Gun safe storage laws may help reduce some teen suicide rates

Laws intended to keep guns from youth often referred to as child access prevention or CAP laws are associated with a reduction in suicide rates among youth aged 14 to 17 years, according to a study in the August 4 issue of JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, a theme issue on Violence and Human Rights.

"Suicide is the third leading cause of death among youth aged 10 to 19 years in the United States, accounting for 1,883 deaths in 2001," the authors provide as background information in the article. "Firearms were used in approximately half of suicides within this age group in 2001; however, as recently as 1994, 7 of every 10 suicides among teenagers involved firearms." The authors note that as of 2001, "18 states had some form of CAP law that makes it a crime to store firearms in a manner that allows them to be easily accessed by children and adolescents. Most require gun owners to lock up their guns."

Complete article.

---

Safe storage laws are an example of GOOD gun control laws. Keeping guns out of the hands of children, teens, and anyone else who shouldn't have them is the responsibility of the parents of the children, not the government. The government should only step in when the parents have proven incapable, or unwilling, to accept their responsibilities. A good example would be the recent video tape of the three year old playing with the gun while his parents were off shooting guns.

If you own several firearms and plan on keeping one out for house/personal protection then the others not being used for personal protection should be secured.

The most secure form of firearm storage is on your hip. You know where it is at all times and who has it. Yes, haul it into the bathroom.

If government really wants to promote safe storage of firearms then they should consider allowing a tax deduction on gun safes and other firearm storage equipment much like they did for energy conservation tax deductions in the 80's. Nothing gets people attention like a tax deduction.

I do not allow unsupervised children in my house or on my property for that matter. I keep all of my firearms locked in a gun safe that would be difficult to enter without some serious equipment. I think those gun "display" cabinets with the glass fronts are foolish because they offer no protection against theft or mis-use. Might as well prop the guns in a corner.

From the outside and what you see inside you would never even know there were firearms in our house. You have to find the safe before you can break into it.

I like California's safe storage law because it does not dictate how weapons must be stored; it only defines criminal liability for people who fuck up. I believe it has fostered awareness of the need to store guns safely.

Keeping guns out of the hands of children, teens, and anyone else who shouldn't have them is the responsibility of the parents of the children

So? What does that little platitude actually do to protect children from harm and death?

It's the responsibility of parents yada yada ... and yet (up here, at least) we require that all cigarette lighters sold be designed to be resistant to activation by children.

If the damned parents would just keep their cigarette lighters on their persons at all times, no children would ever die in cigarette lighter-started house fires, right? And I wouldn't have a callus on my thumb from flicking the damned child-proof things. Not fair, sez I. No kids in my household.

We make it the responsibility of parents to do a whole lot of things -- because WE have a responsibility to children. Our responsibility includes taking measures to ensure that parents meet their own responsibilities. If coercive measures aimed at parents is the only way to make some of them do that, then so be it.

I'm willing to endure the callus on my thumb if the measure that requires me to do so prevents a few dozen children a year -- someone else's children, in someone else's house -- from dying in house fires. Some firearms owners apparently aren't willing to suffer the dreadful inconvenience of storing their firearms using child-resistent methods that, when used by someone else, will prevent someone else's children from dying.

Now, the analogy would only be perfect if it were the firearm itself that were child-resistent, of course. Absent such technology, more enforceable safe storage laws are needed. Laws that depend on voluntary compliance tend not to protect the people most in need of protection.

Safe storage laws essentially just require that everyone do what any half-way intelligent, decent person would do anyway. If the rest have no incentive to comply, they're not likely to. And then we're left with just more post facto enforcement -- prosecuting someone once the harm has been done. How likely are the parents of a dead child to be prosecuted? for one thing; and how is enacting but not otherwise enforcing these laws likely to protect children from the actions of stupid or "bad" parents?

Nonetheless, they will pretty obviously have some effect. My former amour in a small Ontario town was neither stupid nor "bad" ... but he was a hunter, and apparently he failed to follow safe storage practices for his long arms, because his depressed, disabled 13-yr-old son killed himself with one of them, not long before we met. Laws can be necessary reminders for the slightly thoughtless.

And this is one instance in which I think that a real threat of prosecution and punishment can have some effect as well. The people the law is aimed at are not the true scofflaws, they are people who have nothing in particular to gain by breaking the law, and a fair bit to lose if they are caught doing so. A merely thoughtless person might well be persuaded to obey this kind of law if s/he thought not only about the harm that could result if s/he broke it (and making a law reinforces that point) but also about the harm s/he might suffer if s/he were caught breaking it.

But the thing is, this really might require a little more than just stepping in *after* the law is broken. It might require registration of firearms, with a power to inspect the premises where they are kept to verify compliance. Even if inspections were rare, both the merely thoughtless and the slightly more deliberately defiant might well decide the risk was still too great.

