but still no legal obligation to do anything else. Would that earn me some issues with regard to civil liability? POSSIBLY. Having them stored somewhere not obvious but easily accessible to me(Which is what I said in the first god damned place)? Nope - absolutely zero concerns about legal or civil liability. None. Squat. Nada. Zip. Zilch. No, I don't care what you or my insurance salesman thinks.

Those states would subject you to civil liability. In 14 states you could also be subject to criminal penalties if a child used one of your guns. In 6 of those states you could be subject to criminal penalties if a child merely had access -- but didn't use the gun.

A young child who gets hold of a gun in your house isn't a criminal -- he or she is a victim.

http://www.lcav.org/content/child_access_prevention.pdf

First off, I said there is only one I know of. After reading the link you provided, it appears there are a few others. I have no problem admitting my information on that was out of date.

HOWEVER - and this is the important part.

Texas does not have safe storage/child access prevention laws.

You may want to take a look at the actual laws themselves. For example, the code referenced for Colorado (12 Colorado Code Reg 2509-8) actually deals wit child care facilities and not with safe storage in the home. Basically saying you cant store guns at the local Kinder Care.

The Indiana law they are calling a "child access prevention law" is this:

Indiana provides that a child’s parent or legal guardian who knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly permits the child (defined as a person under age 18) to possess a firearm, either: While aware of a substantial risk that the child will use the firearm to commit a felony; and While failing to make reasonable efforts to prevent the use of a firearm by the child to commit a felony; or When the child has been convicted of a crime of violence or has been adjudicated as a juvenile for an offense that would constitute a crime of violence if the child were an adult;commits dangerous control of a child, a Class C felony.
The offense is a Class B felony if the child’s parent or legal guardian has a prior conviction under this section.

Basically saying, if you give it to a kid who is a known criminal, you've got a problem.

Mississippi basically says allowing a minor to carry a concealed firearm is against the law. (Gee - no shit?)

So in just a random 10% sampling, we discover your link is inaccurate.

No, sorry but i could not be held legally responsible for a child entering my home and going through my property to find a gun which is not readily accessible and then misusing it - even in those states that you claim I could.

Try using actual source material rather than something from "{insert some stupid group pretending to speak from a position of authority here} against violence" or the like. You know, like actual state code?

Like i said - you're wrong.

If a child doesn't break into your house -- in other words, if you or another family member allows the child into your house -- then you may be criminally liable if you haven't secured any firearms, and you left the firearm in a place where you should have known a child could gain access.


http://www.lcav.org/states/Texasdetailedsummary.pdf#page=40

A firearms dealer must post in a “conspicuous position” on the premises where he or she conducts business a sign that contains the following warning in block letters not less than one inch in height:

IT IS UNLAWFUL TO STORE, TRANSPORT, OR ABANDON AN UNSECURED FIREARM IN A PLACE WHERE CHILDREN ARE LIKELY TO BE AND CAN OBTAIN ACCESS TO THE FIREARM.109

105 Tex. Penal Code § 46.13.
106 Tex. Penal Code § 46.13(c)
107 Tex. Penal Code § 46.13(d), (e). 108 Tex. Penal Code § 46.13(f).
109 Tex. Penal Code § 46.13(g).

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/46.13.00.html

Texas Penal Code - Section 46.13. Making A Firearm Accessible To A Child

§ 46.13. MAKING A FIREARM ACCESSIBLE TO A CHILD. (a) In
this section:
(1) "Child" means a person younger than 17 years of
age.
(2) "Readily dischargeable firearm" means a firearm
that is loaded with ammunition, whether or not a round is in the
chamber.
(3) "Secure" means to take steps that a reasonable
person would take to prevent the access to a readily dischargeable
firearm by a child, including but not limited to placing a firearm
in a locked container or temporarily rendering the firearm
inoperable by a trigger lock or other means.
(b) A person commits an offense if a child gains access to a
readily dischargeable firearm and the person with criminal
negligence:
(1) failed to secure the firearm; or
(2) left the firearm in a place to which the person
knew or should have known the child would gain access.
(c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this
section that the child's access to the firearm:
(1) was supervised by a person older than 18 years of
age and was for hunting, sporting, or other lawful purposes;
(2) consisted of lawful defense by the child of people
or property;
(3) was gained by entering property in violation of
this code; or
(4) occurred during a time when the actor was engaged
in an agricultural enterprise.

Did you note section C? Here, I'll make it a little clearer for you:

(c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this
section that the child's access to the firearm:
(1) was supervised by a person older than 18 years of
age and was for hunting, sporting, or other lawful purposes;
(2) consisted of lawful defense by the child of people
or property;
(3) was gained by entering property in violation of
this code; or
(4) occurred during a time when the actor was engaged
in an agricultural enterprise.

