K3
Member
To me, secured means the shotgun is leaning in the corner in such a manner as to not fall down.
Your opinion on this gun law?
- Thread starter DaveBeal
- Start date
- Status
Dave, this is a joke right. You must have a SUPER flame suit to start this thread. The ONLY gun laws I support are the ones that :
1, Punish CRIMINALS for committing a CRIME with a weapon.
2. Possession of a firearm by a known felon DURING the commission of a crime should enact a brutal sentence enhancement. This would discourage criminals from possessing a firearm while on the streets selling drugs or committing other crimes. At some point in their lives, most criminals become good guys. They shouldn't be banned from simple possession for life. I believe this is cruel and unusual to punish someone for life for often petty crimes.
3. Violent criminals and the mentally defective SHOULD be banned for life. Sorry but no guns for you.
1, Punish CRIMINALS for committing a CRIME with a weapon.
2. Possession of a firearm by a known felon DURING the commission of a crime should enact a brutal sentence enhancement. This would discourage criminals from possessing a firearm while on the streets selling drugs or committing other crimes. At some point in their lives, most criminals become good guys. They shouldn't be banned from simple possession for life. I believe this is cruel and unusual to punish someone for life for often petty crimes.
3. Violent criminals and the mentally defective SHOULD be banned for life. Sorry but no guns for you.
I also support castle doctrine laws and any laws providing civil and criminal protections for lawful citizens who use firearms in self defense or the defense of others.
I would also support laws that allow interstate travelers to be exempt from concealed carry laws so they may protect themselves while traveling.
I would also support laws that allow interstate travelers to be exempt from concealed carry laws so they may protect themselves while traveling.
Reminds me of the scene in Blackhawk Down where the Ranger Captain stops the Delta guy in the chow line and reams him out:
Captain Steele: SARGEANT! You know better than that!
Delta Guy: Better than what?
Captain Steele: You're walking around with a HOT gun. You've got a chambered round and the safety isn't on.
Delta Guy ~curls his trigger finger at eye level with the officer~ This is my SAFETY, Cap'n. Walks away.
Captain Steele starts to go after him, but another Delta guy lays a hand on Steele's forearm and advises him to let it go.
Any mechanical device can fail. The only true safety is the operator. Delta ingrains this so strictly that they have only one unbreakable rule that will lead to dismissal from the unit: An unintentional discharge will get you the boot. They don't care if you're ten times the soldier of RAMBO. If you suffer any sort of AD/UD you are history. In Somalia, they actually sent a guy home for just that.
Captain Steele: SARGEANT! You know better than that!
Delta Guy: Better than what?
Captain Steele: You're walking around with a HOT gun. You've got a chambered round and the safety isn't on.
Delta Guy ~curls his trigger finger at eye level with the officer~ This is my SAFETY, Cap'n. Walks away.
Captain Steele starts to go after him, but another Delta guy lays a hand on Steele's forearm and advises him to let it go.
Any mechanical device can fail. The only true safety is the operator. Delta ingrains this so strictly that they have only one unbreakable rule that will lead to dismissal from the unit: An unintentional discharge will get you the boot. They don't care if you're ten times the soldier of RAMBO. If you suffer any sort of AD/UD you are history. In Somalia, they actually sent a guy home for just that.
El Tejon
Member
No. This shifts responsibility to someone other than the bad actor.
However, gun safety is very important. I would rather pass a law making a semester long firearm safety mandatory in grade school, junior high, high school and firearms testing required for graduation. I would also have a firearms test for voting.
Mechanical devices and laws are all feckless in the face of human ignorance and outright stupidity. Education is always the cure.
However, gun safety is very important. I would rather pass a law making a semester long firearm safety mandatory in grade school, junior high, high school and firearms testing required for graduation. I would also have a firearms test for voting.
Mechanical devices and laws are all feckless in the face of human ignorance and outright stupidity. Education is always the cure.
svtruth
Member
Capital
NO
Here in RI the law reads that if a person commits a crime in obtaining your gun, you are held harmless for anything he does with the gun.
NO
Here in RI the law reads that if a person commits a crime in obtaining your gun, you are held harmless for anything he does with the gun.
jrfoxx
Member
I'm gonna be different, and vote against the grain, and say............................NO!
MASTEROFMALICE
member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2007
- Messages
- 711
No but yes.
I don't think there should be a law, but more importantly, people should WANT to take care of their own gear. Very few things irritate me quite as much as taking a burglary/stolen gun report and having the guy tell me, "Gee, I never thought they'd look in the shoebox in the closet."
Ladies and Gentlemen, they ALWAYS look in the shoebox in the closet. If you're taking the time to hide the gun then you acknowledge that someone out there wants to steal it. If you think someone will steal it then you need to secure it.
