Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Phaser11 on December 09, 2008, 08:48:47 AM
-
Gun laws.
OK all this talk about gun control and banning and all that stuff. What I want to know is what laws do you think there should be. If the only idea you have is an out right ban of all firearms you can just save it.
I want to know what laws you want passed by congress or state or local governments. Just to help out, between the US Government, state government and local government where I live in Michigan there are over 200 laws on the books that deal with firearms and firearm crimes. That’s right 200 (I got the books when I did my CCW class).
If you don’t have a law in mind, don’t respond.
If you have an idea for a law just list it, don’t give a five page dissertation on how it will help, just the law.
For you answers I’ll let you know if it in the books now or not, not whether your idea is a good one or not.
Remember, your feelings about any given gun law does not matter, only if it is allready on the books counts.
-
There are too many gun laws as it is. Instead of writting anouther one that no one is going to pay attention to, how about getting rid of about half of the ones we have that are so far out of date it's not even funny, and then ENFORCING the rest of them.
Bans do no good, restrictions do no good, registration does no good. A criminal commits a crime using a gun and they get a slap on the wrist most of the time, unless they kill someone, even though there are ALREADY laws on the books that allow judges to sentance them to some serious time. If THOSE laws and penalties were enforced that might make a differance.
BUT for the sake of this thread I'll play along. If I could add one law to the books concerning guns. I would get rid of State concealed carry permits and replace them with a Federal concealed carry permit. $50 cost for a 5 year permit to carry anywhere in the United States and it's territories. Requirements for the permit would be to pass a Federal background check, proof of firearms training (either pay to take a civilian class such as a hunter safety course or the like, proof of military firearms training, or law enforcement training) and a valid state issued or federal issued photo ID (drivers liscense, military ID, ect.).
-
Gun laws.
OK all this talk about gun control and banning and all that stuff. What I want to know is what laws do you think there should be. If the only idea you have is an out right ban of all firearms you can just save it.
I want to know what laws you want passed by congress or state or local governments. Just to help out, between the US Government, state government and local government where I live in Michigan there are over 200 laws on the books that deal with firearms and firearm crimes. That’s right 200 (I got the books when I did my CCW class).
If you don’t have a law in mind, don’t respond.
If you have an idea for a law just list it, don’t give a five page dissertation on how it will help, just the law.
For you answers I’ll let you know if it in the books now or not, not whether your idea is a good one or not.
Remember, your feelings about any given gun law does not matter, only if it is allready on the books counts.
we don't need any new gun laws. in fact, there's probably more than a few, that can/should go away.
the only thing i think should be, should be a requirement to stay proficient with your weapons. i see too many that only take their guns out once or twice a month, and think that;s good enough. it's not.
safety courses, designed, and given by gun owners, not the govt.
if your gun is stolen, by ANYONE, and used for any sort of crime, you go on trial too. there;s no excuse for not securing your weapons properly.
:noid :aok
-
we don't need any new gun laws. in fact, there's probably more than a few, that can/should go away.
the only thing i think should be, should be a requirement to stay proficient with your weapons. i see too many that only take their guns out once or twice a month, and think that;s good enough. it's not.
safety courses, designed, and given by gun owners, not the govt.
if your gun is stolen, by ANYONE, and used for any sort of crime, you go on trial too. there;s no excuse for not securing your weapons properly.
:noid :aok
Sorry shooting a gun is like riding a bike in many ways and I completely disagree with that. Sure you might not be able to ride as fast or as far after not shooting more months or years. You still however know to keep your feet out of the chain and keep the thing upright. The same could be said for gun safety and please don't confuse accuracy/speed with proficiency. Safety and awareness are the most important characteristics to be concerned with. I haven't fired a pistol in months perhaps even a year or two does that make me unsafe to handle a pistol? Even after a year of not firing a pistol I was able to go out shoot a few local cops during a competition. All fine individuals, excellent police men and great friends off the firing range. Police themselves all to often shoot there gun only when preparing to qualify. This means they can go 5 months or so without firing a single shot of any kind. When you talk about securing weapons properly I have to ask if your joking? If they steal my car am I responsible for that too? Cars kill more than guns so surely this would also be applied. No thanks...even gun safes are easily defeated given time. In the end we don't need any new laws just proper enforcement. More laws do NOT equal more gun control....
Steel
-
Sorry shooting a gun is like riding a bike in many ways and I completely disagree with that. Sure you might not be able to ride as fast or as far after not shooting more months or years. You still however know to keep your feet out of the chain and keep the thing upright. The same could be said for gun safety and please don't confuse accuracy/speed with proficiency.i was meaning safety in handling your weapon, and accuracy. speed comes later i think. Safety and awareness are the most important characteristics to be concerned with. I haven't fired a pistol in months perhaps even a year or two does that make me unsafe to handle a pistol? if you had a privat pilots lisence, and hadn;t flown for 2 years, would you go up solo?Even after a year of not firing a pistol I was able to go out shoot a few local cops during a competition.judging by what i've seen of the local PD's here in jersey, that's not really that hard i think. All fine individuals, excellent police men and great friends off the firing range. Police themselves all to often shoot there gun only when preparing to qualify.this is what i'm talking about. they;re nowhere near as accurate as they would be if they shot every week, rather than evfery few months. This means they can go 5 months or so without firing a single shot of any kind. When you talk about securing weapons properly I have to ask if your joking?i'm not. i only say that, because THAT is the only real argument that anti-gun people have. If they steal my car am I responsible for that too? Cars kill more than guns so surely this would also be applied. No thanks...even gun safes are easily defeated given time. In the end we don't need any new laws just proper enforcement. More laws do NOT equal more gun control....
Steel
i don't think ANY gun control is really needed to be honest. only law abiding people..such as yourself i'm assuming.....will abide by the restrictions. the restrictive laws do nothing to stop the bad guys. that's the only reason i mention securing your weapons. make it harder for them to steal yours.
and of course enforce the laws on the boosk.
-
CAP,
We agree to disagree on the safety issue regarding guns and lack of time spent shooting. The amount of information processing, decision times, and skill required for piloting make it hard to compare to shooting a gun. Gun safety can be summed up in just a few words. Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire and don't point the gun at anything you cant live without. Follow these and I can promise the only thing you'll have to worry about is a gun malfunction. Hardly reviewable material even after years of not shooting. I agree that police are not as capable as they can be when looked at as a whole. For police it would be wise to step up training and get them to a respectable level compared to many other organizations. This is a general statement and I am sure there are people/units that defy this however.
Anyone convicted of a serious crime cannot own a gun.
Anyone physically and mentally able to carry a gun concealed should be able to do so with a easily attainable permit and background check.
Ammunition (excluding explosive and chemical agent types) and magazine capacity should be unrestricted.
Full automatic and multiple shot burst weapons are allowed to be produced and readily available to qualified persons. (similar to conceal carry)
Restricted areas would include government properties, sports and gambling events. (Yes CC at schools!)
Being that I just took away half the BATFE (or whatever its called these days) responsibilities they can now focus on ENFORCING the gun laws. This is the key, was the key, and will always be the key!
Edit: These are more deletions/changes than "new" laws but its what I would like to see. One thing to add is there would not be any restricted cities, towns, or states like California and New York City.
Steel
-
we've concluded in the last thread that the only gun control would be to ban them outright, as long as they are legal in one form or another, the wrong people will be able to get their hands on them
heck, even they were illegal the wrong people would still be able to get a hold of them (ex: drugs)
-
Gun laws.
OK all this talk about gun control and banning and all that stuff. What I want to know is what laws do you think there should be.
If you talk about USA, I think that all weapons should be allowed. Full automatic weapons, automatic grenade launchers, claymore mines, you name it.
As the Second Amendment protect the pre-existing individual right to "keep and bear arms" (i.e. to "possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation"), every citizen (white, hispano, black etc) should be able to have even nuclear weapons available in their backyard. The more guns the better.
-
we've concluded in the last thread that the only gun control would be to ban them outright, as long as they are legal in one form or another, the wrong people will be able to get their hands on them
heck, even they were illegal the wrong people would still be able to get a hold of them (ex: drugs)
i have no idea what thread your talking about or who the hell you were talking to, but nobody that has said to completely ban guns and that would definitely NOT come to a WE'VE CONCLUDED outcome in any conversation that you were having in this BBS.
banning weapons out right in The United States is not an answer of any kind nor is it going to happen. you ll just have to look for your nirvana in some other country.
there need be only a handfull of simple rules to govern the use of firearms in the US,
1 if a weapon is employed in the commission of a felony and an individual is harmed or killed by said weapons use then the penalty for the transgressor shall be that of death.
2 if a weapon is improperly stored and is stolen from the proper owner, or is loaned by the original owner to another person or persons, and then is subsequently used in the commission of a felony, by the thief and/or a recipient of the weapon in an illegal fashion, or borrower, causing bodily harm or death as a result of the use of that weapon, then the original owner shall be financially responsible (without the protective benefits of bankruptcy) to the victim or victims and/or the heirs of the victim or victims. the original owner shall also serve a sentence of not less than 3 years for each victim or victims harmed by said weapon.
3 sale or possession of a stolen or illegally obtained weapon shall be punishable by not less than 10 years in prison.
4 if a felony is committed with the brandishment of a weapon and no individual is harmed by the weapon then the individual committing said felony shall have the sentence of the original felony enhanced by not less than 15 additional years in prison. this 15 years shall be served on top of and after the sentence of the original felony sentence.
