RunInRed 16,360 Posted November 2, 2015 Author Share Posted November 2, 2015 The US has the highest number of guns per capita in the world ... and there is a high correlation with gun death rates. This isn't a coincidence and the solution isn't rocket science. Unless of course, mentally-ill people only exist in America. No, but infringing on my rights doesn't work, either. We have moral issues here at play....and guns are being used to promote a political outrage for the purpose of electoral advantage. You act like what's being debated is abolishing the 2nd amendment and rounding up all the guns. There's got to be some common ground we all can agree on ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,569 Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 So what do you propose, RIR? Confiscation? From my cold dead fingers....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,569 Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 The US has the highest number of guns per capita in the world ... and there is a high correlation with gun death rates. This isn't a coincidence and the solution isn't rocket science. Unless of course, mentally-ill people only exist in America. No, but infringing on my rights doesn't work, either. We have moral issues here at play....and guns are being used to promote a political outrage for the purpose of electoral advantage. You act like what's being debated is abolishing the 2nd amendment and rounding up all the guns. There's got to be some common ground we all can agree on ... There is....strict ENFORCEMENT of the laws on the books! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,360 Posted November 2, 2015 Author Share Posted November 2, 2015 Here are three ideas I like ... Universal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Unlike drugs, just about every gun starts out legal. (You can make heroin in the remote regions of Afghanistan; you can’t make a handgun that way.) Regulations that make it harder for legal guns to end up in the hands of criminals and psychopaths will make it less likely that those criminals or psychopaths rob or shoot the rest of us. More responsibility on the part of manufacturers for producing safer guns. The phrase “safer gun” may seem like an oxymoron; it’s not. There are many ways that gun technology can be improved to reduce inadvertent harm. Guns can be childproofed, so that young children cannot fire them. Guns can be equipped with “smart chips” so they cannot be fired by anyone but the owner. (This makes them both safer and less likely to be stolen.) Recording the unique ballistic fingerprint on every firearm would make it possible to trace any gun used in a crime back to its owner. Lean on gun dealers to do much more to prevent “straw purchases,” in which a person buys a gun legally with the express intent of passing it on to someone who cannot buy a gun legally (e.g. a convicted felon). We do not consider it acceptable for retailers to sell liquor to people who are underage. So why is this practice in the gun trade not more rigorously opposed, including by gun enthusiasts? Let me connect the dots: If it is harder for bad people to get guns, then fewer bad people will have guns. http://www.usnews.co...duce-gun-deaths I think we could go further as it relates to military-grade weaponry, etc., but let's start with the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,569 Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Here's three ideas I like ... Universal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Unlike drugs, just about every gun starts out legal. (You can make heroin in the remote regions of Afghanistan; you can’t make a handgun that way.) Regulations that make it harder for legal guns to end up in the hands of criminals and psychopaths will make it less likely that those criminals or psychopaths rob or shoot the rest of us. No it won't! All you are doing it making it harder and more complicated for those of us who abide by the law to begin with. This is an insane mindset. Criminals will be criminals...... More responsibility on the part of manufacturers for producing safer guns. The phrase “safer gun” may seem like an oxymoron; it’s not. There are many ways that gun technology can be improved to reduce inadvertent harm. Guns can be childproofed, so that young children cannot fire them. Guns can be equipped with “smart chips” so they cannot be fired by anyone but the owner. (This makes them both safer and less likely to be stolen.) Recording the unique ballistic fingerprint on every firearm would make it possible to trace any gun used in a crime back to its owner. Don't mind ballistics matching but I am not in favor of chips. I'd support another alternative. Lean on gun dealers to do much more to prevent “straw purchases,” in which a person buys a gun legally with the express intent of passing it on to someone who cannot buy a gun legally (e.g. a convicted felon). We do not consider it acceptable for retailers to sell liquor to people who are underage. So why is this practice in the gun trade not more rigorously opposed, including by gun enthusiasts? Let me connect the dots: If it is harder for bad people to get guns, then fewer bad people will have guns. We have laws on the books for age of consent when purchasing a firearm. You can't be under the age of 21 and buy a handgun, for instance. Let me connect the dots....bad people will get their hands on a gun no matter what the government wants to