On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:16:35 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



I think you've just made an argument for mandatory gun safes, eh?

That'd be like mandatory bibles (Qur'ans, Torahs, etc) for the
faithful. Responsible gun owners already keep their guns secure.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:16:35 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



I think you've just made an argument for mandatory gun safes, eh?

That'd be like mandatory bibles (Qur'ans, Torahs, etc) for the
faithful. Responsible gun owners already keep their guns secure.

The problem is the unfaithful, which doubtless makes up the majority of gun
owners.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:18:53 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:16:35 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



I think you've just made an argument for mandatory gun safes, eh?

That'd be like mandatory bibles (Qur'ans, Torahs, etc) for the
faithful. Responsible gun owners already keep their guns secure.

The problem is the unfaithful, which doubtless makes up the majority of gun
owners.

I must challenge your assertion of doubtless. I'll assert, with no
more substantiation than you offer, that the vast majority of gun
owners are responsible. We've been called a nation "awash with guns"
and perhaps we are, but we are not similarly awash with criminals
quite yet. You know the stats as well as I do, probably better. There
are far more gun owners than criminals extant. The ratio actually
seems to be improving.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:18:53 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:16:35 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



I think you've just made an argument for mandatory gun safes, eh?

That'd be like mandatory bibles (Qur'ans, Torahs, etc) for the
faithful. Responsible gun owners already keep their guns secure.

The problem is the unfaithful, which doubtless makes up the majority of
gun
owners.

I must challenge your assertion of doubtless. I'll assert, with no
more substantiation than you offer, that the vast majority of gun
owners are responsible.

If you define "responsible" as keeping one's guns secure, then no. I don't
think you're within a mile of being accurate about that, Don. The "vast
majority" seems to keep their guns standing in the corner of a closet, or
sitting on a closet shelf.

We've been called a nation "awash with guns"
and perhaps we are, but we are not similarly awash with criminals
quite yet. You know the stats as well as I do, probably better. There
are far more gun owners than criminals extant. The ratio actually
seems to be improving.

Well, yeah, I'm sure that's true, although I don't see what implication
you're getting at.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" fired this volley in
:
If you define "responsible" as keeping one's guns secure, then no. I
don't think you're within a mile of being accurate about that, Don.
The "vast majority" seems to keep their guns standing in the corner of
a closet, or sitting on a closet shelf.

No they don't. I have many friends, and at least 90% of them own guns.
Almost all of those who have children or frequent visitors keep their
unused guns properly stored in cabinets or lockers, they keep the ones
they use on their persons.

The few who don't properly store are poster children for the anti-gun
lobby.

I keep my long guns in a locker. I don't keep my pistol there, though;
not in a cabinet or on the shelf. When I'm in bed, it's on the
nightstand next to me. When I'm awake, it's in its holster, ON me. It
is always loaded unless it's being maintained.

Like a string of pearls worn daily on a beautiful woman's neck, it has
developed a lovely hand-buffed luster that oiling alone could never
produce. It has a warmth that no nanny-stater could ever understand.

LLoyd

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
. 3.70...
"Ed Huntress" fired this volley in
:
If you define "responsible" as keeping one's guns secure, then no. I
don't think you're within a mile of being accurate about that, Don.
The "vast majority" seems to keep their guns standing in the corner of
a closet, or sitting on a closet shelf.

No they don't. I have many friends, and at least 90% of them own guns.
Almost all of those who have children or frequent visitors keep their
unused guns properly stored in cabinets or lockers, they keep the ones
they use on their persons.

Good for your friends. They're in the minority:

("Guns in the Family: Firearm Storage Patterns in U.S. Homes With Children,"
RAND Corporation, 2001)

"However, a RAND analysis of data regarding firearm ownership and storage
patterns found that of the families in the United States with children and
firearms, fewer than half store their firearms unloaded, locked, and away
from ammunition. Using nationally representative data from a large interview
survey by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), RAND researchers
examined the prevalence of firearms in U.S. homes with children under 18
years old and learned how those firearms are stored."