5 these penalties shall not be plea bargained or reduced by any deals and shall be the mandatory minimums allowed by the law.
it boils down to "if you use it you will suffer, if you allow it to be obtained by someone who uses it you will suffer, period!"
if you chose to own a weapon you also chose to bear complete responsibility for it. if you chose to commit a crime with a weapon then you need not ever be apart of society again.
this is the only attitude that will stop an individual from using weapons against another, or removing the transgressor from the public. i say weapon instead of gun, because if you stab a person in the heart are they any less dead than if you shot them? a weapon is a weapon, no matter what it is.
granted the laws of responsibility for the original owner if someone steals a bat or other item not originally intended as a weapon from your yard or house and harming someone with it should be different.
but if it is an obvious instrument designed and intended by its creator and original purchaser to be used as a weapon then it falls under this rule.
FLOTSOM
-
I could agree with all of that except number 2. Why should my guns be singled out from all the other property I own that if stolen from me and used in a manner that is illegal and causes harm to another person that I should be held responsible? If someone stole my truck, ran a red light evading the police and kills someone in the crosswalk, I'm not held responsible. I'm a VICTIM as well since my truck was stolen from me.
Your idea would have one of my guns being stolen from me( now Im a victim of robbery), I report it to the police as stolen (as soon as I find out it's been stolen), a week later someone uses that gun in a robbery, shoots and kills someone, and I'm now responsible? How can I be held accountable for someone elses actions? Yes it was my gun, that was illegaly taken from me without my knowledge or consent, but it's no different than if they had taken my truck and committed a crime with it.
Nope. You can't hold a gun owner accountable if his weapons were stolen from him and then used in a crime. If my weapons are in my house or vehicle, under the law, I have the reasonable expectation that my weapons are secure. Doesn't matter where they are in my home or vehicle. It's against the law for anyone to enter either without my express permission. If someone does and takes my weapons, I am now a victim of a crime, the weapons are no longer under my direct control, and I can no longer be held accountable for what happens with that weapon.
-
My new gun law?
Shoot thugs and gangbangers with them.
-
it doesnt matter unless you plan on searching every home in america. Because there are few that are gonna get rid of their firearms if there is a law passed. And if somebody plans on commiting a gun crime it doesnt matter if they are banned because they'll get a gun one way or another.
-
I could agree with all of that except number 2. Why should my guns be singled out from all the other property I own that if stolen from me and used in a manner that is illegal and causes harm to another person that I should be held responsible? If someone stole my truck, ran a red light evading the police and kills someone in the crosswalk, I'm not held responsible. I'm a VICTIM as well since my truck was stolen from me.
Your idea would have one of my guns being stolen from me( now Im a victim of robbery), I report it to the police as stolen (as soon as I find out it's been stolen), a week later someone uses that gun in a robbery, shoots and kills someone, and I'm now responsible? How can I be held accountable for someone elses actions? Yes it was my gun, that was illegaly taken from me without my knowledge or consent, but it's no different than if they had taken my truck and committed a crime with it.
Nope. You can't hold a gun owner accountable if his weapons were stolen from him and then used in a crime. If my weapons are in my house or vehicle, under the law, I have the reasonable expectation that my weapons are secure. Doesn't matter where they are in my home or vehicle. It's against the law for anyone to enter either without my express permission. If someone does and takes my weapons, I am now a victim of a crime, the weapons are no longer under my direct control, and I can no longer be held accountable for what happens with that weapon.
i agree with your argument in the most part.
but most of the guns used illegally were obtained by someone stealing them from an owner who left it where it was easily obtainable or actually given/sold to someone in an illegal manner and then claimed stolen later on.
they make gun safes, and trigger locks ect to prevent people from easily obtaining and using a weapon stolen from the owner.
if you lock up your weapons to the best of your reasonable ability then you would be exempt from any penalty inncured by the theft of the weapon. if you put it in a safe with a trigger lock on it, then you have complied with the gun safety laws and done all that could reasonably be asked of you as an individual to prevent your weapons from being stolen and subsequently used in a criminal manner.
obviously, if someone wants it bad enough they will come up with some inventive creative and unforeseeable way to get them. but if you have taken every precaution then you have done what is reasonable and responsible and should not be held liable.
by the way the law states that you must remove the keys from your vehicle and (in some states secure the vehicle) before leaving it unattended or you may be held financially responsible for the actions of any other person using said vehicle.
i agree with the theory that if you don't secure it then you should be culpable for it.
responsibility is something that should be practiced by all who chose to own an item that is designed and intended to take life, whether that be human or animal. the biggest reason criminals have weapons is the irresponsible or criminal actions of those who get them legally.
but most people do nothing to secure their weapons. they stuff them in a closet with the bullets on the shelf or even in the magazine. they may or may not set the safety, they take no precaution and they don't care what that weapon my do to someone else if it should fall into the hands of a person with evil intent.
if you chose to be irresponsible then you should suffer the consequences of that decision.
FLOTSOM
-
I think a law, that states every one is mandatory to own a gun, and take lessons on how to use them.
there would be way less crime if the crimanals knew that every one had a gun.
-
i agree with your argument in the most part.
but most of the guns used illegally were obtained by someone stealing them from an owner who left it where it was easily obtainable or actually given/sold to someone in an illegal manner and then claimed stolen later on.
they make gun safes, and trigger locks ect to prevent people from easily obtaining and using a weapon stolen from the owner.
if you lock up your weapons to the best of your reasonable ability then you would be exempt from any penalty inncured by the theft of the weapon. if you put it in a safe with a trigger lock on it, then you have complied with the gun safety laws and done all that could reasonably be asked of you as an individual to prevent your weapons from being stolen and subsequently used in a criminal manner.
obviously, if someone wants it bad enough they will come up with some inventive creative and unforeseeable way to get them. but if you have taken every precaution then you have done what is reasonable and responsible and should not be held liable.
by the way the law states that you must remove the keys from your vehicle and (in some states secure the vehicle) before leaving it unattended or you may be held financially responsible for the actions of any other person using said vehicle.
i agree with the theory that if you don't secure it then you should be culpable for it.
responsibility is something that should be practiced by all who chose to own an item that is designed and intended to take life, whether that be human or animal. the biggest reason criminals have weapons is the irresponsible or criminal actions of those who get them legally.
but most people do nothing to secure their weapons. they stuff them in a closet with the bullets on the shelf or even in the magazine. they may or may not set the safety, they take no precaution and they don't care what that weapon my do to someone else if it should fall into the hands of a person with evil intent.
if you chose to be irresponsible then you should suffer the consequences of that decision.
FLOTSOM
EXACTLY.
that was the point i was trying to make, i just didn't wanna argue.
and given the ability of lawyers these days, yes......no matter WHERE you live, if someone steals your car or truck, and it wasn;t secured, you will most likely end up paying for something from the resulting bad stuff.
-
i agree with your argument in the most part.
but most of the guns used illegally were obtained by someone stealing them from an owner who left it where it was easily obtainable or actually given/sold to someone in an illegal manner and then claimed stolen later on.
they make gun safes, and trigger locks ect to prevent people from easily obtaining and using a weapon stolen from the owner.
if you lock up your weapons to the best of your reasonable ability then you would be exempt from any penalty inncured by the theft of the weapon. if you put it in a safe with a trigger lock on it, then you have complied with the gun safety laws and done all that could reasonably be asked of you as an individual to prevent your weapons from being stolen and subsequently used in a criminal manner.
obviously, if someone wants it bad enough they will come up with some inventive creative and unforeseeable way to get them. but if you have taken every precaution then you have done what is reasonable and responsible and should not be held liable.
by the way the law states that you must remove the keys from your vehicle and (in some states secure the vehicle) before leaving it unattended or you may be held financially responsible for the actions of any other person using said vehicle.
i agree with the theory that if you don't secure it then you should be culpable for it.
responsibility is something that should be practiced by all who chose to own an item that is designed and intended to take life, whether that be human or animal. the biggest reason criminals have weapons is the irresponsible or criminal actions of those who get them legally.
but most people do nothing to secure their weapons. they stuff them in a closet with the bullets on the shelf or even in the magazine. they may or may not set the safety, they take no precaution and they don't care what that weapon my do to someone else if it should fall into the hands of a person with evil intent.
if you chose to be irresponsible then you should suffer the consequences of that decision.
FLOTSOM
So I'm irresposible because I keep my 12 gauge shotgun loaded and under my bed? I also keep my 9mm automatic pistol loaded with 15 in the mag and one up the pipe with a spare 15 round mag in the kid glove on the holster. Both of those weapons are ALWAYS loaded and within reach. They are out of sight when I leave my house and lock the door behind me. If someone were to break in, find those weapons, and take them, you think I should be held responsible for what that criminal, who has already broken the law by breaking into my home and stealing from me, does with those weapons?
I don't think so. That would be like you having your car stolen. Think about this and tell me if it makes sense to you. You come home and park your car in your garage and leave the keys in it. You close the garage door and then later a friend comes and picks you up in his car and you go to the store for something. You come back home and find the garage door open and your car is missing. You call the police to report it stolen and the officer tells you to wait right there. A police officer pulls up, gets your information, then places you under arrest. You are being charged with a crime because while you were at the store with your friend, your car that was stolen was involved in a multi car crash and someone died.