Those little sections in bold are my get out of jail free clauses. As I said, they are not exactly laying out on the coffee table and the little fucker would have to go (illegally) looking for them.

Once again - it helps if you actually know the law. Keep trying though, you may get lucky.

And you are equally wrong in your interpretation of the following:

3) was gained by entering property in violation of
this code;

This wouldn't be your "get out of jail free clause" unless -- as I said in my post -- a minor had broken into your house. But if a child enters your house with a family member; or you or a family member opens the door to a child; or if you have children of your own, then it is your responsibility to secure your firearms.

Your original statement was I would be responsible NO MATTER WHAT if a minor got hold of them. That is not what the law says.

You're wrong. I recognize you don not wish to accept that, but so be it.

Further, if the child is in an unauthorized location, and has gone looking for them, then he is most certainly doing so illegally. Like it or not, those are the facts.

Maybe you see nothing wrong with a random kid wandering your home, but I do.

The plain fact remains that there is no legal requirement for me to store my firearms in a specific manner in the state of Texas. Period. I may store them anyway I damn well please. Details are a bitch and that law has quite a few very important details in it that you're either missing or intentionally ignoring.

Get your information from a source OTHER than LCAV. You know, like maybe an actual attorney?

This is where you're still wrong: "Further, if the child is in an unauthorized location, and has gone looking for them, then he is most certainly doing so illegally. Like it or not, those are the facts."

It is NOT "illegal" for a child to be in an "unauthorized" part of your house, as long as that child entered your home legally. If you don't want a child to go into a certain area, that area should be locked. (If the child broke the lock, you're most likely off the hook.) And it is up to you to make sure your guns are secured in a way that a child in your house couldn't get access to them.

Also, you clearly haven't anticipated another situation. If a child got hold of one of your guns, that child could end up shooting another person. That person or his parents would have grounds for a civil suit against you -- the person who left his weapon unsecured -- and you would also be facing criminal charges under Texas law.

...but didn't bother actually reading it, or anything I've said.

If the kid got hold of one and stole it to shoot another kid, then tell me exactly who has committed a crime there?

No - sorry - there is no obligation to make them impossible to steal, and I assure you, I would not face any civil or legal penalties for such a thing.

Your lack of understanding of the law does not make you right. Put another way, you can assert that 2+2=5 all day long, but you're still wrong.

Let me clarify it for you. Here's the portion you don't seem to understand:

(b) A person commits an offense if a child gains access to a
readily dischargeable firearm and the person with criminal
negligence:
(1) failed to secure the firearm; or
(2) left the firearm in a place to which the person
knew or should have known the child would gain access.

I would have to leave a readily dischargeable firearm unsecured or in a place I KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN the child would gain access. I have no reason to know or reasonably conclude that a child is going to go rooting around in my home in areas he is not allowed to go. That is a critical thing. Yes, he COULD theoretically, wait until I was preoccupied with something else, go foraging around my home to find my firearms, and steal one. This is quite true. However, in that case, he has now gone somewhere I knew he should not gain access.

These are critical points. In normal person English, what this is saying is, if my dumb ass leaves them lying around in plain sight, or my kids room, then I pretty well deserve to be held culpable. I agree 100%. What it does NOT say, is that I am obligated in any way to make them totally inaccessible to a minor.

I would obviously interpret "knew or should have known the child would gain access" differently than you.

I can't imagine why you would object to taking the precaution of securing your guns if children are ever in your house.

They ARE reasonably secured. What they are NOT is locked up in such a manner that they could not be accessed if needed. Its not like I leave them on the coffee table. I'm pretty sure I've made that clear.

How you would interpret the law is largely beside the point. The prosecutor has to make his case - and if he doesn't, you're obligated to return a not guilty verdict. Your personal feelings alone would ensure you would NEVER serve on such a jury.

What I do not understand is why you insist upon ignoring what I actually have said...

studies - simply that kids get hold of guns and all sorts of other things in surprising ways, and significant care in storage and education of your kids is necessary.