("Firearm Storage Patterns in US Homes With Children," _American Journal of
Public Health_, April, 2000):

"Of the homes with children and firearms, 55% were reported to have 1 or
more firearms in an unlocked place."

Lloyd, I have four more recent, independent surveys published in
peer-reviewed journals, with full methodology reported, which show that
homes with both guns and kids keep guns unlocked or accessible to children
in 60% - 65% of the survey. I'll post them here if you want, but it gets
tedious.

The point is, your anecdotes are interesting, but they're unrepresentative
of the US as a whole.


The few who don't properly store are poster children for the anti-gun
lobby.

I keep my long guns in a locker. I don't keep my pistol there, though;
not in a cabinet or on the shelf. When I'm in bed, it's on the
nightstand next to me. When I'm awake, it's in its holster, ON me. It
is always loaded unless it's being maintained.

Like a string of pearls worn daily on a beautiful woman's neck, it has
developed a lovely hand-buffed luster that oiling alone could never
produce. It has a warmth that no nanny-stater could ever understand.

LLoyd

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" fired this volley in
:


Lloyd, I have four more recent, independent surveys published in
peer-reviewed journals, with full methodology reported, which show
that homes with both guns and kids keep guns unlocked or accessible to
children in 60% - 65% of the survey. I'll post them here if you want,
but it gets tedious.

It could be argued that those surveys set out to demonstrate that point,
rather than discover it. But I won't argue, since it's tedious (and
ineffective) to do so. Instead, let me ask this:


Wouldn't it be more productive in the long term to teach them to properly
handle guns and enforce proper handling than to further reduce their
skills at living with dangerous things and situations?

Protect a population from itself long enough, and it becomes the sort of
milquetoast, limp-wristed type that requires to be.

LLoyd

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
. 3.70...
"Ed Huntress" fired this volley in
:


Lloyd, I have four more recent, independent surveys published in
peer-reviewed journals, with full methodology reported, which show
that homes with both guns and kids keep guns unlocked or accessible to
children in 60% - 65% of the survey. I'll post them here if you want,
but it gets tedious.

It could be argued that those surveys set out to demonstrate that point,
rather than discover it.

It could be, if one is desperate to find a way to avoid the facts, and
impugns the source instead of checking it out. But you're not one of the
transparently lazy, self-ingratiating nincompoops on the political wings,
Lloyd, so I'm sure you wouldn't do that. d8-)

You'd find yourself trying to contradict the US Dept. of Justice, the
National Shooting Sports Foundataion, and other sources that might surprise
you, but that's anyone's prerogative. It's worth checking just to see why
it's not a good idea to project the behavior of the 40% of US households who
have guns from a base of your own friends and associates, who are probably
too much like you to be a good sample of the whole country. But it takes a
little effort to find out.


But I won't argue, since it's tedious (and
ineffective) to do so. Instead, let me ask this:


Wouldn't it be more productive in the long term to teach them to properly
handle guns and enforce proper handling than to further reduce their
skills at living with dangerous things and situations?

Sure. That's why I was an NRA- and New York State certified rifle instructor
for years. But that wasn't the issue you raised. If you want to make a pitch
for firearms handling and storage safety, I'm right with you.


Protect a population from itself long enough, and it becomes the sort of
milquetoast, limp-wristed type that requires to be.

LLoyd

I'm wary of concluding too much from that small set of facts, but I'd agree
that they would be marginally safer if they knew how to handle guns
correctly. Sooner or later, most people encounter a gun.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:02:10 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:18:53 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:16:35 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



I think you've just made an argument for mandatory gun safes, eh?

That'd be like mandatory bibles (Qur'ans, Torahs, etc) for the
faithful. Responsible gun owners already keep their guns secure.