Do you think you should be charged with a crime? Do you think the family of the victim has the right to sue you? Do you think you should go to jail for 3 years?
No you don't, because you have the reasonable expectation that your car is secure inside your garage, on your property. Doesn't matter if the keys were in it or not. It was secured inside the garage and the ONLY way someone was able to get to it was to break into your garage and take it.
It would only be irresponsible if I left my windows wide open, a gun laying on the coffee table in plain view with the doors unlocked, but even then the ONLY way someone can get that gun is to break the law in the first place by illegally entering my home and taking it. Yeah it would be stupid for me to do something like that, but you can't charge someone with being stupid. The only way you can charge someone like that is if they left a gun outside where anyone could walk by and pick it up.
-
Flotsom i was just sayin we agreed that no matter what criminals will get to weapons, i didn't say anyone was suggest an out right ban of guns in the last thread, but that would be the only thing that could possibly work, since all these laws don't seem to have a significant impact on gun crimes.
Where theres a will there is a way
-
only playing devils advocate here.......as with that particular bar across the street from ya, i understand why you keep em loaded.
but.........you come home from a long hard day at work. u8nfortunatly, as you walk through your front door, the guy that broke in is on his way out. he's found your loaded guns. he shoots ya multiple times with em.
that's part of the point of why i say properly secured. if they were in a safe, that could not happen.
from readin a lot of your posts, i like ya dude(and am curious how your experiment came out), and don't ever wanna read in the paper about something like this...but you see my point though?
<<S>>
-
So I'm irresposible because I keep my 12 gauge shotgun loaded and under my bed? I also keep my 9mm automatic pistol loaded with 15 in the mag and one up the pipe with a spare 15 round mag in the kid glove on the holster. Both of those weapons are ALWAYS loaded and within reach. They are out of sight when I leave my house and lock the door behind me. If someone were to break in, find those weapons, and take them, you think I should be held responsible for what that criminal, who has already broken the law by breaking into my home and stealing from me, does with those weapons?
I don't think so. That would be like you having your car stolen. Think about this and tell me if it makes sense to you. You come home and park your car in your garage and leave the keys in it. You close the garage door and then later a friend comes and picks you up in his car and you go to the store for something. You come back home and find the garage door open and your car is missing. You call the police to report it stolen and the officer tells you to wait right there. A police officer pulls up, gets your information, then places you under arrest. You are being charged with a crime because while you were at the store with your friend, your car that was stolen was involved in a multi car crash and someone died.
Do you think you should be charged with a crime? Do you think the family of the victim has the right to sue you? Do you think you should go to jail for 3 years?
No you don't, because you have the reasonable expectation that your car is secure inside your garage, on your property. Doesn't matter if the keys were in it or not. It was secured inside the garage and the ONLY way someone was able to get to it was to break into your garage and take it.
It would only be irresponsible if I left my windows wide open, a gun laying on the coffee table in plain view with the doors unlocked, but even then the ONLY way someone can get that gun is to break the law in the first place by illegally entering my home and taking it. Yeah it would be stupid for me to do something like that, but you can't charge someone with being stupid. The only way you can charge someone like that is if they left a gun outside where anyone could walk by and pick it up.
here is the quick and simple of it,
GUN OWNERSHIP IS A RIGHT THAT BEARS A RESPOSIBILITY!
if you chose to leave your weapon in such a manner that it can EASILY be stolen, the yes damn right you should be held responsible.
you chose to leave your weapon in a condition that allows for its immediate use without impedance then you chose to be held responsible for it.
if you lock it in a safe (combination style) and/or put a trigger lock or breach guard on it, then it cannot be used without the combination and a key. you have done all that is reasonable to secure that weapon from the misuse of another.
if you are too lazy and too irresponsible to maintain your weapon in a safe fashion and another person becomes a victim of it, then you should suffer as you have allowed others to suffer.
yes you by your irresponsible actions and omission of actions allowed it to be stolen. because most people cannot get into a good gun safe on sight, and very few of those who could get into a gun safe will try to remove a trigger or breach guard as it will just damage the weapon.
it is the irresponsibility of people just like you that put most of the weapons out there in the hands of those who should not have them!
you vehicle analogy is worthless in this conversation. vehicles are not built for nor are they intended to be used as weapons. thus they do not fall under the category as described in the above posts.
your ownership of a vehicle is what is called a privilege not a constitutional right, so again it does not fit the argument at hand.
finally on the automotive issue, in most states if you leave the keys in your vehicle and it is stolen you can (and in most cases will) be held civilly responsible for any damages caused by said vehicle even if it was locked in a garage. check that fact with your auto insurance.
any law governing the control of weapons is worthless as long as people that think like you do are allowed to leave their weapons in a manner that allow others to easily obtain usable control of them.
your personal irresponsibility and laziness will someday cause the harm of another.
but even worse it will be the weapons easily stolen from people like you that will allow the government to enact laws that prevent mature rational responsible individuals from owning and enjoying the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. every gun restriction law on the books is based upon the weapons that have at some point fallen into the hands of those who should not have them, using them to harm others. most common reason these weapons fall into the hands of those who shouldn't have them is the theft from the home of those who fail to secure them properly.
this is also the major contributing factor to accidental shootings. kids get a hold of their parents guns because they know where the weapon is and that it is unlocked. show me one accidental shooting case where the kid got the weapon from a locked safe and cut off the trigger or breach guard and then accidentally shot themselves or another with it.
if you chose to own it you chose to bear the responsibility of it, that is the best form of control!
i only pray that should someone ever get a hold of your weapon due to your failure to secure it, that its you and not someones child that suffers for it.
FLOTSOM
-
you vehicle analogy is worthless in this conversation. vehicles are not built for nor are they intended to be used as weapons. thus they do not fall under the category as described in the above posts.
again it does not fit the argument at hand.
FLOTSOM
Your into knives and swords and stuff right? What's your opinion if someone broke into your house, took one of your knives or swords and went running down the street hacking peoples heads off like some sort of demented braveheart?
Should you be held responsible?
Even better, suppose they didn't even take one of your weapon knives or swords, but a simple kitchen butchers knife. Should your wife now be held responsible?
Edit: I got confused with the avatar. ink is into the martial arts stuff. But still curious as to what your opinion is if something like that happened.
-
Chock it up to personal preferance then. I PREFER to keep my weapons in a ready condition i.e. no trigger lock, loaded, and easy for me to get to. An unloaded, locked up weapon is USELESS when seconds count.
Beyond that I was a Coast Guard boarding officer for 4 years....direct translation Federal Law Enforcement Officer that was charged with upholding International Law, Federal Law, State Law, and Local Law.
Your idea to charge a lawfull gun owner if their weapons are stollen from them and then used in a crime borders on insane. As I said, if the weapons are in my home, then I have the reasonable expectation that they will be there when I return as it is a crime for someone to enter my home and take my things. Never mind that the Supreme Court ruling in Heller vs DC stated that any law that restricts a person from keeping a weapon in a ready to use status is un Constitutional. Yes that was brought up in the case because while handguns were banned in DC, long guns could be kept but were required to have a trigger lock on them or be disasembled. That was ruled un Constitutional so your law would never pass muster anyway on those grounds alone.
Have a nice day.
-
if you chose to leave your weapon in such a manner that it can EASILY be stolen, the yes damn right you should be held responsible.
you chose to leave your weapon in a condition that allows for its immediate use without impedance then you chose to be held responsible for it.
if you lock it in a safe (combination style) and/or put a trigger lock or breach guard on it, then it cannot be used without the combination and a key. you have done all that is reasonable to secure that weapon from the misuse of another.
if you are too lazy and too irresponsible to maintain your weapon in a safe fashion and another person becomes a victim of it, then you should suffer as you have allowed others to suffer.
You know I'm fairly pro-gun laws in our country (NZ). And we have some good laws, including laws surrounding the safe storage of firearms. As part of a Firearms License application a local firearms police officer will pop by and inspect your storage. So safe storage is rated very important here. We're also told to store the firearm separate from the bolt and ammo.
However, some feedback from a country that pushes for safe storage... the reasoning behind it is less about weapons being stolen and more about simple safety. IE stopping kids playing with guns and accidentally killing themselves (or their friends).
In cases where people have burgled homes with firearms locked gun safes have proven futile in stopping thieves stealing the firearms. Most of the firearms in the hands of criminals here are stolen, and stolen from gunsafes/locked gun racks.
-
Your into knives and swords and stuff right? What's your opinion if someone broke into your house, took one of your knives or swords and went running down the street hacking peoples heads off like some sort of demented braveheart?
Should you be held responsible?
Even better, suppose they didn't even take one of your weapon knives or swords, but a simple kitchen butchers knife. Should your wife now be held responsible?