do. http://www.usnews.co...duce-gun-deaths I think we could go further as it relates to military-grade weaponry, etc., but let's start with the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,360 Posted November 2, 2015 Author Share Posted November 2, 2015 Why would you be against universal background checks and close the private sale loophole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japantiger 4,051 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 I am not where I can look it up at the moment, but does anyone know if there is a site that shows # of guns vs. # of gun deaths per state? It is my guess that Alaska would be high in the guns per capita and low in gun deaths per capita. If that is true then it could add an additional wrinkle in this debate. Also, can we parse out the number of self inflicted, suicide gun deaths here? I've ran my fair share and I'd have to say they are factored into this narrative. Suicides represent 60% of the numbers referenced; per the CDC study that produced the chart...as previously noted; there are between 6k-8k murders per year in the US and declining each year. The places where the most deaths occur are in 6 cities; per the FBI stats used in other related posts. I am against any further restrictions on the 2nd amendment as a matter of principle. They won't help either mental illness or the 1% of the murders each year in mass shootings that everyone gets so stirred up about. There are bigger fish to fry. Until we stop the systematic murder of the defenseless in the name of "choice" as a matter of policy, no one should pretend their gun control motives have anything to do with the sanctity of life. 1m lives are ended before they start every year in the name of choice. Over 15,000 babies over 20 weeks are murdered each year in the name of choice. None of these babies were murdered with a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,569 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Why would you be against universal background checks and close the private sale loophole? Because I should have the right to sell my property without infringement. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,569 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 I am not where I can look it up at the moment, but does anyone know if there is a site that shows # of guns vs. # of gun deaths per state? It is my guess that Alaska would be high in the guns per capita and low in gun deaths per capita. If that is true then it could add an additional wrinkle in this debate. Also, can we parse out the number of self inflicted, suicide gun deaths here? I've ran my fair share and I'd have to say they are factored into this narrative. Suicides represent 60% of the numbers referenced; per the CDC study that produced the chart...as previously noted; there are between 6k-8k murders per year in the US and declining each year. The places where the most deaths occur are in 6 cities; per the FBI stats used in other related posts. I am against any further restrictions on the 2nd amendment as a matter of principle. They won't help either mental illness or the 1% of the murders each year in mass shootings that everyone gets so stirred up about. There are bigger fish to fry. Until we stop the systematic murder of the defenseless in the name of "choice" as a matter of policy, no one should pretend their gun control motives have anything to do with the sanctity of life. 1m lives are ended before they start every year in the name of choice. Over 15,000 babies over 20 weeks are murdered each year in the name of choice. None of these babies were murdered with a gun. I was thinking 55% in my own estimation. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumps 3,693 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 I am not where I can look it up at the moment, but does anyone know if there is a site that shows # of guns vs. # of gun deaths per state? It is my guess that Alaska would be high in the guns per capita and low in gun deaths per capita. If that is true then it could add an additional wrinkle in this debate. Actually, Alaska and Alabama, for that matter, are among the worst. Thanks for posting! It looks like I was WAY OFF on gun deaths in Alaska. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU_Tiger_88 417 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 I am not where I can look it up at the moment, but does anyone know if there is a site that shows # of guns vs. # of gun deaths per state? It is my guess that Alaska would be high in the guns per capita and low in gun deaths per capita. If that is true then it could add an additional wrinkle in this debate. Actually, Alaska and Alabama, for that matter, are among the worst. I wish they would publish the data that they used to do this because it seems arranged for their purposes. First off they rate the state laws based on their criteria. Notice that they also don't show each state but cherry pick which states they show. Also, they publish all death rates to include suicide (which if people who wanted to carry this out would do it in another way without a gun). Also, where is the difference broken out on the deaths? Meaning which were in self defense and which were for malicious intent and which were accidental. This debate is rather stupid when you have more deaths each year caused by people using another/tool...i.e. a car....if you include all of the distracted driving, driving under the influence...I mean