The problem is the unfaithful, which doubtless makes up the majority of
gun
owners.

I must challenge your assertion of doubtless. I'll assert, with no
more substantiation than you offer, that the vast majority of gun
owners are responsible.

If you define "responsible" as keeping one's guns secure, then no. I don't
think you're within a mile of being accurate about that, Don. The "vast
majority" seems to keep their guns standing in the corner of a closet, or
sitting on a closet shelf.

I don't define it that way. You imply that being kept in a closet is
insecure. It surely is in some situations, not necessarily in others.
Security is a relative matter. There's no such thing as absolute
security, only degrees of security appropriate to reasonable
expectation of threat. A gun safe is far from impenetrable to a
skilled practicioner, and there are places where people still don't
lock their doors. A high degree of security would involve a massive
vault with time locks defended by monitored sensors and a well-trained
squad of armed guards on premises 24/7.

I define "responsible" simply as ensuring that they are used safely
and properly. If that includes locking them up, then they must be
locked up. I grew up in a household where long guns were kept in an
unlocked storage closet. There were no handguns. Home burglaries
were about non-existent in that place and time, and everyone in the
household understood and was comfortable with rifles and shotguns. I
went plinking with my .22 about any time I wanted. My friends and I
brought our .22's on camping trips. Someone's parent, usually Tom's
mom, would drive us to where we were going to camp and pick us up a
few days later. We weren't old enough to drive.

I don't need to secure our guns against anyone in my present
household because there is only one other and she is quite
competent(!) Some of the guns are hers.

I won't discuss security provisions we employ against theft other
than to note that they've sufficed for decades in our situation. Our
home and its contents are therefore clearly secure in our situation.
YMMV.

We've been called a nation "awash with guns"
and perhaps we are, but we are not similarly awash with criminals
quite yet. You know the stats as well as I do, probably better. There
are far more gun owners than criminals extant. The ratio actually
seems to be improving.

Well, yeah, I'm sure that's true, although I don't see what implication
you're getting at.

Merely that responsible is as responsible does. Responsible gun
owners are not a problem. Criminals are the problem.

If they want my photo or fingerprints on file when I buy a gun, they
already have them. Photos are on file at DMV and our prints are on
file with FBI and DSA. I don't know if they keep records of serial
numbers or not, and I really don't care. I'm pretty sure they do with
handguns, don't know about long guns. They say they don't with long
guns, doesn't matter to me.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:02:10 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:18:53 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:16:35 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



I think you've just made an argument for mandatory gun safes, eh?

That'd be like mandatory bibles (Qur'ans, Torahs, etc) for the
faithful. Responsible gun owners already keep their guns secure.

The problem is the unfaithful, which doubtless makes up the majority of
gun
owners.

I must challenge your assertion of doubtless. I'll assert, with no
more substantiation than you offer, that the vast majority of gun
owners are responsible.

If you define "responsible" as keeping one's guns secure, then no. I don't
think you're within a mile of being accurate about that, Don. The "vast
majority" seems to keep their guns standing in the corner of a closet, or
sitting on a closet shelf.

I don't define it that way. You imply that being kept in a closet is
insecure. It surely is in some situations, not necessarily in others.
Security is a relative matter. There's no such thing as absolute
security, only degrees of security appropriate to reasonable
expectation of threat. A gun safe is far from impenetrable to a
skilled practicioner, and there are places where people still don't
lock their doors.

Keeping a gun in a hall or bedroom closet where people don't lock their
doors fits no sensible definition of "security." That's more like a bad joke
for nighttime talk shows.

A high degree of security would involve a massive
vault with time locks defended by monitored sensors and a well-trained
squad of armed guards on premises 24/7.

Now you're teetering on the edge of nonsense that leads people to support
gun control, Don. If you can't make reasonable sense about the issue, people
assume you, a gunowner, have no sense.

snip stuff about the good old days

Someone's parent, usually Tom's
mom, would drive us to where we were going to camp and pick us up a
few days later. We weren't old enough to drive.