Edit: I got confused with the avatar. ink is into the matial arts stuff. But still curious as to what your opinion is if something like that happened.
actually i am into swords knives axes and other medieval weapons. me and ink share that interest.
as a responce to the first half of your question, if it is created and intended to act as a weapon then you, as the person in whose care custody and control it is in, are absolutely and unconditionally responsible for securing it in a reasonable manner to prevent its missuse.
now i know that most people will disagree with me about what level the theory should be carried to, but the idea is simple, IF IT"S A WEAPON YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE. if you bought it as a weapon, (even if it is just a decorative piece hung out for display, if you know it has an edge then you know it is intended to be used as a weapon) then treat it as a weapon.
the second half of your question falls within the answer to the first half, if it is not created with the intent of being used as or replicating a weapon then it is not a weapon. a house hold knife, although it has the ability to cause bodily harm or even death, was not created nor bought with the intent or understanding that it was a weapon. if someone uses it to cause harm to another then, like in the example of the car above, that is a missuse of its intended application.
my theory is solid simple and sound, you buy a weapon you buy the responsibility that owning that weapon brings with it.
why is that so much to ask of the populace of the US?
we want everything we want when we want it but we don't want to have to be responsible for anything at any time.
my life long theory has always been very simple, be responsible for and live with the consequences of your choices.
those that would shirk their responsibility of their decision onto others are the same that drink and drive and blame it on the child for running into the road.
i have owned swords knives and maces, you can put them in a lockable case with a 3/4 inch or thicker glass door so you can see them but not have easy access to them, or you can mount them to a wall in a manner that completely secures them to the wall.
so just because they are not a gun does not exempt you from properly securing them.
Your idea to charge a lawfull gun owner if their weapons are stollen from them and then used in a crime borders on insane. As I said, if the weapons are in my home, then I have the reasonable expectation that they will be there when I return as it is a crime for someone to enter my home and take my things. Never mind that the Supreme Court ruling in Heller vs DC stated that any law that restricts a person from keeping a weapon in a ready to use status is un Constitutional. Yes that was brought up in the case because while handguns were banned in DC, long guns could be kept but were required to have a trigger lock on them or be disasembled. That was ruled un Constitutional so your law would never pass muster anyway on those grounds alone.
but there is nothing in the constitution to keep you from being held civily responsible. many tort claims arise from matters that are non-crimal. civil culpability for failing to act in a responsible manner is a b**ch.
but as a side question, why is it that when you are away from your home and your weapons are left unattended, why would that not be a good time to keep them locked up? you feel you need them locked loaded and ready to roll should someone break into your home while you are away?
i can understand keeping an attended weapon unlocked and on hand, that is the equivilant of securing it through supervision, but when you are not with it then how does it ensure you safety and ability to protect yourself?
However, some feedback from a country that pushes for safe storage... the reasoning behind it is less about weapons being stolen and more about simple safety. IE stopping kids playing with guns and accidentally killing themselves (or their friends).
In cases where people have burgled homes with firearms locked gun safes have proven futile in stopping thieves stealing the firearms. Most of the firearms in the hands of criminals here are stolen, and stolen from gunsafes/locked gun racks.
in your country they demand that you do all that is reasonable to secure these items. if you have done that then you should not be held liable. if you fail to do so then i believe you should be held responsible.
FLOTSOM
-
Chock it up to personal preferance then. I PREFER to keep my weapons in a ready condition i.e. no trigger lock, loaded, and easy for me to get to. An unloaded, locked up weapon is USELESS when seconds count.
Beyond that I was a Coast Guard boarding officer for 4 years....direct translation Federal Law Enforcement Officer that was charged with upholding International Law, Federal Law, State Law, and Local Law.
Your idea to charge a lawfull gun owner if their weapons are stollen from them and then used in a crime borders on insane. As I said, if the weapons are in my home, then I have the reasonable expectation that they will be there when I return as it is a crime for someone to enter my home and take my things. Never mind that the Supreme Court ruling in Heller vs DC stated that any law that restricts a person from keeping a weapon in a ready to use status is un Constitutional. Yes that was brought up in the case because while handguns were banned in DC, long guns could be kept but were required to have a trigger lock on them or be disasembled. That was ruled un Constitutional so your law would never pass muster anyway on those grounds alone.
Have a nice day.
didn't they say that the kids at columbine, stole their parents guns, and ammo?
-
actually i am into swords knives axes and other medieval weapons. me and ink share that interest.
as a responce to the first half of your question, if it is created and intended to act as a weapon then you, as the person in whose care custody and control it is in, are absolutely and unconditionally responsible for securing it in a reasonable manner to prevent its missuse.
now i know that most people will disagree with me about what level the theory should be carried to, but the idea is simple, IF IT"S A WEAPON YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE. if you bought it as a weapon, (even if it is just a decorative piece hung out for display, if you know it has an edge then you know it is intended to be used as a weapon) then treat it as a weapon.
Those that would shirk their responsibility of their decision onto others are the same that drink and drive and blame it on the child for running into the road.
FLOTSOM
I agree with you that if you own a weapon of any type that you should treat it as such. But you're saying that if a normal guy owns a weapon, like some cool medieval sword, and some lowlife breaks into that persons home, steals that weapon and commits a crime with it, that the owner should somehow be held accountable?
On that i totally disagree, and see it totally different, especially the last line i quoted.
The one to be held accountable, is the one that broke into the guys house and stole the weapon. Just for chits and giggles, lets say the thief sees the nice sword hanging on the wall, and finds a way to unsecure it. Your argument sounds like something some sleezy lawyer would say. "My client would never have killed anyone, if the person he STOLE from didn't have a fancy sword on the wall, therefore it is not my clients fault, but THE MAN HE ROBBED!"
Come on, think about it for a minute.
If you want to reply you can have the last word, i don't want this to turn political, so i'm done.
-
I agree with you that if you own a weapon of any type that you should treat it as such. But you're saying that if a normal guy owns a weapon, like some cool medieval sword, and some lowlife breaks into that persons home, steals that weapon and commits a crime with it, that the owner should somehow be held accountable?
On that i totally disagree, and see it totally different, especially the last line i quoted.
The one to be held accountable, is the one that broke into the guys house and stole the weapon. Just for chits and giggles, lets say the thief sees the nice sword hanging on the wall, and finds a way to unsecure it. Your argument sounds like something some sleezy lawyer would say. "My client would never have killed anyone, if the person he STOLE from didn't have a fancy sword on the wall, therefore it is not my clients fault, but THE MAN HE ROBBED!"
Come on, think about it for a minute.
If you want to reply you can have the last word, i don't want this to turn political, so I'm done.
not for the last word, not for politics, but to clarify my point.
i agree that this should in no way remove any responsibility from the person who committed the crime. he should suffer to the fullest extent of the law.
but if he went into someones house and had to pry the weapon away from the wall or steal it out of a locked safe then the owner has done everything reasonably possible and is NOT to be held responsible. i am talking about those that leave things out unsecured so that stealing them is easy.
people lock their cars not so that the cant be stolen, but so that it is harder to steal them. no lock is a guarantee of security, but it is a deterant and/or a hindrance to those that are not proficient in the art of defeating them.
I'm only saying that the owner should do everything reasonable to prevent the easy theft of them. if you have secured them in a reasonable manner then you have done all that any responsible person could or should be asked to do.
if a low life can break into your home and lift the mattress and find a loaded and ready weapon sitting there without any security to prevent its misuse then the owner is partially responsible for everything done with that fire arm.
with each lock or bar or obstruction the odds increase exponentially that the weapon will never be stolen and/or used in an unlawful fashion.
if everyone who buys a weapon understands that it is their personal responsibility to ensure that that weapon is reasonably secure at all times or they risk being held responsible, then you would quickly see a dramatic drop in the number of weapons stolen from the average persons home. why? because they would buy safes and trigger and/or breach locks to prevent their theft and/or use.
I'm only saying be responsible. don't take away the weapons just force people to realize that their poor judgment may be the cause of another person death.
FLOTSOM
-
Chock it up to personal preferance then. I PREFER to keep my weapons in a ready condition i.e. no trigger lock, loaded, and easy for me to get to. An unloaded, locked up weapon is USELESS when seconds count.
Ready for whom?
Ready for you?
Ready for the criminal that broke into your home and found your firearm as you pull into the driveway?
Or ready for the 6 year old boy playing cowboys and indians?
Seriously how bad is the place you live at? How many people have killed intruders? (I am asking seriously, not mocking you).
-
Ready for whom?
Ready for you?
Ready for the criminal that broke into your home and found your firearm as you pull into the driveway?
Or ready for the 6 year old boy playing cowboys and indians?
Seriously how bad is the place you live at? How many people have killed intruders? (I am asking seriously, not mocking you).
The Virginian-Pilot
© December 4, 2008
VIRGINIA BEACH
Blake Francis, furious after being denied entry to a sports bar because of his attire last week, fired several shots at the place, police said.
No one was harmed, but several vehicles were hit by bullets, police said.
Authorities could not explain how Francis violated the dress code at Luxury Brown Sports Bar and Dance Club. A booking photograph of the 23-year-old dreadlocked man shows him in what appears to be a white T-shirt. He was charged with two counts each of attempted malicious wounding and use of a firearm in commission of a felony.
The sports bar bans T-shirts, sports wear, tennis shoes and extremely baggy pants, according to its Web site. A telephone call was not returned Wednesday.
The business on Baker Road is owned by Barry Davis, who earlier this year settled a federal lawsuit over allegations that his hair and dress code policies at Kokoamos Island Bar, Grill and Yacht Club in Virginia Beach blocked blacks from admission.
Police spokesman Adam Bernstein said Francis and two friends tried to patronize the sports bar at 12:45 a.m. last Thursday but Francis was stopped at the door because of what he was wearing.
Police say Francis refused to leave and got into an altercation with security guards. He made several death threats to workers as he walked to his car, Bernstein said. Employees called 911.
