At least 157 people were killed and 270 were injured last year in unintentional shootings by children, according to Everytown, an advocacy group for firearm safety.

  • BuelldozerA
    link
    193 months ago

    I really wish more gun owners would embrace the concept of safe storage. Unfortunately between the “Muh Rights” bozos, the ignorant, and the outright criminal there’s too many opportunities for kids to come into unsupervised contact with weapons.

    • BassaForte
      link
      fedilink
      English
      123 months ago

      Gun owner here in support of safe storage laws. I do think the argument of “the gun should be easily accessible” is valid, only if you don’t have kids or anyone that shouldn’t have access living with you. But at the same time, having the gun accessible doesn’t really matter unless it’s literally on you 24/7.

      I am for safe storage laws because I don’t think the outcome would change much in favor of the gun owner, rather homes with firearms would be safer when they’re not accessible by kids or people that shouldn’t access them.

      • Cethin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Yep. The likelihood of a gun accident happening is much higher than the likelihood that you’ll need and be near your firearm in a home invasion scenario. Houses are generally robbed when no one is home, and one of the most likely things stolen is your firearm. It’s much more likely to still be there if it’s secured properly.

        Edit: Also, don’t use 1776 for the combination of your gun safe. It’s essentially useless if you do.

    • @SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      23 months ago

      The problem here is they include 15+ year olds all the way to 19 in these stats. Which 15-19 year olds are like 80% of all gang violence. So no safe storage laws are going to stop this type of violence. It’s just bullshit propaganda stats from everytown.

      • BuelldozerA
        link
        7
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        That’s a normal tactic but in this case I went to the data source, Everytown, and reviewed it myself. The highest age included in their data set was 17 and there was a depressing number of children under 8 in there.

        The other thing is that this data was specifically about unintentional shootings, meaning that this wasn’t gang violence.

        It’s basically what’s on the tin. Negligent and Accidental Discharges. Something that Safe Storage can help to address, especially with the younger kids.

        Incidents like this.

        And this.

          • BuelldozerA
            link
            03 months ago

            That hasn’t stopped other studies from defining “kids” as people all the way up to age 21.

            It’s a common tactic used to create scary headlines and twist the discourse.

        • @SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          03 months ago

          While some of these are true, a large portion of these are gang related. They’re carrying without holsters in their pockets. It’s happens a lot and usually isn’t reported unless someone is injured. I totally agree firearms should be stored in safes but the data here is more about negligent gang members usually.

    • @HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I’ve got some issues with safe storage laws, but they’re mostly about the inadequacy of the containers that they allow for.

      The quick and dirty version is that, at best, safe storage laws require a residential security container (RSC), which is not very secure. It will stop curious kids, but will not stop an older kid that has time on their hands, or is determined and willing to use a destructive attack (e.g., a prybar). If you have a hammer and a long screwdriver, you can probably open most containers that are approved under safe storage laws. An actual gun safe is expensive as fuck, starting at about $5000 and going waaaaaaaaay up; a gun safe will stop pretty much everyone except a professional thief that is personally targeting you.

      But the part that really chaps my ass is that RSCs are not only expensive for how little protection they offer, but it’s frustratingly hard to even figure out how to compare them against each other if they aren’t UL listed. Sometimes the lock on the RSC will be listed, but not the container. Sometimes they’ll have a fire rating, but won’t have anything for the lock or the resistance to destructive attacks. Unless you find an expert–and there aren’t many working at big box sporting goods stores–you won’t have any idea what kind of protection you’re paying a few thousand dollars for.

      EDIT - even after all of that, a safe storage law needs to have some kind of financial incentive built in, like a $1000 tax credit for the the purchase of a container that meets state criteria. Otherwise they’re going to seem unreasonably expensive to many people.