Those were the days, eh? Those are not these days.


I don't need to secure our guns against anyone in my present
household because there is only one other and she is quite
competent(!) Some of the guns are hers.

I won't discuss security provisions we employ against theft other
than to note that they've sufficed for decades in our situation. Our
home and its contents are therefore clearly secure in our situation.
YMMV.

We've been called a nation "awash with guns"
and perhaps we are, but we are not similarly awash with criminals
quite yet. You know the stats as well as I do, probably better. There
are far more gun owners than criminals extant. The ratio actually
seems to be improving.

Well, yeah, I'm sure that's true, although I don't see what implication
you're getting at.

Merely that responsible is as responsible does. Responsible gun
owners are not a problem. Criminals are the problem.

I think the point is that irresponsible gun owners sometimes contribute to
the problem. It isn't so much that they contribute a lot to the pool of guns
that get in the hands of criminals. It's mostly a matter of having a
disciplined mind about the whole thing -- which being sloppy about gun
security contradicts. Sloppy security, sloppy thinking, sloppy behavior.
They tend to go together.


If they want my photo or fingerprints on file when I buy a gun, they
already have them. Photos are on file at DMV and our prints are on
file with FBI and DSA. I don't know if they keep records of serial
numbers or not, and I really don't care. I'm pretty sure they do with
handguns, don't know about long guns. They say they don't with long
guns, doesn't matter to me.

Fine, then you have no problem with that issue.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:51:51 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:02:10 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


If you define "responsible" as keeping one's guns secure, then no. I don't
think you're within a mile of being accurate about that, Don. The "vast
majority" seems to keep their guns standing in the corner of a closet, or
sitting on a closet shelf.

I don't define it that way. You imply that being kept in a closet is
insecure. It surely is in some situations, not necessarily in others.
Security is a relative matter. There's no such thing as absolute
security, only degrees of security appropriate to reasonable
expectation of threat. A gun safe is far from impenetrable to a
skilled practicioner, and there are places where people still don't
lock their doors.

Keeping a gun in a hall or bedroom closet where people don't lock their
doors fits no sensible definition of "security." That's more like a bad joke
for nighttime talk shows.

You seem to have a preconceived notion of "security", which may well
be accurate in New Jersey and many other places.

Concealment is a rudimentary form of security. Consider a small rural
town where a shopkeeper doesn't bring some wares from outside in at
night because there's simply no need to do so. Nobody bothers it. I
am not making this up!

A high degree of security would involve a massive
vault with time locks defended by monitored sensors and a well-trained
squad of armed guards on premises 24/7.

Now you're teetering on the edge of nonsense that leads people to support
gun control, Don. If you can't make reasonable sense about the issue, people
assume you, a gunowner, have no sense.

I'm addressing the general notion of appropriate level of security vs
threat, because the issue of "security" came into question. This
level is obviously not appropriate for near-commodities, which guns
are in the U.S. It is definitely appropriate and practiced in some
high-risk situations.

snip stuff about the good old days

Someone's parent, usually Tom's
mom, would drive us to where we were going to camp and pick us up a
few days later. We weren't old enough to drive.

Those were the days, eh? Those are not these days.

Not in urban areas, but it's not unusual to see a 12-year old getting
a .22 for his birthday in some parts of the country. Probably not in
New Jersey!



Merely that responsible is as responsible does. Responsible gun
owners are not a problem. Criminals are the problem.

I think the point is that irresponsible gun owners sometimes contribute to
the problem. It isn't so much that they contribute a lot to the pool of guns
that get in the hands of criminals. It's mostly a matter of having a
disciplined mind about the whole thing -- which being sloppy about gun
security contradicts. Sloppy security, sloppy thinking, sloppy behavior.
They tend to go together.

Along with generalities? Sloppy defined here as different from your
thinking and practice in your situation?