Francis pulled out of the parking lot but moments later made a U-turn, driving toward the business, police said. He fired several gunshots, Bernstein said.
An officer spotted Francis ' tan-colored sedan on the westbound ramp of Interstate 264 at Newtown Road and stopped him. Francis was taken into custody and was being held without bail at the city jail.
This "night club" is right across the street from me. I can see the front door from my bedroom window at less than 100 yards. This was shooting number 11 this year. The parking lot in always filled with cars with loud stereos, 26" wheels with spinners, and loud obnoxious people with no regard for others, and before anyone says it, yes I'm planning on moving in June to a place closer to work that is much nicer. Don't get me wrong, the apartment complex I live in is nice and it's a gated community with security cameras and night time security guards, but the surrounding area has turned into the hood big time over the last couple of years. Crime around here has gotten bad. Thankfully the only problems we've had in the complex has been some vandalism to some cars, hence the hiring of the security guards and the raise in rent to pay for them.
As far as pulling into the parking lot here and finding someone in my place, I'd be ready for them because I have my CCW, and always carry to and from work or anywhere else I go. I don't leave my apartment without having a friend with me. If I go someplace where I can't carry it on me, I leave it locked in my truck.
My kids live with their mother. When they do come over my guns are put away. It wouldn't be a problem if I left them out though because I have trained both my kids in firearms safety and they both know not to mess with my guns without asking me first. I put them away because I don't want to listen to my ex.
The last time I faced an intruder was 6 years ago (my house in Chesapeake VA) before my ex and I split. Caught two kids, 13 year olds, who had broken into my garage one night. I didn't know who was in there when I went to look, but I had my shotgun ready. When I caught them, I held them at gun point until the police arrived to take them away. 5 years prior to that (in Wildwood NJ) I stopped a guy from stealing my truck with the same shotgun. I also use it to hunt with, so that Remington 870 has served me very well over the last 18 years that I've owned it.
-
The Virginian-Pilot
© December 4, 2008
VIRGINIA BEACH
Blake Francis, furious after being denied entry to a sports bar because of his attire last week, fired several shots at the place, police said.
No one was harmed, but several vehicles were hit by bullets, police said.
Authorities could not explain how Francis violated the dress code at Luxury Brown Sports Bar and Dance Club. A booking photograph of the 23-year-old dreadlocked man shows him in what appears to be a white T-shirt. He was charged with two counts each of attempted malicious wounding and use of a firearm in commission of a felony.
The sports bar bans T-shirts, sports wear, tennis shoes and extremely baggy pants, according to its Web site. A telephone call was not returned Wednesday.
The business on Baker Road is owned by Barry Davis, who earlier this year settled a federal lawsuit over allegations that his hair and dress code policies at Kokoamos Island Bar, Grill and Yacht Club in Virginia Beach blocked blacks from admission.
Police spokesman Adam Bernstein said Francis and two friends tried to patronize the sports bar at 12:45 a.m. last Thursday but Francis was stopped at the door because of what he was wearing.
Police say Francis refused to leave and got into an altercation with security guards. He made several death threats to workers as he walked to his car, Bernstein said. Employees called 911.
Francis pulled out of the parking lot but moments later made a U-turn, driving toward the business, police said. He fired several gunshots, Bernstein said.
An officer spotted Francis ' tan-colored sedan on the westbound ramp of Interstate 264 at Newtown Road and stopped him. Francis was taken into custody and was being held without bail at the city jail.
This "night club" is right across the street from me. I can see the front door from my bedroom window at less than 100 yards. This was shooting number 11 this year. The parking lot in always filled with cars with loud stereos, 26" wheels with spinners, and loud obnoxious people with no regard for others, and before anyone says it, yes I'm planning on moving in June to a place closer to work that is much nicer. Don't get me wrong, the apartment complex I live in is nice and it's a gated community with security cameras and night time security guards, but the surrounding area has turned into the hood big time over the last couple of years. Crime around here has gotten bad. Thankfully the only problems we've had in the complex has been some vandalism to some cars, hence the hiring of the security guards and the raise in rent to pay for them.
As far as pulling into the parking lot here and finding someone in my place, I'd be ready for them because I have my CCW, and always carry to and from work or anywhere else I go. I don't leave my apartment without having a friend with me. If I go someplace where I can't carry it on me, I leave it locked in my truck.
My kids live with their mother. When they do come over my guns are put away. It wouldn't be a problem if I left them out though because I have trained both my kids in firearms safety and they both know not to mess with my guns without asking me first. I put them away because I don't want to listen to my ex.
The last time I faced an intruder was 6 years ago (my house in Chesapeake VA) before my ex and I split. Caught two kids, 13 year olds, who had broken into my garage one night. I didn't know who was in there when I went to look, but I had my shotgun ready. When I caught them, I held them at gun point until the police arrived to take them away. 5 years prior to that (in Wildwood NJ) I stopped a guy from stealing my truck with the same shotgun. I also use it to hunt with, so that Remington 870 has served me very well over the last 18 years that I've owned it.
wildwood? hell! that's only 55 miles from me.
here in the prnj, though, you're lucky they didnt try n take it from ya....the pd i mean. they try ANY excuse for that here.
question though?
you have a concealed carry permit.....coolness.......but ....you're a fast enough draw, that you can draw, aim, and shoot the guy in your house? the one that most likely(if he grabbed your gun) already has his weapon drawn, and most likely pointed in the general direction of where the noise(you unlocking and entering) is comming from?
now, don't take anyt of what i'm saying wrongly. i fully support our rights to own what firearms we want. i also just don't think it a good idea these days to leave em out like that. when you're home, definitly. if you carry, though, then it's much better that your home weapons would be locked in a safe while you're out.
as a trained law enforcement officer, if you took a step back for a few minutes, and thought about this, maybe step outside the situation, you'd reason it a bit differently.
if you were a cop, responding to a break in, would you prefer that the guy that's in there have access to that homeowners weapons? or would you rather face an unarmed(hopefully) badguy?
flotsom pretty much nailed it. if it's a weapon, then along with the right to own it, comes the responsibility to safely secure it to the best of your ability. it's this kind of stuff that gives the anti-gun people a strong foothold on restricting legal ownership of weapons.
not tryin to rgue with ya dude.......just tryin to get ya to see the other side of this.
<<S>>
-
I think a law, that states every one is mandatory to own a gun, and take lessons on how to use them.
there would be way less crime if the crimanals knew that every one had a gun.
INdeed...best proposal in this thread. :aok OH, and I'll go ya one further...the government should provide the funds for the purchase of a gun, for those that can't afford one. :)
-
INdeed...best proposal in this thread. :aok OH, and I'll go ya one further...the government should provide the funds for the purchase of a gun, for those that can't afford one. :)
Thats what I'm Talking about <<S>>
-
I think a law, that states every one is mandatory to own a gun, and take lessons on how to use them.
there would be way less crime if the crimanals knew that every one had a gun.
I disagee, all that is gonna do is cause confusion when something does happen, because everybody and their brother is gonna dive for their government supplied firearm to be Mr. Hero when something happens, and there will be firefights erupting everywhere.
-
I disagee, all that is gonna do is cause confusion when something does happen, because everybody and their brother is gonna dive for their government supplied firearm to be Mr. Hero when something happens, and there will be firefights erupting everywhere.
Hmmm, I almost think there may be some historical information to base the result of a law like this on. If I remember correctly, at one point it was mandatory for all males over such and such age to own and remain proficient in a weapon for the safety of the country. Again, if my memory serves, it was England, and the weapon was the longbow. I'm not sure if it resulted in any heroic stck and string fights.
Anyone remember this? Have more specific info? I seem to remember as well that long term use resulted in damage/deformation to the arm bones and maybe even the spine.
I think this came about sometime after the french(?) invented the balliste, which was a weapon of such magnitude it was believed that fear of it would end all warfare.
-
In Wisconsin, the gun owner is lawfully responsible for anything done by a minor with that firearm. Even having the minor display the firearm to a friend is a crime that the parent/owner is punishable for.
-
In Wisconsin, the gun owner is lawfully responsible for anything done by a minor with that firearm. Even having the minor display the firearm to a friend is a crime that the parent/owner is punishable for.
do you know what the crime rate for children in possession of a firearm is per capita in wisconsin? could it be used as a comparison to another area where the ownership of a firearm bears no prescibed responsibilty?
FLOTSOM
-
I have no idea. I can say I don't recall hearing of any gun crimes committed by children anywhere near here, although I don't pay any real attention to what goes on in the cities. There are some pretty warped irresponsible people all over though, and they're dangerous regardless of whether or not they have guns, and regardless of what the laws are. Around here, MOST houses have guns inside. And the doors aren't locked. And we leave the keys in the car when we go inside. The "bad' kids are the ones who drive around with baseball bats and swat at mailboxes, or throw toilet paper in peoples yards.
There are many, many ways that even as gun handlers/owners they're more likely to get in trouble with, get hurt by or with, etc. I'm more worried about my kids driving, fishing, riding the school bus, working with my power tools, or playing sports than I am about them shooting. In the end, it's the behavior of the individual that's the deciding factor, not what they have in their hand. And laws won't stop "bad" people from behaving badly.