"But the thing is, this really might require a little more than just stepping in *after* the law is broken. It might require registration of firearms, with a power to inspect the premises where they are kept to verify compliance."

I would expect that most everyone would agree storing your guns safely is the right thing to do, however registering those guns so that the government can randomly nose about our homes in search of scofflaws if far beyond what most guns owners would acquiesce to.

I would expect that most everyone would agree storing your guns safely is the right thing to do, however registering those guns so that the government can randomly nose about our homes in search of scofflaws if far beyond what most guns owners would acquiesce to.

And that's a pretty clear indication of how much of a shit they give about the problem of dead kids who played with guns, and dead victims of any kind who got in the path of the bullet from a stolen gun.


What "nosing about" do you imagine that this proposal involves?

The authorities have a record of the firearms you are in legal possession of.

They show up at your door with that list one day, which they are very very unlikely to do unless they have some particular reason or the govt suddenly has a bunch of money to throw around, and ask you to show them where the firearms in question are. You show them.

Damn. That hurt. What will we be wanting you to do next, walk through fire??

"Randomly nose about" your homes? Where the hell did *that* come from?

Registration of firearms really, really doesn't mean that the cops get to rummage through your stuff looking for *un*registered firearms -- or anything else -- y'see.

It means that you are accountable for your known firearms at all times. Accountability can be just a tad more effective than "responsibility" at persuading people to do what they're supposed to do.

It also means that if you fail to keep your firearms out of the hands of people who are not entitled to have them, whether through negligence or intentional transfer, you'll need to be looking over your shoulder for the next couple of decades and hoping that it doesn't get used to kill someone and traced back to you. And that's a damned good thing.

to check up on you is scary no matter how supposedly benign their their intentions are.

If, as you suggest, the authorities are "unlikely" to actively search for those violating the law then such a law would be unenforceable except after the harm has been done.

Firearms should be stored responsibly. A law compelling such would be difficult to enforce and opens up much broader issues.

If, as you suggest, the authorities are "unlikely" to actively search for those violating the law then such a law would be unenforceable except after the harm has been done.

The best argument is one that ignores what the person you're addressing actually said, eh? In this case, it was (underlining emphases added):

It means that you are accountable for your known firearms at all times. Accountability can be just a tad more effective than "responsibility" at persuading people to do what they're supposed to do.

Then of course there's what I said in another post in this thread:

The people that safe firearm storage laws are aimed at are the you-'n-me type people; people who need that extra bit of stick to go with the rather nebulous carrot (somebody sometime not getting hurt by an unsafely stored firearm).

... That's the problem with safe storage laws. The only instance in which anyone gets caught is if an unsafely stored firearm is used to cause the death of a child (by suicide or accident or play ...), or to commit a crime (by the person who stole it). Virtually nobody thinks *that* is going to happen to him/her. So there is a very small slice of the population that is going to fall outside the "I store my firearms safely on principle no matter what the law says" group and yet then see the virtually unenforced law as sufficient incentive to store their firearms safely.

And no, nobody's suggesting weekly inspections of home gun safes. But registration, and the possibility of such inspections, might just capture a slightly bigger slice of the population that doesn't comply without some external incentive.

But we'll just pretend that nobody ever said that stuff, and that your assertion is a complete and perfect answer to the idea that firearms registration might be a good idea.


The idea of letting government agents into your home to check up on you is scary no matter how supposedly benign their their intentions are.

Gosh. The idea of any old Tom, Dick or Harriet having firearms in their home and not being subject to any controls at all on how they handle those firearms is scary no matter how benign their intentions are.

Hey -- you may not think so. But then I don't think that the idea of letting government agents into my home for the purpose of ascertaining that I am handling the firearms I choose to keep there safely and legally (and have not disposed of them illegally, of course) is scary. Wimpishness is in the eye of the beholder, eh?

The people with the firearms are the ones choosing to have the firearms in their home; nobody's makin' 'em do it. And I can't think of a reason in the world why the public should not require assurances that they are doing it safely.

...ole Iverglas has an unregistered and improperly stored weapon in her home. The authorities show up one day and tear your house apart
looking for the non-existent gun, what kind of mood will you be in that day?

"Now, the analogy would only be perfect if it were the firearm itself that were child-resistent, of course. Absent such technology, more enforceable safe storage laws are needed. Laws that depend on voluntary compliance tend not to protect the people most in need of protection."

what do you suggest?

suicide is a God-given right for youth aged 10 to 19 years? Shouldn't they be fighting this tooth and nail? Or is that just a disingenous debater's point to be brought up when anyone mentions 30,000 gun deaths per year?