"Responsible" to me means that the objects in question (guns,
automobiles, cutlery, whatever) are not used in a way to harm others
or infringe upon their rights and liberties. It is not a prescribed
doctrine or set of practices per se except as regard gun safety --
i.e., the manner in which an individual handles and uses them.
Practices that may be responsible in one place may be totally
irresponsible in another. Disciplined thinking is not the same as
adherence to doctrine. The latter may be disciplined but it's not
thinking.

I may have addressed matters at a level of abstraction that is
uncomfortable for you or foreign to you. I certainly don't disagree
with your assertions re what might be responsible practice(s) in
your situation and experience. You know your situation and experience
best and I've no doubt that you make appropriate decisions.


If they want my photo or fingerprints on file when I buy a gun, they
already have them. Photos are on file at DMV and our prints are on
file with FBI and DSA. I don't know if they keep records of serial
numbers or not, and I really don't care. I'm pretty sure they do with
handguns, don't know about long guns. They say they don't with long
guns, doesn't matter to me.

Fine, then you have no problem with that issue.

Won't say I'm entirely comfortable with it, but that is the situation
like it or not. I'm all for it as long as such information and
accountability is used responsibly for the greater good, and "the
greater good" doesn't include depriving me of my liberty in pursuit of
someone else's political agenda.

Some worry that the gummint will eventually abuse. It's a legitimate
concern, but I don't lose any sleep over it. It could happen, may
well happen, but I don't consider it likely during my remaining
lifetime.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:51:51 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:02:10 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


If you define "responsible" as keeping one's guns secure, then no. I
don't
think you're within a mile of being accurate about that, Don. The "vast
majority" seems to keep their guns standing in the corner of a closet,
or
sitting on a closet shelf.

I don't define it that way. You imply that being kept in a closet is
insecure. It surely is in some situations, not necessarily in others.
Security is a relative matter. There's no such thing as absolute
security, only degrees of security appropriate to reasonable
expectation of threat. A gun safe is far from impenetrable to a
skilled practicioner, and there are places where people still don't
lock their doors.

Keeping a gun in a hall or bedroom closet where people don't lock their
doors fits no sensible definition of "security." That's more like a bad
joke
for nighttime talk shows.

You seem to have a preconceived notion of "security", which may well
be accurate in New Jersey and many other places.

Yeah, like most of the universe. g


Concealment is a rudimentary form of security. Consider a small rural
town where a shopkeeper doesn't bring some wares from outside in at
night because there's simply no need to do so. Nobody bothers it. I
am not making this up!

Don't try it with guns.


A high degree of security would involve a massive
vault with time locks defended by monitored sensors and a well-trained
squad of armed guards on premises 24/7.

Now you're teetering on the edge of nonsense that leads people to support
gun control, Don. If you can't make reasonable sense about the issue,
people
assume you, a gunowner, have no sense.

I'm addressing the general notion of appropriate level of security vs
threat, because the issue of "security" came into question. This
level is obviously not appropriate for near-commodities, which guns
are in the U.S. It is definitely appropriate and practiced in some
high-risk situations.

Keeping a gun in an unlocked closet, while you're not in the house? Yeah,
that's a high-risk situation, all right. It sounds like an engraved
invitation.


snip stuff about the good old days

Someone's parent, usually Tom's
mom, would drive us to where we were going to camp and pick us up a
few days later. We weren't old enough to drive.

Those were the days, eh? Those are not these days.

Not in urban areas, but it's not unusual to see a 12-year old getting
a .22 for his birthday in some parts of the country. Probably not in
New Jersey!

I got mine for my 11th birthday.

Merely that responsible is as responsible does. Responsible gun
owners are not a problem. Criminals are the problem.

I think the point is that irresponsible gun owners sometimes contribute to
the problem. It isn't so much that they contribute a lot to the pool of
guns
that get in the hands of criminals. It's mostly a matter of having a
disciplined mind about the whole thing -- which being sloppy about gun
security contradicts. Sloppy security, sloppy thinking, sloppy behavior.
They tend to go together.