As for me, I try to keep my firearms put away, but not necessarily locked away. I teach my kids how to use guns safely and responsibly, and the "rules" that go along with that. But more importantly, I teach them some pretty basic rules about how to be a responsible, respectable person, and about being safety conscious in general. I can honestly say that as a parent the things I'm teaching my kids about guns have very little to do with the legal aspects. A law-related thing I'd teach would be a situation where responsible handling might also/still be illegal. An example of that might be packing a firearm away in the vehicle for travel, where it could actually be violating the concealed carry laws. Sometimes it may actually be safer to violate that law though- for example, if you have a firearm, unloaded, in a case, and need to run into the store or gas station, it may be best to slide it under the seat so it isn't visible. In general, though, if they act responsibly they won't have any problems with the laws.
I can't be around my kids all the time, so they need to be taught what's acceptable and what isn't so when confronted with life they can (hopefully) make decent decisions. No quarantee of course, but that's all you can do in the end...
-
In the end, it's the behavior of the individual that's the deciding factor, not what they have in their hand. And laws won't stop "bad" people from behaving badly.
I can't be around my kids all the time, so they need to be taught what's acceptable and what isn't so when confronted with life they can (hopefully) make decent decisions. No quarantee of course, but that's all you can do in the end...
i cant think of two truer statements ever uttered!
<SALUTE>
FLOTSOM
-
As far as State laws go, I'd like to see the Peoples Republic of California adopt the same Gun laws that they have in Texas...
-
As far as State laws go, I'd like to see the Peoples Republic of California adopt the same Gun laws that they have in Texas...
:O
:huh :huh
:lol :lol :lol
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
:salute
-
Well the days are winding down for 2008 and as the ball is ready to go down, or is it up, then are you ready to name that city with the most homicides for America in 2008? One thing for sure its sure to have draconian gun laws that prevent honest citizens from protecting themselves. Lets guess most overalls and most per 100,000.
Most overall I have to say Chicago. But its a tossup between Chi-Town, Plexicos NYNY, or LA. Politicians in the first two see autumn cold fronts moving in and fall on their knees to thank God cause it will slow the killing. My guess for "most per 100,000" would be my perennial favorite, Detroit.
Take away gangs, gangsters, enforce strict immigration policy, and make everybody white sheep farmers, and I'd bet we'd have a no higher rate then some "nobodys ever been to" "spit across" Island way out in the South Pacific. But this is America. Everyone wants to get here. And everyone has an opinion about.
So whatever you guess I bet the city in question has very strict gun control Laws. In fact all of them will. So whats your guess?
-
The only thing I would want to see here in the States is some system to keep kids from getting family members guns & inadvertently using them on them selves or some other Innocent.
-
Well,
Looks as there is a bomb\nav failure in this thread and the target is a bit lost. I'll sort throught the messages tommorow and see what laws match!
-
One over riding theme these days in regards to gun laws seems to be the classic "what about the children" clause.
Everyone is worried about children getting their hands on guns and doing something stupid with them so we NEED more laws to prevent that from happening. Guess what folks. NO LAW will EVER replace good parenting.
In all the cases where a kid gets ahold of a gun and does something stupid with it i.e. taking it to school and shooting up the place, killing a family member, friend, or themselves, take a real hard look at the enviroment that kid was in. 95% of the time the parents had no clue about what their kid was doing, who they were talking to and hanging out with, what was going on in school, nothing. The parents are oblivious, and then act shocked that something like that could have happened to their kid. These are also the parents that will show up at school and jump down a teachers back because the teacher told their kid he did a bad job on a report or something, yet when the kid gets home the parents don't ask nor care about what homework the kid has and lets them sit in their rooms all night playing x-box and eating hot pockets.
Both of my kids started their firearms training when they turned 8 years old. They both got their first pellet gun on their 8th birthday. They both got their first .22 rifle on their 10th birthday. My son turns 14 this year and he'll be getting a 20 gauge pump action shotgun for his birthday. Those are their weapons. I keep their weapons in my gun safe, but I hold them responsible for cleaning them. Once they turn 18, then it's going to be their responsiblity to store them and take care of them all on their own.
I have no problem with my kids being around firearms because I KNOW they know what they are doing and aren't going to do anything dumb.
Fact is we don't need anymore gun laws.
-
One over riding theme these days in regards to gun laws seems to be the classic "what about the children" clause.
Everyone is worried about children getting their hands on guns and doing something stupid with them so we NEED more laws to prevent that from happening. Guess what folks. NO LAW will EVER replace good parenting.
In all the cases where a kid gets ahold of a gun and does something stupid with it i.e. taking it to school and shooting up the place, killing a family member, friend, or themselves, take a real hard look at the enviroment that kid was in. 95% of the time the parents had no clue about what their kid was doing, who they were talking to and hanging out with, what was going on in school, nothing. The parents are oblivious, and then act shocked that something like that could have happened to their kid. These are also the parents that will show up at school and jump down a teachers back because the teacher told their kid he did a bad job on a report or something, yet when the kid gets home the parents don't ask nor care about what homework the kid has and lets them sit in their rooms all night playing x-box and eating hot pockets.
Both of my kids started their firearms training when they turned 8 years old. They both got their first pellet gun on their 8th birthday. They both got their first .22 rifle on their 10th birthday. My son turns 14 this year and he'll be getting a 20 gauge pump action shotgun for his birthday. Those are their weapons. I keep their weapons in my gun safe, but I hold them responsible for cleaning them. Once they turn 18, then it's going to be their responsiblity to store them and take care of them all on their own.
I have no problem with my kids being around firearms because I KNOW they know what they are doing and aren't going to do anything dumb.
Fact is we don't need anymore gun laws.
my comment about the columbine kids wasn't aimed at saing there's more laws needed. it was aimed at what you said above.....AND that those parents also had their guns easily avaliable.
hell.......i WANT people to be able to responsibly own, and keep as many guns as they like. they're the ones that're gonna be of help to those of us that don't have any. i spend my money on silly crap like archery, r/c models, my PPL, and keeping my shop afloat. nothing left over for a handgun...and top that off with the lack of time to keep meself profiecient, it's beter off i don;t have one.
anyway<<S>>
-
One over riding theme these days in regards to gun laws seems to be the classic "what about the children" clause.
Everyone is worried about children getting their hands on guns and doing something stupid with them so we NEED more laws to prevent that from happening. Guess what folks. NO LAW will EVER replace good parenting.
In all the cases where a kid gets ahold of a gun and does something stupid with it i.e. taking it to school and shooting up the place, killing a family member, friend, or themselves, take a real hard look at the enviroment that kid was in. 95% of the time the parents had no clue about what their kid was doing, who they were talking to and hanging out with, what was going on in school, nothing. The parents are oblivious, and then act shocked that something like that could have happened to their kid. These are also the parents that will show up at school and jump down a teachers back because the teacher told their kid he did a bad job on a report or something, yet when the kid gets home the parents don't ask nor care about what homework the kid has and lets them sit in their rooms all night playing x-box and eating hot pockets.
Both of my kids started their firearms training when they turned 8 years old. They both got their first pellet gun on their 8th birthday. They both got their first .22 rifle on their 10th birthday. My son turns 14 this year and he'll be getting a 20 gauge pump action shotgun for his birthday. Those are their weapons. I keep their weapons in my gun safe, but I hold them responsible for cleaning them. Once they turn 18, then it's going to be their responsiblity to store them and take care of them all on their own.
I have no problem with my kids being around firearms because I KNOW they know what they are doing and aren't going to do anything dumb.
Fact is we don't need anymore gun laws.
I never said in my post anything about laws. A system for it not to happen is what I was talking about. In your case it works & maybe others should follow your lead.
-
I never said in my post anything about laws. A system for it not to happen is what I was talking about. In your case it works & maybe others should follow your lead.
wellll, yes and no.......
if my brother was shot with one of your stolen guns.....and it was stolen because you keep it in the closet, or under the cushion on the sofa, rather than locked up........you better bet your arse i'm commin after you too.
THAT'S the point here i think.
i keep my archery stuff locked away. well...except for the robinhooded arrows that is. everyone i know(and most of my neighbors have nice little arsenals) keeps their stuff safely locked away.
just for the record, sam up the street, when he saw someone trying to mug the old lady across the street, had his handgun outta the safe, and caught the kid.....VERY easily, as his wife dialed 911. he held the kid at bay till the pd got there. funny thing is nothing happened in our neighborhood like that beofre....and not since.
-
I wasn't directing that statement to anyones posts in this thread, but just making a general statement regarding our current crop of politicians and anti gun activists and their continued pleas/demands for "reasonable" gun laws in order to "save the children".
I guess I'm just fed up with how and more importantly WHY laws are made these days. Seems that none of them are based on objective facts and hard data anymore but are based on "if's" "could's", "might's", and "possibly's" with the sole purpose of trying to prevent something from happening that really isn't even a problem based on solid facts, but only on perception, fear, or ignorance.
If people are honestly so concerned about preventing childhood deaths, why are they going after one of the least likely causes of childhood deaths, yet the only one that is a Costituntional Right?
I have 2 kids, and I would hate to see either of them seriously injured or God forbid killed, but if my kids had something happend to them is say a car crash, I wouldn't try to outlaw cars, I would want the person responsible held accountable. That was the point I tried to get across earlier. If person A has his Ford car stolen, and person B who stole the car runs over my kid, I'm going after person B because he was the one driving the car. Person A did nothing wrong. Ford did nothing wrong. Person B did do something wrong.