there was a mass homicide at Ok State the other week but we didn't hear an outcry to stop the deadly driving of a vehicle nor did we hear an outcry to ban the sale of alcohol...I mean there were 8 people killed and many more injured...come on where is the outcry...it was a no driving zone at the time...also to compare the # of deaths for gun vs terrorists is just a silly study or numbers to put out. Also, are the deaths listed in these stats ones that were made by law enforcement? I imagine that the way these numbers are skewed it probably included those...but without the sources it is hard to tell... Also people pushing for chips in guns is just also as crazy because they way they are designed is to either have finger print technology or using some kind of wireless technology...but as we know manufacturers do a piss poor job of securing their wireless technologies so it could easily be hacked or mimicked...and this technology doesn't allow someone who I would authorize the use of my weapon in a defensive situation be capable of using it...the reason is the fingerprint is usually one finger print per gun...and the wireless is usually tied to a piece of jewelery meaning that if I was out of the house the gun would not be usable which would doom a family member from not being able to use the weapon if needed. Now here is one aspect we haven't talked about in these debates....personal responsibility of gun owners...but I forget most on the left don't want to be responsible but want to ensure by laws that we wouldn't enforce until way after the fact to blame someone...a fact that many people might find interesting is I am a huge supporter of the 2nd amendment and I own no guns...but I will fight for the right of others to own one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,360 Posted November 3, 2015 Author Share Posted November 3, 2015 Why would you be against universal background checks and close the private sale loophole? Because I should have the right to sell my property without infringement. Period. Well we all know the 'cost' of that freedom. Common sense rules of the road for the greater good are needed - even if it's a slight inconvenience for law abiding citizens like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,569 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Why would you be against universal background checks and close the private sale loophole? Because I should have the right to sell my property without infringement. Period. Well we all know the 'cost' of that freedom. Common sense rules of the road for the greater good are needed - even if it's a slight inconvenience for law abiding citizens like you. Commons sense is enforcement of crime and strict adherence with the law. Your cost of freedom is your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,360 Posted November 3, 2015 Author Share Posted November 3, 2015 Why would you be against universal background checks and close the private sale loophole? Because I should have the right to sell my property without infringement. Period. Well we all know the 'cost' of that freedom. Common sense rules of the road for the greater good are needed - even if it's a slight inconvenience for law abiding citizens like you. Commons sense is enforcement of crime and strict adherence with the law. Your cost of freedom is your opinion. Ok. But then it's also fair to say the blood of the next mass murder, the next 400,000, should be on the conscience of those who refuse to do anything to try and address the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 I am not where I can look it up at the moment, but does anyone know if there is a site that shows # of guns vs. # of gun deaths per state? It is my guess that Alaska would be high in the guns per capita and low in gun deaths per capita. If that is true then it could add an additional wrinkle in this debate. Also, can we parse out the number of self inflicted, suicide gun deaths here? I've ran my fair share and I'd have to say they are factored into this narrative. I'm sure they are included, and why not? I think they are a significant percentage of all gun deaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Why would you be against universal background checks and close the private sale loophole? Because I should have the right to sell my property without infringement. Period. Well we all know the 'cost' of that freedom. Common sense rules of the road for the greater good are needed - even if it's a slight inconvenience for law abiding citizens like you. Commons sense is enforcement of crime and strict adherence with the law. Your cost of freedom is your opinion. It's not "opinion" to those who bear it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 ..... Now here is one aspect we haven't talked about in these debates....personal responsibility of gun owners...but I forget most on the left don't want to be responsible but want to ensure by laws that we wouldn't enforce until way after the fact to blame someone...a fact that many people might find interesting is I am a huge supporter of the 2nd amendment and I own no guns...but I will fight for the right of others to own one... I disagree. The subject of personal responsibility is basic to both sides. It's the basis for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Granted, no matter what restrictions are passed the problem will always remain due to the number of guns in our society, but that's hardly an argument for making it so easy for them. And talking about responsibility, that's one reason I would advocate registration. If a gun shows up in a crime, then charge the purchaser as an accessory. If you purchase a gun, you are responsible for that gun until it's destroyed, sold or you die. Someone uses it to commit suicide? You are charged as an accessory to it. Stolen from you? You must report it, then pay a fine for allowing it to be stolen. Yeah, I'm all for personal responsibility. (BTW, I own a rifle, shotgun and handgun.