Along with generalities? Sloppy defined here as different from your
thinking and practice in your situation?

Sloppy here is defined as thinking that a gun kept in a closet, in an
unlocked house, as you put it, is secure. That's sloppy, even if you lock
the house.


"Responsible" to me means that the objects in question (guns,
automobiles, cutlery, whatever) are not used in a way to harm others
or infringe upon their rights and liberties.

Responsible includes securing your guns against theft. Just because you've
been lucky so far does not mean that you've secured your guns. It just means
that you've been lucky.

It is not a prescribed
doctrine or set of practices per se except as regard gun safety --
i.e., the manner in which an individual handles and uses them.
Practices that may be responsible in one place may be totally
irresponsible in another. Disciplined thinking is not the same as
adherence to doctrine. The latter may be disciplined but it's not
thinking.

Discipline includes protecting a potentially dangerous weapon against theft.


I may have addressed matters at a level of abstraction that is
uncomfortable for you or foreign to you. I certainly don't disagree
with your assertions re what might be responsible practice(s) in
your situation and experience. You know your situation and experience
best and I've no doubt that you make appropriate decisions.

There is no situation or experience in which leaving an unlocked gun in a
closet, when you're not home, with kids in the house and neighborhood or
not, can be called "securing" it.



If they want my photo or fingerprints on file when I buy a gun, they
already have them. Photos are on file at DMV and our prints are on
file with FBI and DSA. I don't know if they keep records of serial
numbers or not, and I really don't care. I'm pretty sure they do with
handguns, don't know about long guns. They say they don't with long
guns, doesn't matter to me.

Fine, then you have no problem with that issue.

Won't say I'm entirely comfortable with it, but that is the situation
like it or not. I'm all for it as long as such information and
accountability is used responsibly for the greater good, and "the
greater good" doesn't include depriving me of my liberty in pursuit of
someone else's political agenda.

Some worry that the gummint will eventually abuse. It's a legitimate
concern, but I don't lose any sleep over it. It could happen, may
well happen, but I don't consider it likely during my remaining
lifetime.

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:18:57 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


You seem to have a preconceived notion of "security", which may well
be accurate in New Jersey and many other places.

Yeah, like most of the universe. g

Aren't you cute!


Keeping a gun in an unlocked closet, while you're not in the house? Yeah,
that's a high-risk situation, all right. It sounds like an engraved
invitation.

After (and if) accomplishing breakin to a house with secure portals,
good locks and a number of other recommended deterrents in a
neighborhood with excellent police presence, how much longer do you
think it would take a burglar to breach a locked closet or cabinet?
Once they're in, they're concealed to operate at will though they
don't know how much time they might have.

A gun cabinet or safe is definitely an invitation saying "GUNS IN
HERE!!!" A substantial cabinet with a keyed lock takes seconds to
breach. A residential locked closet would yield instantly to a hard
kick or a crowbar. A full-up 950-lb $2599 safe would certainly afford
more delay, and might be advisable in an area where house breakins
occur with any frequency. I don't have one on
my want list at the moment.

I had a visit by a police officer last summer for other reasons --
I'd reported a TV cable scam artist operating in the neighborhood. We
got to shooting the breeze -- for an hour! (Slow day for crime, I
guess.) In the course of conversation, he learned that I am a shooter.
He found our security situation to be quite sufficient. You are
welcome to have differing opinion from afar.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:18:57 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


You seem to have a preconceived notion of "security", which may well
be accurate in New Jersey and many other places.

Yeah, like most of the universe. g

Aren't you cute!


Keeping a gun in an unlocked closet, while you're not in the house? Yeah,
that's a high-risk situation, all right. It sounds like an engraved
invitation.

