More mass shootings

[DanG 1]

Quote

Exactly.

If something is dangerous only to the owner, then no problem. Want to juggle chainsaws in your basement? Go for it.

But once you have something capable of accidentally killing the guy in the house next to you, expect to see some restrictions on how you use, maintain and store it.

How it keeping your gun locked in a safe when you are not home keeping your neighbor safe?

It is not the same, and I think you know that.

- Dan G

[normiss 801]

Maybe I did.
That's not the point of the discussion so much as safe storage of dangerous items was.

[billvon 2,991]

>How it keeping your gun locked in a safe when you are not home keeping
>your neighbor safe?

Simple example - it prevents your roommate from playing with it and accidentally shooting your neighbor.

[turtlespeed 220]

DanG

Quote

Exactly.

If something is dangerous only to the owner, then no problem. Want to juggle chainsaws in your basement? Go for it.

But once you have something capable of accidentally killing the guy in the house next to you, expect to see some restrictions on how you use, maintain and store it.

How it keeping your gun locked in a safe when you are not home keeping your neighbor safe?

It is not the same, and I think you know that.

It's called a "safe" for a reason.

DUH!



Unless the bullet is loaded in a weapon, a fire would only explode the bullets and damage the safe.

Right

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[DanG 1]

Where do you draw the line on what needs to be locked up and what doesn't? Why guns and not chainsaws? Why guns and not butcher knives? Why guns and not bleach and ammonia?

And to the iriginal point (which no one ever answered) if a burgular steals my carving knife and stabs someone with it, should I be charged as an accessory?

- Dan G

[billvon 2,991]

>Why guns and not chainsaws? Why guns and not butcher knives? Why guns
>and not bleach and ammonia?

Because chainsaws, bleach and ammonia don't accidentally kill the people living next door.

> if a burgular steals my carving knife and stabs someone with it, should I be
>charged as an accessory?

No. He committed the crime; he is charged for it.

[turtlespeed 220]

DanG

Where do you draw the line on what needs to be locked up and what doesn't? Why guns and not chainsaws? Why guns and not butcher knives? Why guns and not bleach and ammonia?

And to the iriginal point (which no one ever answered) if a burgular steals my carving knife and stabs someone with it, should I be charged as an accessory?

That answer depends on who you ask.

Carlin once said, if you think there is a definitive answer, you are part of the problem.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[DanG 1]

Uh, yeah. I was asking the person I asked.

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

Quote

Because chainsaws, bleach and ammonia don't accidentally kill the people living next door.

If someone accidently kills the person next door, whether with a gun or a car, they should be treated exactly the same way. If someone borrows or steals my car and runs over the neighbor, why is that different from someone handling my gun and shooting the neighbor?

Quote

No. He committed the crime; he is charged for it.

But some posters, including you I thought, were in favor of holding a gun owner responsible if a thief steals their gun and commits a crime with it. Seems arbitrary to me.

- Dan G

[billvon 2,991]

>If someone accidently kills the person next door, whether with a gun or a car,
>they should be treated exactly the same way.

Agreed.

>If someone borrows or steals my car and runs over the neighbor, why is that
>different from someone handling my gun and shooting the neighbor?

It's not. Yet you still have to follow laws concerning how you maintain, inspect, register and park your car.

>But some posters, including you I thought, were in favor of holding a gun
>owner responsible if a thief steals their gun and commits a crime with it. Seems
>arbitrary to me.

No, the criminal is responsible for the crime. You are responsible for following the laws pertaining to car maintenance/registration etc (or gun safety.)

[Amazon 7]

billvon

>If someone accidently kills the person next door, whether with a gun or a car,
>they should be treated exactly the same way.

Agreed.

>If someone borrows or steals my car and runs over the neighbor, why is that
>different from someone handling my gun and shooting the neighbor?

It's not. Yet you still have to follow laws concerning how you maintain, inspect, register and park your car.

>But some posters, including you I thought, were in favor of holding a gun
>owner responsible if a thief steals their gun and commits a crime with it. Seems
>arbitrary to me.

No, the criminal is responsible for the crime. You are responsible for following the laws pertaining to car maintenance/registration etc (or gun safety.)

If someone is going to claim to be a responsible weapon owner then they need to lock them up in something a bit more secure than a closet or a pretty display case....
Burglars burgle.... it is what they do.. and if they sell it to someone who uses it to murder some innocent person... I for one do not want to be on the other end of a lawsuit looking for a payday for the "lawyer" and his clients in a wrongful death case because I did not secure my weapons.