On edit: anyhow, I appreciate the gun-safety sentiments of those who have posted in this thread so far.

Or is that just a disingenous debater's point to be brought up when anyone mentions 30,000 gun deaths per year?

A majority of those "gun deaths" are adults shooting themselves.

I've made this point before about kids killing themselves, in the context of guns in the home, and received deafening silence punctuated by one or two RKBAers defending their "right" to do so. So if "none of us like the idea," then most of us keep very quiet about it and some of us lie about it.

Courtesy of the Centers for Disease Control.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/

Roll your own query and make your own thoughtful conclusions.

For the year 2000 I see 16,044 suicides by firearm for people 18 and up, compared to 28,663 total deaths by firearm. A majority of "gun deaths" were adults shooting themselves, just as I said.

1,078 suicides out of a total of 16,559, leaving 15,521 adult suicides out of 28,874 gun deaths - 54%, which is a majority, though not a large one. Thanks for the site.

The focus needs to shift from legislation and law suits to education. Look at all the "don't drink and drive" MADD education we see out there. Anti smoking and AIDS education as well. Everybody puts everybody else on the defensive and the debates get all constipated. If one side agrees to compromise the other takes it as a sign of weakness and gloats in victory.

Anti-smoking and AIDS education work better because no one wants cancer and no one wants AIDS. But education does not seem promising, in my opinion, among the "cold dead hands" faction.

We had a thread not long ago where some (not all, not even half) of our RKBAers were defending the right of a couple to letting an unsupervised three-year-old play with an unloaded gun. I was gratified at the number of our RKBAers who showed up to say that, in that context, there is no such thing as an unloaded gun. Good for them. But I think it points out that our RKBAers on DU are a hell of a lot smarter than your average American gun owner.

I would be interested in reading it.

I suspect that this is the thread being referred to:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2078118

In point of fact, I'd have to agree with those who said that the child was not "in danger" if the firearm was not loaded, and the mere fact the NRA says "there is no such thing as an unloaded gun" or however that bumph goes does not mean that any particular gun *is* loaded ... just like nobody was in danger when Diane Feinstein engaged in that demonstration with a banned assault weapon, etc. etc.

To me, the point seems to be that allowing one's three-year-old to play with *any* firearm is a rather bad idea. Three-year-olds have no idea that there is a distinction between a loaded and an unloaded firearm, and if they are in the habit of playing with unloaded ones, they aren't going to have any disincentive when it comes to any loaded one they might encounter.

That's a pretty good reason for strenuously impressing on three-year-olds that *all* firearms are off limits, not trusting to providence (or even relying on one's own strict safety practices) to ensure that a three-year-old who plays with unloaded firearms will never encounter a loaded one. And I'd say that, given the potential harm that can come from three-year-olds playing with firearms, a parent who allows a three-year-old to play with an unlaoded firearm is a culpable moron.

" and points it at his face. this was on video

the three children were taken from the parents

there was no bullets in the gun

were the children in danger, should they have been taken out of the parents house, kids taken away from parents.........

because a child held an empty gun

is this who we are"

I get the general direction of what went on but would love to see the original subject material. I agree, the parents are major malfunctioning morons. Kids/teens need to be supervised period, guns, knives, matches, gasoline, cars, drugs, sex.......... absolutly no friggin excuse. Good excuse to neuter the parents.

I believe you'll find that a person who says he is the spouse of the person who took the video posted in the thread to which I linked. The name starts with an "H" and has a number in it, I think.

Here ya go: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=74892
Haole316 says "my wife shot the video". You'll probably both need more posts before you can PM him, but perhaps he'll read your message and provide you with info. Apparently the child-with-gun thing was not the only problem in the household. Me, I just relay what was said.

It's one thing to be a protective parent, another to be over protective then the worst is to be underprotective.

As I've indicated before, all dangerous stuff in my house is locked up, I have heart to heart discussions w/my kids. It's sad but I also have to talk to my kids about visiting other friends houses because of firearms there. (Shotguns-rural living-live stock protection.) Yes I have seen the classic loaded shotgun behind the door! BUT I have been proactive and discussed it w/the other parents. So far I've gotten two to unload the shotguns, keep the ammo and gun separate. Another concedes that he doesen't need to keep one in the "chamber"; (we don't visit that house any more.) It's a regular one man education program.

There's absolutly no excuse for a child to have unsupervised access to firearms. They're not fuggin toys!

That's what we call it up here -- driving while impaired/intoxicated.

Seems to me that it's an example of the effectiveness of (enforced) laws that target people who are actually susceptible to the deterrent effect of the consequences of breaking the law.