For the same reason why you OWN a gun because something may happen, you should SECURE a gun because something may happen.
I don't think there should be a law, but more importantly, people should WANT to take care of their own gear. Very few things irritate me quite as much as taking a burglary/stolen gun report and having the guy tell me, "Gee, I never thought they'd look in the shoebox in the closet."
Ladies and Gentlemen, they ALWAYS look in the shoebox in the closet. If you're taking the time to hide the gun then you acknowledge that someone out there wants to steal it. If you think someone will steal it then you need to secure it.
For the same reason why you OWN a gun because something may happen, you should SECURE a gun because something may happen.
Master Blaster
Member
Great idea NOT.
How is this you are responsible for you children's actions, if your child steals something, or assaults somone, then I think we should prosecute you and your wife for the crime to the fullest extent of the law. But hey why stop there? you are your brother's keeper right? So if an aquaintence or a relative commits a crime then you will also be prosecuted for it. Lets say your brother gets drunk and kills somone, then you your wife your parents and all of your cousins will go to jail too.
Or How about if a burglar breaks into your house, obviously you have bought something valuable to entice him to do this so we will lock you up for burglary. If your wife gets raped, she enticed the rapist with her wiles, he is just a victim, 100 lashes and ten years in jail for her, and 100 lashes and 20 years for you since you let this happen.
Sound good??
When an idiot drinks Crown Royal and gets into his ford explorer and kills a family of four, we will lock up all of the workers at the crown royal plant, all of the workers at the Ford plant, and the dealer who sold the liqour and the car as well.
Makes as much sense, NONE, as what you are suggesting.
GeezerwithGuns
Member
This is another proposed "law" that punishes the law abiding. At the same time, why not prosecute the owners of cars, knives, baseball bats and tool boxes (lots of really deadly stuff in there) if they allow access to these "deadly" weapons to commit mayhem?
Just plain stupid. Punish the predators, not the prey......Get it?
Sounds like another brain fa*t idea brought to you by the "It takes a village" morons.
Just plain stupid. Punish the predators, not the prey......Get it?
Sounds like another brain fa*t idea brought to you by the "It takes a village" morons.
SamTuckerMTNMAN
Member
no
no
--------
someone picks up my scissors an stabs someone. . .
someone gets a bat from my garage and beats a kid to death . . .
someone takes a cord from my piano and chokes someone . . .
someone takes poison from my home or garage and knowingly uses it to harm an animal or person...
someone throws my computer at someone elses face . . .
someone takes a knife, or sword, or bow, and stabs another person . . .
or someone takes without permission my weapon and kills or hurts another person . . .
people should be responsible for their actions, and be held accountable
Sam
ps - my whole life growing up I had access to our entire arsenal of family rifles and ammo. I didnt touch or think about touching them without Dad or Grandpa until I was old enough and by then I learned proper handling and safe use and always asked before going out to shoot.
no
--------
someone picks up my scissors an stabs someone. . .
someone gets a bat from my garage and beats a kid to death . . .
someone takes a cord from my piano and chokes someone . . .
someone takes poison from my home or garage and knowingly uses it to harm an animal or person...
someone throws my computer at someone elses face . . .
someone takes a knife, or sword, or bow, and stabs another person . . .
or someone takes without permission my weapon and kills or hurts another person . . .
people should be responsible for their actions, and be held accountable
Sam
ps - my whole life growing up I had access to our entire arsenal of family rifles and ammo. I didnt touch or think about touching them without Dad or Grandpa until I was old enough and by then I learned proper handling and safe use and always asked before going out to shoot.
Hells no.
Here's a better Idea lets just deal with the people that break the law instead of looking for more people to blame.
Also if the criminal dies, we shouldn't look to blame their family, friend, relatives etc just because they knew the person.
The only time to blame those that knew the person is if they helped plan, or knew about it and could have stopped it.
Its like saying companies should be held liable if their employees commit crimes using items bought with money paid to them by that company....
Or gun manufacturers should be held liable if someone uses a gun they built in a crime.
Or holding a bar tender liable if someone drives home drunk and kills people. (Yes I am aware this happens and it is total BS from a law and logical standpoint).
People should take responsibility for their actions. And seriously stop looking for more people to prosecute than those directly responsible for the crime.
Here's a better Idea lets just deal with the people that break the law instead of looking for more people to blame.
Also if the criminal dies, we shouldn't look to blame their family, friend, relatives etc just because they knew the person.
The only time to blame those that knew the person is if they helped plan, or knew about it and could have stopped it.
Its like saying companies should be held liable if their employees commit crimes using items bought with money paid to them by that company....