The other point you made - that untrained visitors may also be at risk - is why I think firearms should be included at a basic level in the 'health & safety' topics covered in schools (in whatever class that stuff is addressed; it was in Health and/or P.E. for us, as I recall)...

drownings, fire, walking, bicycling, all of which kill more children under 12 than guns do. The number killed by gun accidents in 2007 was 51. Out of a nation with 53 million children that is only a few. The odds are about one in a million.

in homicides and suicides, a number that reaches every year into the thousands.

the lack of gun would hardly prevent suicides. Since suicide by firearm is included in "gun violence" statistics (which is why Brady et al claims that Switzerland has the highest "gun violence" rate in Europe even though their violent crime rate is almost nonexistent), then that means suicide is a violent act. Perhaps it is. If so, you would have to say that Japan, some European countries, South Korea, etc. are more violent than we are when you add murder and suicide rates together.

As far as I am concerned "gun violence" is a distraction from real issues. Russia has little to no "gun violence", but their murder rate alone makes us look like Norway.

You may want to try getting your numbers from an accurate source.

First off, as has been covered many MANY times, suicides are a completely different kettle of fish. The availability of a firearm has exactly zero effect on the suicide rate. To paraphrase Archie Bunker, "Woulja feel better if they had jumped out a winder?"

Homicides? Setting aside for the moment that is a criminal act, this gets a little sticky. Why? Simple - most "sources" lump young adults in with minors in order to raise the number - even including "children" as "young" as 24 (an adult in every sense of the term).

Best as I can determine via a quick search, the number of actual children (i.e. under the age of 15) killed in a firearm related homicide is extremely low - as in well under 100 annually. Most of the homicides involve older teens between 15-17, and virtually ALL of those are gang/drug related. In other words, they involve teens who are already living an extremely high-risk life. Hard to feel any kind of remorse for them when they are already criminals.

Your emotional pleas may work on those who don't actually pay attention to the facts, but they're not going to fly here. Feel as bad about it as you want, but do try to remember that there are 300+ MILLION people in this country and at the end of the day, even numbers in the thousands are pretty damned small as a percentage of the population.

You may wish to examine this data:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html

I agree with most of the safety precautions you suggest, but as a practical matter, if someone is keeping a firearm readily-available for self-defense, loaded magazines must be at-hand, and if a revolver is used, the arm should be fully-loaded. Certainly, once the gun-owner is no longer in need of self-protection, the arms should be locked away and unavailable to children.

The best way, IMO, to keep kids from sneaking around to find guns is to introduce firearms to children at a young age; have them practice shoot the firearm in a supervised situation, esp. at a range. Treating guns as taboo or verbotten only whets the appetite for discovery.

...anecdotal evidence is the foundation upon which most anti-gun rhetoric is built. Makes a lot of sense actually...

own business. This stranger came in and sat a table across from them. He kept flirting with the flirting with the girl and she kept telling him leave her alone. Finally her boyfriend asked him to stop and the next thing you know he pulled a knife and cut him and blood went everywhere. There were families in the restaurant because it was a sunday. They called the police and while they waited they got this cook who is large and he came out and told him to knock it off that this was a family place and he needed to take it outside. He calmed down then the police showed up. The one to the hospital and the other to jail.

and during dinner.

I feel safer already.

Should the crime victims in the three examples simply have submitted to the will of the criminals?

Lubys Cafeteria, Kileen TX, Oct 16 1991.

...be able to carry on commercial airplanes and at political rallies.

I would say, people used to for the former (and clearly do for the latter) and it hasn't been much of a problem.

(Political assassinations being a horse of a different color, as the guy that shot reagan, and the kid that shot Giffords had no CPL's anyway)

And people with criminal intent aren't going to stop on your say-so.

You still have not managed to state what the problem with carry by non-criminals in those locations is. We'll wait.....

Now you're catching on.

<no sarcasm>

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/ccwtotalkilled.pdf

If there were another person carrying in the restaurant.

Cause it appears you'll buy anything.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/access/individual.html

Florida concealed carry permit search engine, that shows every license ever issued.

To bad the VPC didn't do there homework.
Then again, they don't care what the truth is.

one example:

http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/22001395301054

Perhaps they just made it up.

So ummmmm, where did WSVN get the information?

Surely they just made it up.

No chance it was given to them by, like, the police.

Are dead people still in that registry?

Is there a chance that he is in the registry by the first (or second) part of his double Spanish surname?

(His half-brother, with the same mother, is a baseball player with a different surname, so I'm assuming that Regalado is his patronymic, i.e. he would be Geraldo Regalado Gutierrez or some such.)

I'm not the one wanting to prove the negative here ...

I have found a few expired and not renewed permits. The US MSM is not known for accuracy or work ethic. Like the joke goes, all pistols are Glocks, all rifles are AKs, and all dogs are pit bulls even when it turns out to be a Walther, Winchester 94, and Black Lab.

They made it up.

but there was a case of a local paper (in a city were I was posted a while back) really did make up or just assumed the dog breed.