People who drive while intoxicated aren't usually "criminals". They're "law-abiding car owners" for the most part. They didn't buy a car to go out and run red lights or kill people, or to use as the getaway vehicle from a bank robbery. They just bought it to use it for the normal, non-criminal things that people do with cars. Just like those "law-abiding gun owners".

If the law then tells them that they must not drive that car while intoxicated, and if they are given good reason to believe that there is a very good probability they will suffer dire consequences if they do, then they will make the informed, reasoned decision not to do it.

Knowing that you're gonna lose your licence if you're caught (because the law says so, and because you know people it's happened to), and knowing that there's a very good chance you will get caught, is enough to deter people like you 'n me, who might otherwise take our chances from time to time, from driving drunk.

(It isn't going to deter a lot of alcoholics and other assorted scofflaws, who act impulsively and do not weigh the risks and benefits rationally. Them, we have to find other ways of dealing with - like on-board breathalyzers, to reduce their opportunity to drive drunk. Just like how we need to reduce the opportunity of actual criminals to use firearms to cause harm.)

The people that safe firearm storage laws are aimed at are the you-'n-me type people; people who need that extra bit of stick to go with the rather nebulous carrot (somebody sometime not getting hurt by an unsafely stored firearm).

The problem is that as long as it's possible to operate with that "I'm not gonna get caught" mentality, the necessary deterrent just isn't there. In the case of DWI, even the idea of, say, 6 months in jail would not deter a lot of impulsive drunk drivers if there weren't *also* too high a risk of getting caught to make it worthwhile.

That's the problem with safe storage laws. The only instance in which anyone gets caught is if an unsafely stored firearm is used to cause the death of a child (by suicide or accident or play ...), or to commit a crime (by the person who stole it). Virtually nobody thinks *that* is going to happen to him/her. So there is a very small slice of the population that is going to fall outside the "I store my firearms safely on principle no matter what the law says" group and yet then see the virtually unenforced law as sufficient incentive to store their firearms safely.

And no, nobody's suggesting weekly inspections of home gun safes. But registration, and the possibility of such inspections, might just capture a slightly bigger slice of the population that doesn't comply without some external incentive.

"And no, nobody's suggesting weekly inspections of home gun safes. But registration, and the possibility of such inspections, might just capture a slightly bigger slice of the population that doesn't comply without some external incentive."

I understand you are not a citizen of the United States. We have a bill of rights here. I assume you have had an opportunity to read them. I would suggest your scheme for gun storage laws in our country would violate the 4th amendment.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Just how "liberal" is it to advocate allowing the government into citizens homes for an inspection? Do ya reckon that just maybe the government just might abuse this new found power as time goes on? Would you want somebody poking around your home? Do you think they might target minority households or just political enemies? If they suspect a citizen of a crime wouldn't it be a perfect time for a suprise visit?

Then we have to address the issue of illegal gun ownership. How do you propose enforcing safe storage laws in homes that have illegal guns? (Oh yeah, the search provision would have to cover this as well).

I will renounce my liberal leanings if I have to act like a Nazi to be "real"

Wcross
A "pro-gun Democrat"

Some of the more rabid pro-gunners here in Colorado - members of a group called the "Rocky Mountain Firearms Coalition" are constantly comdemning "safe storage" laws, claiming they would make you less able to defend yourself.

That's a crock.

If you own, say, ten guns and want to keep one close for protection, fine. But you should keep the other nine secured.

"If you own, say, ten guns and want to keep one close for protection, fine. But you should keep the other nine secured."

Anyone who isn't willing to spend $1000 for a good gunsafe is only putting his own firearms at risk.

(edit) Cheap protection IMO.

Seriously though, you make a valid point. Also, there are gun safes out there that allow one access to ones firearms in a matter of seconds while otherwise keeping them out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. I have one next to my bed that I can open in the dark merely by placing my fingers in the grooves and pressing the buttons in the correct sequence. I can access my loaded, yet safely secured from little hands, pistol in about two or three seconds but the design of the locking mechanism makes it all but impossible for my children to work the lock. Little hands simply won't fit and even bigger ones still need the combo to get it open.

Requiring gun owners to properly secure their firearms, if said firearms are not in the actual physical posession of said owner, in no way infringes on ones right to either keep or bear arms. You can keep 'em locked up or you can bear 'em on you person.

all my guns are locked in 2 safes.

inside a room lined with 1/8" steel with a five bolt steel door with a combunation lock (similar to a bank vault door) - except for the one on my person. I bought a house that used to be owned by a Class III dealer. The gun room was a real plus. No kids, no kids coming for us - ever. The few that visit don't even know the gun room exists; and if they did, they couldn't get in without some serious hardware.

I'm all in favor of safe storage.

So why do gun owner groups OPPOSE them?