[yoink 321]

DanG

But some posters, including you I thought, were in favor of holding a gun owner responsible if a thief steals their gun and commits a crime with it. Seems arbitrary to me.

I'm not in favor of them being charged as an accessory to a crime they didn't commit and had no participation of.

I would be in favor of them being charged with breaking a law that required guns to securely stored.

The penalties for those should be extremely different.

In my world, lets take a hypothetical:

A burgler breaks into your house and steals your gun and uses it to murder someone. They get caught and are charged with murder and are sent to a cell for the rest of their life.

If they've broken into a secured gun safe to get the weapon then you're safe from prosecution. You've done everything you could reasonably be expected to do. If you've left it lying on your bedside table however, then you face some sort of charges for THAT - not for the murder, but for the lack of responsibility to allow someone who shouldn't get access to your firearm and you should have those privileges revoked. You've proven you can't be trusted with them.

[Anvilbrother 0]

None of those laws are to prevent access, theft, and use which leads to a homicide, and that is your arguement here is that someone will use it to kill someone. All those inspection sticker, blinker, horn, etc arguements are irrelevant.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Anvilbrother 0]

yoink

***

But some posters, including you I thought, were in favor of holding a gun owner responsible if a thief steals their gun and commits a crime with it. Seems arbitrary to me.

I'm not in favor of them being charged as an accessory to a crime they didn't commit and had no participation of.

I would be in favor of them being charged with breaking a law that required guns to securely stored.

The penalties for those should be extremely different.

In my world, lets take a hypothetical:

A burgler breaks into your house and steals your gun and uses it to murder someone. They get caught and are charged with murder and are sent to a cell for the rest of their life.

If they've broken into a secured gun safe to get the weapon then you're safe from prosecution. You've done everything you could reasonably be expected to do. If you've left it lying on your bedside table however, then you face some sort of charges for THAT - not for the murder, but for the lack of responsibility to allow someone who shouldn't get access to your firearm and you should have those privileges revoked. You've proven you can't be trusted with them.

You have a locked house equiped with an alarm including glass break sensors, solid core wooden doors, extra long deadbolts, and anti kick hinges. How is that not securing a firearm?

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Amazon 7]

Anvilbrother

******

But some posters, including you I thought, were in favor of holding a gun owner responsible if a thief steals their gun and commits a crime with it. Seems arbitrary to me.

I'm not in favor of them being charged as an accessory to a crime they didn't commit and had no participation of.

I would be in favor of them being charged with breaking a law that required guns to securely stored.

The penalties for those should be extremely different.

In my world, lets take a hypothetical:

A burgler breaks into your house and steals your gun and uses it to murder someone. They get caught and are charged with murder and are sent to a cell for the rest of their life.

If they've broken into a secured gun safe to get the weapon then you're safe from prosecution. You've done everything you could reasonably be expected to do. If you've left it lying on your bedside table however, then you face some sort of charges for THAT - not for the murder, but for the lack of responsibility to allow someone who shouldn't get access to your firearm and you should have those privileges revoked. You've proven you can't be trusted with them.

You have a locked house equiped with an alarm including glass break sensors, solid core wooden doors, extra long deadbolts, and anti kick hinges. How is that not securing a firearm?

What percentage of homes do you think have that and do not have a safe room or a very secured safe in which to store weapons away from say young inquisitive children or their friends or even baby sitters.

[Anvilbrother 0]

I do it's cheap and easy to do. Change out deadbolt, 18 screws for the hinge, size up door, done. You would need bigger tools to break down my door than it would take to open a gun lock box. By then the alarm is going off and whole time you were being recorded.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[yoink 321]

Anvilbrother

I do it's cheap and easy to do. Change out deadbolt, 18 screws for the hinge, size up door, done. You would need bigger tools to break down my door than it would take to open a gun lock box. By then the alarm is going off and whole time you were being recorded.

But then you seem to be a responsible gun owner.

I don't know what the definition of 'secure' is. I don't think it's just whatever is standard for a house.

This is detail - the specifics of what constitutes 'secure' can and should be worked out. I don't know enough about guns to speak knowledgeably.

I DO know that you simply can't stop a determined thief. What I believe is your responsibility as a gun owner is to not present an easy target.

[BartsDaddy 7]

yoink

***

But some posters, including you I thought, were in favor of holding a gun owner responsible if a thief steals their gun and commits a crime with it. Seems arbitrary to me.