Or gun manufacturers should be held liable if someone uses a gun they built in a crime.
Or holding a bar tender liable if someone drives home drunk and kills people. (Yes I am aware this happens and it is total BS from a law and logical standpoint).
People should take responsibility for their actions. And seriously stop looking for more people to prosecute than those directly responsible for the crime.
MiddleAgedKen
Member
No. Someone takes a brick from the edge of my garden and brains someone else with it--am I responsible? Someone steals my car and uses it in a crime--am I responsible?
yeah im pretty much with everyone else who says "no".
BTW, whether i allowed access to that gun or not, if that person used it to commit a crime, you bet you butt im saying it was stolen.
Look at it this way, stealing is taking something that does not belong to you without permission. If someone told you that they wanted to use your firearm to commit a crime, would you give them permission to take it? I would not. Therefore, access or no access, if its used to commit a crime without my knowing, it was stolen. Thats just my opinion.
BTW, whether i allowed access to that gun or not, if that person used it to commit a crime, you bet you butt im saying it was stolen.
Look at it this way, stealing is taking something that does not belong to you without permission. If someone told you that they wanted to use your firearm to commit a crime, would you give them permission to take it? I would not. Therefore, access or no access, if its used to commit a crime without my knowing, it was stolen. Thats just my opinion.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
No. If your carelessness rises to the level of criminal culpability, then there are already other laws on the books, not specific to firearms, under which you can be prosecuted. I am generally opposed to any laws that have the effect of demonizing firearms by making "special" crimes associated with them.
romma
Member
Never! However, I do take precautions to secure my firearms. I don't need the .Gov to make me be!
No !
We actually had a bill proposed that sounded pretty much the same . Of course , it was defeated . It boiled down to what has already been expressed here . The person committing a crime etc is the responsible person , not the owner who had the firearm stolen/ "borrowed" .
We actually had a bill proposed that sounded pretty much the same . Of course , it was defeated . It boiled down to what has already been expressed here . The person committing a crime etc is the responsible person , not the owner who had the firearm stolen/ "borrowed" .
What is the difference between allowing someone to access and not prevent them from accessing?
Say someone has music on a shared folder, and someone else downloads it all to theirs? Is that piracy because they didn't take extra measures to prevent others from accessing their property?
Do they have to take active measures to prevent, or merely not take measures to incite.
Say someone has music on a shared folder, and someone else downloads it all to theirs? Is that piracy because they didn't take extra measures to prevent others from accessing their property?
Do they have to take active measures to prevent, or merely not take measures to incite.
MASTEROFMALICE
member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2007
- Messages
- 711
The difference between music on a computer and a firearm is the end result of their theft.
A criminal takes a firearm for one reason only, to commit more crime with it. The stakes are higher with a stolen firearm than anything else I can think of.
A criminal takes a firearm for one reason only, to commit more crime with it. The stakes are higher with a stolen firearm than anything else I can think of.
3 gun
Member
NO! NO! NO!
Define "lock". Define "secure". Define "access". Define "reasonable". Define "allow".
This idea does nothing to stop illegal acts but opens up to charges anyone who has a gun stolen.
Horrible idea, start to finish.
Define "lock". Define "secure". Define "access". Define "reasonable". Define "allow".
This idea does nothing to stop illegal acts but opens up to charges anyone who has a gun stolen.
Horrible idea, start to finish.
jaholder1971
Member
No.
Here in KS there's already case law that leaves a person civilly liable for this.
Here in KS there's already case law that leaves a person civilly liable for this.
No.
If you draw a parallel to social host liability for furnishing liquor to someone that gets drunk and kills someone on the road, you would not charge a homeowner with a crime if someone stole a bottle of scotch from their liquor cabinet and then killed someone on the road. Or a car owner if their car was stoled and used to run someone over.
And you probably couldn't charge the car owner if the key was left in the ignition or the homeowner if the liquor wasn't in a locked cabinet.
And remember, a criminal prosecution is basically a lawsuit by the government against a person for acts against "society." For acts that do not rise to the level of a crime, there are still lawsuits by victims.
If you draw a parallel to social host liability for furnishing liquor to someone that gets drunk and kills someone on the road, you would not charge a homeowner with a crime if someone stole a bottle of scotch from their liquor cabinet and then killed someone on the road. Or a car owner if their car was stoled and used to run someone over.
And you probably couldn't charge the car owner if the key was left in the ignition or the homeowner if the liquor wasn't in a locked cabinet.
And remember, a criminal prosecution is basically a lawsuit by the government against a person for acts against "society." For acts that do not rise to the level of a crime, there are still lawsuits by victims.
- Status
