• BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    4 months ago

    Parents should be automatic accomplices if a weapon they own is used by their child if there was no forced entry to the gun safe, because they clearly didn’t secure it from the child properly.

    • Jimmycakes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      They should get accomplice anyway for raising this kid having guns in the house a year after the police come to your door is willful negligence

    • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      4 months ago

      My sister used to watch over my mother’s shoulder as she entered the combination to her medication safe (cancer pain meds). Kids are sneaky and you have to be way, way more careful than you expect.

      • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        No, you have to be not stupid and realize they are sneaky little fuckers.

        It’s not like most gun safes are just sitting out in the kitchen or living room, especially in a household with kids. So kick them out of your bedroom and close the door while you’re retrieving the firearms so they can’t see the combination.

        Also biometric safes are pretty common these days, then you can keep the backup physical key in a safe deposit box at the bank or even with a friend.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        There is such a thing as a biometric gun safe. If you have children and guns, get one and keep your guns in it.

    • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      They should make a device that detects when a safe or case is opened and sends alerts to your phone. Honesty seems easy as heck could be a college level project to design something you could retrofit on safes. Then theres no way anyone properly storing weapons could claim they didn’t know.

        • Zahille7@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Couldn’t you put the sensor on the outside?

          Or better yet, if the gun safe is in its own area with a door to separate it, put the sensor on that door

          • jordanlund@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Yup. Say the gun safe is in a bedroom or a closet, you could put the sensor on the bedroom or closet door, but that would generate false alerts.

            If you put the sensor on the outside of the cabinet, it could just be removed. Tape the two halves of the sensor together and pry them off. As long as they don’t separate, it wouldn’t trigger.

      • mctoasterson@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        If you are paranoid you can literally just take one of those Ring indoor cameras and put it on top of your safe. The app includes custom notifications on detected motion.

        Now, the kid could still go out of their way to disable the home WiFi or something but that level of premeditation is a different problem entirely.

        First preference would be educating your kids on the safe handling of guns from an early age and inculcating in them a set of values that shows guns are for defensive purposes and not for interpersonal conflict resolution.

        The secondary strategy is storing your firearms in a locked safe the kids do not know the combination to, in a locked room to which they don’t have a key.

    • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      All the laws in the world are useless if they’re not enfoeced. We saw it in the Maine shooting, we’re seeing it here now, we see it even in the presidential election.

    • Drusas@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      There are often exceptions to this for rifles if the underage person is using the weapon for hunting or other sport.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2024/09/05/georgia-school-shooting-parent-liable-gun-laws/75083441007/

        “Minors are permitted to possess pistols or revolvers under certain specified and monitored activities and there are provisions against a parent or legal guardian allowing a minor to possess a pistol or revolver if the adult “is aware of a substantial risk that such minor will use a pistol or revolver to commit a felony offense” or if the minor has been convicted of a violent felony or misdemeanor. Violation can mean a felony conviction, a fine of up to $5,000 and 3-5 years in prison.”

        I would say, having an FBI investigation into a school shooting threat last year would constitute “substantial risk”.

        But that’s also assuming it was an AR pistol and not an AR rifle. So far they’re just saying “AR platform” which could mean anything.

        • Fosheze@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          So far they’re just saying “AR platform” which could mean anything.

          I hate how news agencies do that shit. People who don’t know anything about guns see that and see “big scary automatic military rifle with 1 gajillion round magazine”. Where in reality a ton of guns from tiny handguns to .50 beowulf big game rifles use the “AR platform” just because it’s an old enough design to be public domain. Saying it’s an AR platform gun tells us exactly nothing.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Wadsworth: [shouting] That’s what we’re trying to find out! We’re trying to find out who killed him, and where, and with what!
        Professor Plum: There’s no need to shout!
        Wadsworth: [shouting louder] I’m not shouting!
        [Guests stare at him pointedly]
        Wadsworth: [shouting] All right, I am! I’m shouting, I’m shouting, I’m shout…
        [candlestick falls from above and hits him on the head]

        • BossDj@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Wadsworth: Professor Plum, you were once a professor of psychiatry specializing in homicidal lunatics suffering from delusions of grandeur.

          Professor Plum: Yes, but now I work for the government.

          Wadsworth: So your work hasn’t changed.

      • finley@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        “Wee woo! It’s the grammar Nazis here to cite you for a dangling modifier violation!”

        “Excuse me, officers, but allow me to cite the Rule of Context, subsection 4, paragraph B”

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’m so glad we’re finally going after parents of shooters. Maybe this will finally start having an effect after enough of them lose their freedom.