Gold Supporter
Bronze Supporter
- Messages
- 13,029
- Reactions
- 47,507
One of the reasons we as responsible gun owners are losing the battle is that we have either been passive or reactive. If we want to preserve our civil right to keep and bear arms we need to take the initiative. Who ever won a fight by letting the other side throw every punch? Nobody, that's who.
I'd like to propose that we as a group get the ball rolling among our state legislatures to pass legislation in Oregon and Washington (or elsewhere) to incentivize safe firearm storage. I think we all agree that safes, trigger locks, etc. are good things even though they can't guarantee that firearms won't be stolen or otherwise misused.
What follows is far more lengthy than I had intended, so here is a summary:
IMO this is a far better plan that will be more successful than IP 44 in increasing firearm safety. I also think this would be difficult to not get bipartisan support and I think we can get sponsorship from both major parties.
It will also help to show that firearm owners are responsible members of the community that are concerned with safety. Do not underestimate this point - the other side has been doing everything they can to promote a negative stereotype of us to further their support from the undecided voters and to reinforce these beliefs within their ranks
Usually if you want to discourage behavior you fine and penalize the activity. This is why Oregon IP 44 is really an attempt to reduce firearm ownership - it's full of nothing but penalties: the expense of safes and trigger locks; improper storage becoming crimes with financial and other penalties, and making the victim of a firearm theft responsible for the actions of the thief for five years. There is not a single positive in this Initiative for gun owners thus it's entire existence is an effort to punish us.
On the other hand if you want to encourage behavior you use incentives. An example are the rebates and discounts you see for installing solar power or making your home more energy efficient.
Note the difference between the two approaches - the stick and the carrot. Would you rather be punished or would you rather be rewarded? Which in your opinion would be the best way to achieving more safe firearm storage? Fear or reward?
If we truly want people to have safes, trigger locks, and other ways to ensure that they are not improperly accessed we need to use incentives just like the other programs I've mentioned above. To me the proper way to incentivize safe/safer storage is to provide rebates and discounts for these devices.
I'd like to see the following proposed in Oregon and Washington:
The opposition will tell you that the State just doesn't have the money. At this point we have several options, both emotional and rational:
Throwing this out to everyone:
I'd like to propose that we as a group get the ball rolling among our state legislatures to pass legislation in Oregon and Washington (or elsewhere) to incentivize safe firearm storage. I think we all agree that safes, trigger locks, etc. are good things even though they can't guarantee that firearms won't be stolen or otherwise misused.
What follows is far more lengthy than I had intended, so here is a summary:
- We gun owners in Oregon and Washington work with legislators on legislation to provide incentives to purchase gun safes, trigger locks, etc., and to restrict the liabilities of firearm owners who use them, including civil cases.
- If the state legislatures are unwilling or unable to pass such legislation in the sessions starting 2019, then we prepare initiative campaigns to pass the legislation ourselves.
IMO this is a far better plan that will be more successful than IP 44 in increasing firearm safety. I also think this would be difficult to not get bipartisan support and I think we can get sponsorship from both major parties.
It will also help to show that firearm owners are responsible members of the community that are concerned with safety. Do not underestimate this point - the other side has been doing everything they can to promote a negative stereotype of us to further their support from the undecided voters and to reinforce these beliefs within their ranks
Usually if you want to discourage behavior you fine and penalize the activity. This is why Oregon IP 44 is really an attempt to reduce firearm ownership - it's full of nothing but penalties: the expense of safes and trigger locks; improper storage becoming crimes with financial and other penalties, and making the victim of a firearm theft responsible for the actions of the thief for five years. There is not a single positive in this Initiative for gun owners thus it's entire existence is an effort to punish us.
On the other hand if you want to encourage behavior you use incentives. An example are the rebates and discounts you see for installing solar power or making your home more energy efficient.
Note the difference between the two approaches - the stick and the carrot. Would you rather be punished or would you rather be rewarded? Which in your opinion would be the best way to achieving more safe firearm storage? Fear or reward?
If we truly want people to have safes, trigger locks, and other ways to ensure that they are not improperly accessed we need to use incentives just like the other programs I've mentioned above. To me the proper way to incentivize safe/safer storage is to provide rebates and discounts for these devices.
I'd like to see the following proposed in Oregon and Washington:
- Funding for rebates and other cost incentives to purchase new firearm safes, vaults, cabinets, and other enclosures.
- Funding to provide free trigger locks at police and fire stations, firearm and sporting goods stores, and hunter and other firearm safety classes.
- Funding to provide or reduce the cost of hunting and firearm safety classes.
- Limits on the liability of a firearm owner who properly uses these devices including civil suits
The opposition will tell you that the State just doesn't have the money. At this point we have several options, both emotional and rational:
- This is for the safety of children and others. In this case the emotional argument is also rational. Why do we all of the sudden don't have the money for this?
- Oregon, in particular had no problem dealing with spending $500,000,000 on a website that didn't work and $500,000,000 to plan a bridge that never got built and if it did would not have been an improvement over the existing one. Why do we have money for this type of nonsense, but not a single dime for firearm safety?
Throwing this out to everyone:
- What else needs to be in this legislation?
- What needs to be removed?
- How do we get the language properly framed?
- How do we get the ball rolling internally?
- How do we get the ball rolling with the legislature?