I'm not in favor of them being charged as an accessory to a crime they didn't commit and had no participation of.

I would be in favor of them being charged with breaking a law that required guns to securely stored.

The penalties for those should be extremely different.

In my world, lets take a hypothetical:

A burgler breaks into your house and steals your gun and uses it to murder someone. They get caught and are charged with murder and are sent to a cell for the rest of their life.

If they've broken into a secured gun safe to get the weapon then you're safe from prosecution. You've done everything you could reasonably be expected to do. If you've left it lying on your bedside table however, then you face some sort of charges for THAT - not for the murder, but for the lack of responsibility to allow someone who shouldn't get access to your firearm and you should have those privileges revoked. You've proven you can't be trusted with them.
So you recognize thieves can get into a gun safe easily but, if the owners don't lock their guns up in that easily accessible safe they should be charged with a crime.

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[yoink 321]

BartsDaddy

So you recognize thieves can get into a gun safe easily but, if the owners don't lock their guns up in that easily accessible safe they should be charged with a crime.

that is absolutely not what I said.

Don't put words into my mouth.

What I said was

Quote

I don't know what the definition of 'secure' is. I don't think it's just whatever is standard for a house.

This is detail - the specifics of what constitutes 'secure' can and should be worked out. I don't know enough about guns to speak knowledgeably.

I also thought I made it fairly clear that once those standards are defined by knowledgeable people - locksmiths, police etc then those standards should be adhered to, and that there should be a civil penalty for it.

I think that's as clear as I can be. Try not to deliberately obfuscate the matter to serve your own ends. Thanks.

[kallend 2,027]

Amazon

***>If someone accidently kills the person next door, whether with a gun or a car,
>they should be treated exactly the same way.

Agreed.

>If someone borrows or steals my car and runs over the neighbor, why is that
>different from someone handling my gun and shooting the neighbor?

It's not. Yet you still have to follow laws concerning how you maintain, inspect, register and park your car.

>But some posters, including you I thought, were in favor of holding a gun
>owner responsible if a thief steals their gun and commits a crime with it. Seems
>arbitrary to me.

No, the criminal is responsible for the crime. You are responsible for following the laws pertaining to car maintenance/registration etc (or gun safety.)

If someone is going to claim to be a responsible weapon owner then they need to lock them up in something a bit more secure than a closet or a pretty display case....
Burglars burgle.... it is what they do.. and if they sell it to someone who uses it to murder some innocent person... I for one do not want to be on the other end of a lawsuit looking for a payday for the "lawyer" and his clients in a wrongful death case because I did not secure my weapons.

According to the DoJ, some 300,000+ guns are stolen each year in the USA. I doubt that many of those were stored in safes.

That's 300,000 more guns in the hands of criminals.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

yoink

***

But some posters, including you I thought, were in favor of holding a gun owner responsible if a thief steals their gun and commits a crime with it. Seems arbitrary to me.

I'm not in favor of them being charged as an accessory to a crime they didn't commit and had no participation of.

I would be in favor of them being charged with breaking a law that required guns to securely stored.

The penalties for those should be extremely different.

In my world, lets take a hypothetical:

A burgler breaks into your house and steals your gun and uses it to murder someone. They get caught and are charged with murder and are sent to a cell for the rest of their life.

If they've broken into a secured gun safe to get the weapon then you're safe from prosecution. You've done everything you could reasonably be expected to do. If you've left it lying on your bedside table however, then you face some sort of charges for THAT - not for the murder, but for the lack of responsibility to allow someone who shouldn't get access to your firearm and you should have those privileges revoked. You've proven you can't be trusted with them.

The problem here is who defines what resonable is.

You?

What is "resonable" to you may not be to someone else
It is subjective.

There is nothng unreasonable to me to have weapon locked up in a house vs in a house AND in a safe.

So we differ on the topic

who gets to decide?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 801]

The courts.

[rushmc 23]

normiss

The courts.

You make my point

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rushmc

***The courts.

You make my point

You don't think the courts should be involved?

Yet, you are the first to exclaim how the Supreme Court has always upheld the 2nd amendment.

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

******The courts.

You make my point

You don't think the courts should be involved?

Yet, you are the first to exclaim how the Supreme Court has always upheld the 2nd amendment.

No, that is not what I am saying OR implying
Your mind reading fails you yet again

Care to try again?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln