New Haven Independent

Posted by: James | April 24, 2007 4:07 PM

OK, let me get this straight. If I purchase a firearm as a law abiding citizen, am robbed and consequently fail to report the gun stolen, I am responsible for the shooting death of an inner-city youth? Don't get me wrong, you should report a firearm stolen, and you should be fined for failure to do so. But to go so far as to lay even an iota of blame on the original, legal purchaser of the weapon is ludicrous.

Let me begin by asking what in the world this is supposed to accomplish? Reporting a gun as stolen will not prevent that gun from A) being stolen in the first place due to, well, the whole causality issue B) being sold illegally or C) used in the commission of a crime. Yes, it's important that guns are registered and traceable to their owners and it is the responsibility of the registrant to report a theft or change in ownership of their firearm. But that is a completely separate issue from these or any other shootings. There's no connection. None.

Mr. Bethea laments, "Our babies are the ones dying." Yes, that's true. It's also your babies that are pulling the triggers. Don't get me wrong, I empathize with your loss, but don't mistake that as license to make absurd statements. I have GOT to be reading this wrong. It's a law abiding citizens to blame for allowing their gun to be stolen? Heck, you're not even talking about the responsibility of locking a gun up where it cannot be stolen (keep you gun in a safe, people). You're just talking about reporting it stolen. Wh...what? I'm really confused here. "We're going to have to make them liable for putting these guns in the inner city." Who is "they" in this scenario? If you're talking about otherwise law abiding citizens who fail to report a theft, you're really reaching. If you're talking about gun manufacturers or politicians who pass lax gun laws, you're getting closer. If you're talking about the thieves who steal the guns, the dealers who resell them, and the little punk thugs who fire indiscriminately into a crowd, well, I agree. He's GOT to be talking about those who trade in illegal arms, right?

Maybe the mayor can help. He's a smart guy, and never one to pontificate for political gain. What's he have to say?

"If a legal gun owner isn't reporting that their gun is missing, they are allowing the weapon to make it way into our neighborhoods. That's unnacceptable."

John, you've got to be kidding me. That's a hell of a leap in logic. Can you explain that one to me? As I said before, reporting a theft is the responsibility of a gun owner, but somebody must explain to me how reporting it stolen will prevent it from making it to the street. I'm open to reason here. I must be incredibly thick. Where's the correlation? Is the individual who sold the weapon, previously unknown to be stolen, suddenly going to check his database and say;

"Hey, this gun is stolen! I would be ethically remiss if I were to sell it to a 14 year old kid! Come back tomorrow, kid. I might have some legal firearms to sell a minor without a permit or background check."

Sorry, I've lost the trail of logic here. So, apparently, has John DeStefano.

Posted by: James | April 24, 2007 7:03 PM

For the record, Melissa, I am not sticking up for gun owners, or at least that was not my intention. I simply don't feel that gun owners even factor into the equation. It's a distraction and a a bogeyman on which to pin the failings of the city and it's residents.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | April 24, 2007 7:39 PM

James I think that good gun owners are not being punished at all. If they are good gun owners they would report the gun missing right away and it should make no difference to them.

I think it should be in place so that people that have guns relize that it is a resposablity to know were your gun is at all times. I think it will promote better gun owners. I think it will deter people from buying weapons in there names and then selling them, thinking that they can always say some where down the line ohh it must of been stolen, I never really check it. If you own it you need to know where it is at all times. It is that simple! and if you do not you should be held responsible in some way for being such a carless owner.

If this law saves one life...just one..it is worth it.

Posted by: James | April 24, 2007 9:14 PM

I agree, CEDARHILLRESIDENT. I never intended to imply that this was onerous or burdensome on the legal gun owner and I have no problem with the ordinance whatsoever. It simply codifies good behavior. The scenario you mention is plausible; I never thought of that angle. I buy it and can see the benefit from such a statute. It would have been nice if either the mayor or the paper fleshed out the issue in such a way, but I'll chalk it up to my own naivety.

What I do take issue with is the refusal of the city or any of the parties involved to take responsibility for their own behavior. It's Billy White's fault. It's gun owners' fault. It's some other kid's fault. My boy is an "all American Boy." It DeStefano's fault. Look anywhere but within.

Posted by: sam | April 24, 2007 10:05 PM

I'm with James. Take this hypothetical: you go to the grocery store and leave your back porch unlocked (by accident, and never realizing it). You have a kid who knows you own a gun (remember - in order to be responsible, you have to talk to him about it so he's sure not to mess with it if he finds it). Back to the scenario...the kids friend overheard that his dad has a weapon somewhere in the house. Nobody is there, the wrong crowd goes in, finds it, and disappears. Adult comes back home, and realizes NOTHING. The weapon is for forced entry, after all, and he/she is just returning from the grocery store.

My point is that there's a fine line between the safety of talking to your kids about guns and the safety of placing the gun out of obvious sight. Nobody will know the gun's missing. NOW...is the gun owner responsible, under penalty of the proposed law? Where's intent? Nowhere. But I guess you don't need that anyway. How about negligence? Nope, because negligence would be found in placing this weapon in an environment where it's absence would be obvious, and we don't want Billy or Sarah to actually be tempted, do we?

This isn't Texas, where your 12 gauge is over the rear window in your pickup truck, or next to the 12 point buck over your mantle. This proposed law is idealistic, and not even remotely realistic. Go find the damn illegal dealers and bump up their sentences. That's law better served.

Posted by: dafeder | April 25, 2007 12:06 PM

I'm all in favor of stricter gun laws (and honestly, almost _any_ stricter gun law) but I think Sam's scenario is kind of plausible. However, I don't think it is out of the question to demand that people assume much more conscientious control over their firearms -- gun safe, trigger locks, knowing the location of every single gun.

Our gun laws -- and even better, our societal attitude toward guns -- should really flow from the whole text of the 2nd Amendment, including the stipulation that the purpose of the right to bear arms is "a well regulated militia."

I don't know what that militia would entail exactly (unless it's the National Guard), but the Constitution says its purpose is "the security of a free State." And as Doug Bethea and John DeStefano can testify, that's _not_ what we're getting.
David