After (and if) accomplishing breakin to a house with secure portals,
good locks and a number of other recommended deterrents in a
neighborhood with excellent police presence, how much longer do you
think it would take a burglar to breach a locked closet or cabinet?
Once they're in, they're concealed to operate at will though they
don't know how much time they might have.

A gun cabinet or safe is definitely an invitation saying "GUNS IN
HERE!!!" A substantial cabinet with a keyed lock takes seconds to
breach. A residential locked closet would yield instantly to a hard
kick or a crowbar. A full-up 950-lb $2599 safe would certainly afford
more delay, and might be advisable in an area where house breakins
occur with any frequency. I don't have one on
my want list at the moment.

Don, I think the simple answer to this is that very few people would take
you seriously about all of this -- largely because it isn't true that
keeping guns in an unlocked closet can be compared with keeping them in a
gun safe, in terms of security. If you try to push that idea people will
just think you're off your rocker.


I had a visit by a police officer last summer for other reasons --
I'd reported a TV cable scam artist operating in the neighborhood. We
got to shooting the breeze -- for an hour! (Slow day for crime, I
guess.) In the course of conversation, he learned that I am a shooter.
He found our security situation to be quite sufficient. You are
welcome to have differing opinion from afar.

How can I have a differing opinion? You didn't tell us what your security
is. IIRC, the unlocked closet thing was a hypothetical you proposed, or it
was something about your friends or neighbors, or whatever.

--
Ed Huntress

On Apr 17, 6:20*am, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
"Ed Huntress" fired this volley :

If you define "responsible" as keeping one's guns secure, then no. I
don't think you're within a mile of being accurate about that, Don.
The "vast majority" seems to keep their guns standing in the corner of
a closet, or sitting on a closet shelf.

No they don't. *I have many friends, and at least 90% of them own guns. *
Almost all of those who have children or frequent visitors keep their
unused guns properly stored in cabinets or lockers, they keep the ones
they use on their persons. *

The few who don't properly store are poster children for the anti-gun
lobby.

I keep my long guns in a locker. *I don't keep my pistol there, though;
not in a cabinet or on the shelf. *When I'm in bed, it's on the
nightstand next to me. *When I'm awake, it's in its holster, ON me. *It
is always loaded unless it's being maintained. *

Like a string of pearls worn daily on a beautiful woman's neck, it has
developed a lovely hand-buffed luster that oiling alone could never
produce. *It has a warmth that no nanny-stater could ever understand.

LLoyd

You do realize that they will take away from you when you go to the
nursing house.

TMT

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:30:19 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:18:57 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


You seem to have a preconceived notion of "security", which may well
be accurate in New Jersey and many other places.

Yeah, like most of the universe. g

Aren't you cute!


Keeping a gun in an unlocked closet, while you're not in the house? Yeah,
that's a high-risk situation, all right. It sounds like an engraved
invitation.

After (and if) accomplishing breakin to a house with secure portals,
good locks and a number of other recommended deterrents in a
neighborhood with excellent police presence, how much longer do you
think it would take a burglar to breach a locked closet or cabinet?
Once they're in, they're concealed to operate at will though they
don't know how much time they might have.

A gun cabinet or safe is definitely an invitation saying "GUNS IN
HERE!!!" A substantial cabinet with a keyed lock takes seconds to
breach. A residential locked closet would yield instantly to a hard
kick or a crowbar. A full-up 950-lb $2599 safe would certainly afford
more delay, and might be advisable in an area where house breakins
occur with any frequency. I don't have one on
my want list at the moment.

Don, I think the simple answer to this is that very few people would take
you seriously about all of this -- largely because it isn't true that
keeping guns in an unlocked closet can be compared with keeping them in a
gun safe, in terms of security. If you try to push that idea people will
just think you're off your rocker.

I'm not pushing anything, and I have not suggested that an unlocked
closet is comparable to a gun safe.

I had a visit by a police officer last summer for other reasons --
I'd reported a TV cable scam artist operating in the neighborhood. We
got to shooting the breeze -- for an hour! (Slow day for crime, I
guess.) In the course of conversation, he learned that I am a shooter.
He found our security situation to be quite sufficient. You are
welcome to have differing opinion from afar.

How can I have a differing opinion? You didn't tell us what your security
is. IIRC, the unlocked closet thing was a hypothetical you proposed, or it
was something about your friends or neighbors, or whatever.

I don't need your opinion of my security, Ed. I know a bit about the
subject. I did R&D with and for a major security company now and
then for years. I have merely tried here to convey the notion that
what is "good" or "sufficient" security is strongly situation
dependent and that there is a lot more to security than locks.

I agree that a gun safe is at least sufficient for most situations.
Readily available, easy to understand. Some have really nice paint.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:30:19 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:18:57 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


You seem to have a preconceived notion of "security", which may well
be accurate in New Jersey and many other places.

Yeah, like most of the universe. g

Aren't you cute!


Keeping a gun in an unlocked closet, while you're not in the house?
Yeah,
that's a high-risk situation, all right. It sounds like an engraved
invitation.

After (and if) accomplishing breakin to a house with secure portals,
good locks and a number of other recommended deterrents in a
neighborhood with excellent police presence, how much longer do you
think it would take a burglar to breach a locked closet or cabinet?
Once they're in, they're concealed to operate at will though they
don't know how much time they might have.

A gun cabinet or safe is definitely an invitation saying "GUNS IN
HERE!!!" A substantial cabinet with a keyed lock takes seconds to
breach. A residential locked closet would yield instantly to a hard
kick or a crowbar. A full-up 950-lb $2599 safe would certainly afford
more delay, and might be advisable in an area where house breakins
occur with any frequency. I don't have one on
my want list at the moment.

Don, I think the simple answer to this is that very few people would take
you seriously about all of this -- largely because it isn't true that
keeping guns in an unlocked closet can be compared with keeping them in a
gun safe, in terms of security. If you try to push that idea people will
just think you're off your rocker.

I'm not pushing anything, and I have not suggested that an unlocked
closet is comparable to a gun safe.

I had a visit by a police officer last summer for other reasons --
I'd reported a TV cable scam artist operating in the neighborhood. We
got to shooting the breeze -- for an hour! (Slow day for crime, I
guess.) In the course of conversation, he learned that I am a shooter.
He found our security situation to be quite sufficient. You are
welcome to have differing opinion from afar.

How can I have a differing opinion? You didn't tell us what your security
is. IIRC, the unlocked closet thing was a hypothetical you proposed, or it
was something about your friends or neighbors, or whatever.

I don't need your opinion of my security, Ed. I know a bit about the
subject. I did R&D with and for a major security company now and
then for years. I have merely tried here to convey the notion that
what is "good" or "sufficient" security is strongly situation
dependent and that there is a lot more to security than locks.

I agree that a gun safe is at least sufficient for most situations.
Readily available, easy to understand. Some have really nice paint.

That doesn't sound much like what you were saying earlier, Don, but we'll
let it go at that.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:38:16 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


How can I have a differing opinion? You didn't tell us what your security
is. IIRC, the unlocked closet thing was a hypothetical you proposed, or it
was something about your friends or neighbors, or whatever.

I don't need your opinion of my security, Ed. I know a bit about the
subject. I did R&D with and for a major security company now and
then for years. I have merely tried here to convey the notion that
what is "good" or "sufficient" security is strongly situation
dependent and that there is a lot more to security than locks.

I agree that a gun safe is at least sufficient for most situations.
Readily available, easy to understand. Some have really nice paint.

That doesn't sound much like what you were saying earlier, Don, but we'll
let it go at that.

It is not counter to anything I've said before. I don't think they're
the best solution for some situations, but they are sufficient for
most. If you define security = safe, the best available comes
closest to meeting that definition.