Unfortantly that's not how most people in this country think anymore. They want person A held accountable for "letting" the car get stolen, Ford should be held accountable for making a car that could be stolen, and person B only did what he did because person A and Ford enabled him to do it and he had a bad childhood and is misunderstood and disenfranchised with the current state of society.
Common sense is so far out the window anymore I honestly don't know how anyone lives anymore.
-
I secure my guns in a lockable case... my home, our Trucks and cars.
-
I have ZERO problem with requiring new firearms owners to pass a NRA certified safety course.
-
I have ZERO problem with requiring new firearms owners to pass a NRA certified safety course.
es, but controlled and administered by the nra.......not the govt
-
my original point is basic and simple,
remove all of the laws governing firearms currently on the books. dump them all they are worthless.
make every individual who chooses to own the weapon responsible for learning how to handle it properly and for its reasonable security from theft and/or misuse. (key word being reasonable)
permanently remove from society all those who bring harm to another with a weapon during the commission of a felony.
anyone who cant understand or accept the responsibility of taking all reasonable actions to ensure the secure and safe ownership of their weapons should not own them. if an individual does own one and fails in these responsibilities then they should suffer for the harms caused by their own lazy irresponsibility. if the owner did all that was reasonable to secure their weapons and those weapons were stolen anyways, then the prior owner would be held harmless because he acted in a reasonable and responsible manner.
i don't understand how this is such a point of contention.
FLOTSOM
-
Gun laws of New York, nobody carries and it takes months for the permit..................
Crime Rate - HIGH
Texas or Minnesota, everybody got a gun........
Crime Rate - Much lower
Go figure
-
wellll, yes and no.......
if my brother was shot with one of your stolen guns.....and it was stolen because you keep it in the closet, or under the cushion on the sofa, rather than locked up........you better bet your arse i'm commin after you too.
THAT'S the point here i think.
i keep my archery stuff locked away. well...except for the robinhooded arrows that is. everyone i know(and most of my neighbors have nice little arsenals) keeps their stuff safely locked away.
just for the record, sam up the street, when he saw someone trying to mug the old lady across the street, had his handgun outta the safe, and caught the kid.....VERY easily, as his wife dialed 911. he held the kid at bay till the pd got there. funny thing is nothing happened in our neighborhood like that beofre....and not since.
Don't own a gun. I understand what your talking about though.
-
my original point is basic and simple,
remove all of the laws governing firearms currently on the books. dump them all they are worthless.
make every individual who chooses to own the weapon responsible for learning how to handle it properly and for its reasonable security from theft and/or misuse. (key word being reasonable)
permanently remove from society all those who bring harm to another with a weapon during the commission of a felony.
anyone who cant understand or accept the responsibility of taking all reasonable actions to ensure the secure and safe ownership of their weapons should not own them. if an individual does own one and fails in these responsibilities then they should suffer for the harms caused by their own lazy irresponsibility. if the owner did all that was reasonable to secure their weapons and those weapons were stolen anyways, then the prior owner would be held harmless because he acted in a reasonable and responsible manner.
i don't understand how this is such a point of contention.
FLOTSOM
Because telling me I have to keep my weapons in my home in an unusable condition is NOT reasonable. You've said several times that they should be locked in a safe or have trigger locks on them while in the home. That makes them unusable.
You've also said that if I left my house and someone broke in and took them I should be held responsible. Don't I have a REASONABLE expectation that my home will not be broken into, therefor as long as my weapons are in my home with the door locked that they are 100% secure?
See there is where your idea of reasonable and mine differ. I have EVERY REASON to believe my weapons are 100% properly secured as long as they are in MY home with the door locked when I am away. Again it's no different than my truck. When I park my truck and lock the doors I have the reasonable expectation that it will be sitting right where I left it when I return along with the gun under the seat if I'm not carrying it on me for whatever reason. How MY weapons are stored in MY home is of no concern to anyone other than me.
Besides how are you going to prove my weapons weren't properly secured by your standards? All I would have to do is buy a trigger lock for every gun I own. If one gets stollen, I toss the lock before I call the police and tell them, yes it had a trigger lock on it, here's the key for it, and I'm in the clear. As far as the police know I took "reasonable" messures to ensure my weapon couldn't be stollen or used by someone else. If they catch the criminal and he tells them it didn't have one on it, well it's his word against mine, and I wasn't caught with a stolen weapon nor have a criminal history. Who's a jury going to believe?
-
Because telling me I have to keep my weapons in my home in an unusable condition is NOT reasonable. You've said several times that they should be locked in a safe or have trigger locks on them while in the home. That makes them unusable.
You've also said that if I left my house and someone broke in and took them I should be held responsible. Don't I have a REASONABLE expectation that my home will not be broken into, therefor as long as my weapons are in my home with the door locked that they are 100% secure?
See there is where your idea of reasonable and mine differ. I have EVERY REASON to believe my weapons are 100% properly secured as long as they are in MY home with the door locked when I am away. Again it's no different than my truck. When I park my truck and lock the doors I have the reasonable expectation that it will be sitting right where I left it when I return along with the gun under the seat if I'm not carrying it on me for whatever reason. How MY weapons are stored in MY home is of no concern to anyone other than me.
Besides how are you going to prove my weapons weren't properly secured by your standards? All I would have to do is buy a trigger lock for every gun I own. If one gets stollen, I toss the lock before I call the police and tell them, yes it had a trigger lock on it, here's the key for it, and I'm in the clear. As far as the police know I took "reasonable" messures to ensure my weapon couldn't be stollen or used by someone else. If they catch the criminal and he tells them it didn't have one on it, well it's his word against mine, and I wasn't caught with a stolen weapon nor have a criminal history. Who's a jury going to believe?
well Hornet ill answer your last question first. if you have ever used a trigger guard or breach lock (of quality) you would understand that to remove these items by force leaves heavy marks on the weapon. especially if the person removing it has no real experience with them. they will in more Case than not damage the weapon long before removing the lock. so unless the weapon showed tooling marks or the person stealing the weapon had a key to your trigger guard or breach lock then your story of "it was there but he removed it" would easily be seen as the lie that it is.
is your vehicle properly secured if you lock the doors but leave the windows open? is your vehicle secure if you lock the doors but leave the keys in the ignition with the motor running? is your home secure if you lock the front door but leave the back door open? or if you leave the windows up?
you keep saying "unusable", well if you didn't catch it before ill say it again. if you are with the weapon or wearing it as a side arm ect then it need not be locked, it is under the security of your direct supervision. if you are not there, if your weapon is at home and you are not, or if you decide to leave it under the seat of your car then what difference is it to you that it is usable? for whose use is it that you wish for it to be ready? the guy that steals your car? the guy that walks into your home and is inside waiting for you or your children to walk inside? or is it for the friends of you children who come over and find them? who? answer that question, who is the gun to be kept ready for if your not there with it?
to be honest you talk like a lawyer and not like anyone who has a history in LE. reasonable expectation? that's just lawyer lingo for "i don't want to be responsible for myself".
doesn't the rest of society have the reasonable expectation that you will act in a responsible manner by securing your weapons when you are not directly supervising them? doesn't society have the reasonable expectations that neither they nor their children will be harmed by the weapons in you CARE CUSTODY an CONTROL?
in today's state of decline doesn't a person have a reasonable expectation that at some point their house will be broken into and everything left in the open will be stolen? that their car will be stolen? that their teen age children or the friends thereof will steal things from their home?
your only real reasonable expectation is that if you allow something to happen by your failure to take reasonable steps to prevent it then it will happen and you should be held responsible for your failure.
we discuss helping to ensure the safety of people without heavy gun control and you counter it with I'm wayward and self and want to do things my way even if it endangers others. that does not sound like any LEO i have ever known.
secure your weapons when they are unattended, nothing is unreasonable about it. those who fail time and again to do so are the greatest cause of concern to those who wish to keep and enjoy their right to bear arms without thousands of laws governing that right.
FLOTSOM
-
The words you use are wrong, but I hear what you're saying. In your home, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. But being broken into is not quite the same. If that were the case you could take your security system and make it a tax deduction. Since home invasion is illegal, the courts, as well as society can only hope and pray that it never happens to them.
You've also said that if I left my house and someone broke in and took them I should be held responsible. Don't I have a REASONABLE expectation that my home will not be broken into, therefor as long as my weapons are in my home with the door locked that they are 100% secure?
And know this... If you are home when your house gets broken into, you decide to shoot the robber and they live...... YOU WILL BE SUED, and you will lose.
The only way to go is this.....
Kill them. When the police arrive, the first thing out of your mouth "I shot him, he's in the bedroom, he told me he had a gun and he'd kill my wife. I don't know what happened next, he ran into the room and had his hand in his jacket. Thought he was pulling out the gun he said he had. So i shot him."
That will give you an 80%.
-
we've concluded in the last thread that the only gun control would be to ban them outright, as long as they are legal in one form or another, the wrong people will be able to get their hands on them
heck, even they were illegal the wrong people would still be able to get a hold of them (ex: drugs)
Yep the problem would be that the only folks with weapons would be the criminals and law enforcement.. I don't no about all of u but I think I should be able to defend myself against the criminal element... :salute
-
Because telling me I have to keep my weapons in my home in an unusable condition is NOT reasonable. You've said several times that they should be locked in a safe or have trigger locks on them while in the home. That makes them unusable. only when you're out.
You've also said that if I left my house and someone broke in and took them I should be held responsible. Don't I have a REASONABLE expectation that my home will not be broken into, therefor as long as my weapons are in my home with the door locked that they are 100% secure?not these days. i live in a relativly safe neighborhood. i've fallen asleep with my garaqge and front door wide open, nothing bad happened. i still keep my archery stuff locked away though. like i mentioned before....put yourself on the other side of the equation.
See there is where your idea of reasonable and mine differ. I have EVERY REASON to believe my weapons are 100% properly secured as long as they are in MY home with the door locked when I am away. Again it's no different than my truck. When I park my truck and lock the doors I have the reasonable expectation that it will be sitting right where I left it when I return along with the gun under the seat if I'm not carrying it on me for whatever reason. How MY weapons are stored in MY home is of no concern to anyone other than me. but your truck was not constructed with intentions of being used as a weapon. the person that steals your truck will do so for parts, or the joy-ride. the person that breakes into your home, and steals your gun will do it with intent of harming someone, or selling it illegally to someone with intentions of harming someone. if they broke into your home, and found that 500# gunsafe, they;re gonna go somewhere else, before you come home and shoot em.
Besides how are you going to prove my weapons weren't properly secured by your standards? All I would have to do is buy a trigger lock for every gun I own. If one gets stollen, I toss the lock before I call the police and tell them, yes it had a trigger lock on it, here's the key for it, and I'm in the clear. As far as the police know I took "reasonable" messures to ensure my weapon couldn't be stollen or used by someone else. If they catch the criminal and he tells them it didn't have one on it, well it's his word against mine, and I wasn't caught with a stolen weapon nor have a criminal history. Who's a jury going to believe?how are trigger locks connected? can they be removed without damaging the gun? i would imagine there'd be some sort of visual evidence of it being removed.
<<S>>
-
Yep the problem would be that the only folks with weapons would be the criminals and law enforcement.. I don't no about all of u but I think I should be able to defend myself against the criminal element... :salute
no one has said that we shouldn't be able to own guns in this thread.
-
wellll, yes and no.......
if my brother was shot with one of your stolen guns.....and it was stolen because you keep it in the closet, or under the cushion on the sofa, rather than locked up........you better bet your arse i'm commin after you too.
Now if someone left their keys in a car, say to pay for their gas, and some felon stole the car, leading Police on a high speed chase that ending up tragically killing your brother?? Would you feel the same way towards the actual owner of the car?
Of course you wouldn't Cap. And no disrespect but the reason you would feel that ways towards the gun owner is because the media has mind screwed you into feeling that way. And not just the media but the entire Liberal charade has convinced many of us, if even only in the subconscious, that guns are evil and/or that people really aren't responsible for their own actions. It is not the fault of the gun owner that some scumbag breaks into his house, steals his property, and then uses the property to harm another.
I'm actually appalled that gun owners, any gun owners, anybody period, would think it was the owners fault. And I'm not easy to "appall" anymore. Especially when its something to do with laws or the system.
-
Now if someone left their keys in a car, say to pay for their gas, and some felon stole the car, leading Police on a high speed chase that ending up tragically killing your brother?? Would you feel the same way towards the actual owner of the car?
Of course you wouldn't Cap. And no disrespect but the reason you would feel that ways towards the gun owner is because the media has mind screwed you into feeling that way. And not just the media but the entire Liberal charade has convinced many of us, if even only in the subconscious, that guns are evil and/or that people really aren't responsible for their own actions. It is not the fault of the gun owner that some scumbag breaks into his house, steals his property, and then uses the property to harm another.
I'm actually appalled that gun owners, any gun owners, anybody period, would think it was the owners fault. And I'm not easy to "appall" anymore. Especially when its something to do with laws or the system.
actually, yes i would feel the same. i don't have anyone at all, except for my family. that's it. no wife, no girlfriend. just some friends. my family is more important to me than anyone or anything.
leaving your keys in your car is plain stupid. even just at the gas pumps. it's asking for trouble.
the reason i made that statement that you quoted, though, is because a gun is intended as a weapon. the people that'll steal it intend harm in some way, shape, or form.
if i had spare money to spend on firearms, you can bet your arse i'd have a few nice pieces. the problem i'd have is that i shoot lefty.
you can also bet your arse, that when i wasn't home, my stuff would be in a bigarsed safe. locked away securely. hell, if for no other reason, they're somewhat expensive to have stolen.
i've never EVER been even remotly close to anti-gun. i've had SERIOUS arguments with people when i try to get them to see that if they took our guns away today, crime would skyrocket, since the badguys would still have em. leaving a gun in the drawer, or under the sofa cusion, or under the mattress, when you're not home, is just like leaving the keys in your car.
you don't need em to be there when you walk through the door, especially if you carry. on the other hand though, you can end up seriously FUBARED if you walk in on the burgler, and he has one of em already.
you as a cop, i would think would prefer to know that a gun owners guns are locked away if you're responding to a break-in. most likely the guy wasn't armed when he went in, but guns left out...he is now.
i don't say ANY of this to critisize anyone. but the fact is, that when these guns get stolen, THAT gives the anti-gun nutballs an incredibly strong argument.
i don't want to see our rights taken away. but flotsum i think nailed it a couple pages ago. the right bears responsibility.
ooo.....you guys all like the car analogy.
so since i have my drivers lisence, i can drive however i want, whenever i want? i have the right to go 110mph everywhere i drive, because i earned my lisence, right? HELL NO I DON'T!!
with my ownership of my car(s), i also bear the responsibility to operate my vehicles in a safe, and responsible manner. if i operate my vehicle in such an irresponsible manner, i lose my ability to drive it for a time.
if hornets(this is not intended as a shot at ya dude) guns are out, and someone breaks into his home(which is probably a likely thing wth that bar across the street), while he's out on a date, find his guns...say in the cuppord.....loaded, and not even a trgger lock installed.....well.....that's pretty negligent in my book. now same scenario...they break in, see he has em in a safe,,,,,,they lug it out the back door, manage to get it opened.....no way in hell could he have expected that under any circumstances, and would be in the clear.
like i said, i'm not tring to preach........but if i DID own my own gun, i'd keep it locked up for a few reasons. first safety when i'm gone. second, because i probably couldn't afford to replace it. third, i don't know what paperwork i'd have to do, and wouldn't wanna deal with the bs of reporting it gone, and then the fear that someone i care about might end up on the wrong side of it.
i friend of mine just lost her boyfriend. an ex had been stalking them for a few weeks.....last week, he shot her boyfriend, and took her. she managed to talk hm into letting her out of the car. he bolted. the police caught him, but couldn't talk him into getting out of the car. he shot himself. his gun was legally owned.
this did not change my opinion about guns a bit. i understand where you're commin from rich, but i don't think the media's done much to me. i don't watch news...it either depresses me or pisses me off, so i avoid it. i don't listen to it ont he radio for the same reasons. i'm GLAD my neighbors own em, 'cause ya know where i'm goin if things were to go down the crapper really fast?
now, hopefully, none of what i've just typed offends anyone. it was not intended to.
<<S>>
-
I can understand people's concern about weapons and such, If someone became more familiar with them then some of these perceptions would go away. It's regretful that the bad guys get hold of them, but nothing is going to change that I'm afraid, but I do belive that the more you are trained on them the more you come to respect them, If you have ever been fired upon then you develop an even healthier respect for them.
Weapons will always be around, I just think that you have the right to defend yourself when needed, Nobody wants to take such drastic action, but when the chips are down you will have to do something, Not knocking the Police here, but you can't rely on a squad car showing up in time to save your life.
-
I can understand people's concern about weapons and such, If someone became more familiar with them then some of these perceptions would go away. It's regretful that the bad guys get hold of them, but nothing is going to change that I'm afraid, but I do belive that the more you are trained on them the more you come to respect them, If you have ever been fired upon then you develop an even healthier respect for them.
Weapons will always be around, I just think that you have the right to defend yourself when needed, Nobody wants to take such drastic action, but when the chips are down you will have to do something, Not knocking the Police here, but you can't rely on a squad car showing up in time to save your life.
but.........
nobody's sayin you CAN"T defend yourself.
-
no one has said that we shouldn't be able to own guns in this thread.
read the quote :O the first part :aok That what this is based on :O Get it?
-
but.........
nobody's sayin you CAN"T defend yourself.
:noid
-
you as a cop, i would think would prefer to know that a gun owners guns are locked away if you're responding to a break-in. most likely the guy wasn't armed when he went in, but guns left out...he is now.
I, as a cop, wouldn't consider the home owner responsible for some idiot breaking into his house. And I wouldn't do so if the offender became armed as well. Sorry but I dont believe in intrusive Govt. and I dont believe in making Laws until your blue in the face. For the most part I see the system stacked against the law abiding working person. For the most part I see the system as the enemy.
And I got to tell you this scenario your talking about, where the burglar uses the home owners gun against the responding coppers? Ive never seen happen once. Not once! The closest to it was a Policewoman I came on with who was sleeping off a mid when two burglars broke into her apartment. They raped her repeatedly and then found her gun and star when they were tossing the place. When they found this they beat her until they figured they killed her but she survived. The burglars then took off with her gun.
But never have I heard of the police getting shot at , by a burglar, with the home owners gun. This scenario your talking about just doesn't really happen in real life.