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,569 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 ..... Now here is one aspect we haven't talked about in these debates....personal responsibility of gun owners...but I forget most on the left don't want to be responsible but want to ensure by laws that we wouldn't enforce until way after the fact to blame someone...a fact that many people might find interesting is I am a huge supporter of the 2nd amendment and I own no guns...but I will fight for the right of others to own one... I disagree. The subject of personal responsibility is basic to both sides. It's the basis for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Granted, no matter what restrictions are passed the problem will always remain due to the number of guns in our society, but that's hardly an argument for making it so easy for them. And talking about responsibility, that's one reason I would advocate registration. If a gun shows up in a crime, then charge the purchaser as an accessory. If you purchase a gun, you are responsible for that gun until it's destroyed, sold or you die. Someone uses it to commit suicide? You are charged as an accessory to it. Stolen from you? You must report it, then pay a fine for allowing it to be stolen. Yeah, I'm all for personal responsibility. (BTW, I own a rifle, shotgun and handgun.) When you purchase a firearm you are already registering it as the owner of the firearm. Records are kept on those situations. Regardless of who owns what a person who commits a crime with a firearm, knife, bomb, ice pick.....is a criminal. It's pretty simple but only in this politically divisive world we live in is it such a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU_Tiger_88 417 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 I disagree. The subject of personal responsibility is basic to both sides. It's the basis for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Granted, no matter what restrictions are passed the problem will always remain due to the number of guns in our society, but that's hardly an argument for making it so easy for them. And talking about responsibility, that's one reason I would advocate registration. If a gun shows up in a crime, then charge the purchaser as an accessory. If you purchase a gun, you are responsible for that gun until it's destroyed, sold or you die. Someone uses it to commit suicide? You are charged as an accessory to it. Stolen from you? You must report it, then pay a fine for allowing it to be stolen. Yeah, I'm all for personal responsibility. (BTW, I own a rifle, shotgun and handgun.) That is the dumbest thing I have ever read...pay a fine for allowing it to be stolen? Seriously? If that were the case there is a gun store down here in Tampa that would be paying a ton of money when Criminals broke through a concrete wall and stole a ton of guns & ammo and the cops didn't respond in time to catch the criminals...the criminals were caught on video but the alarm wasn't answered by the cops quickly. I disagree about your premise of charging the gun owner for what you stated....however, I will agree that those who knowingly sell to criminals should be prosecuted...there are those that make a great deal of money buying in bulk and then going to sell those guns in places like Chicago and Baltimore but buy them in Indiana and Virginia...the cops could charge those guys and they should.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 I disagree. The subject of personal responsibility is basic to both sides. It's the basis for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Granted, no matter what restrictions are passed the problem will always remain due to the number of guns in our society, but that's hardly an argument for making it so easy for them. And talking about responsibility, that's one reason I would advocate registration. If a gun shows up in a crime, then charge the purchaser as an accessory. If you purchase a gun, you are responsible for that gun until it's destroyed, sold or you die. Someone uses it to commit suicide? You are charged as an accessory to it. Stolen from you? You must report it, then pay a fine for allowing it to be stolen. Yeah, I'm all for personal responsibility. (BTW, I own a rifle, shotgun and handgun.) That is the dumbest thing I have ever read...pay a fine for allowing it to be stolen? Seriously? If that were the case there is a gun store down here in Tampa that would be paying a ton of money when Criminals broke through a concrete wall and stole a ton of guns & ammo and the cops didn't respond in time to catch the criminals...the criminals were caught on video but the alarm wasn't answered by the cops quickly. I disagree about your premise of charging the gun owner for what you stated....however, I will agree that those who knowingly sell to criminals should be prosecuted...there are those that make a great deal of money buying in bulk and then going to sell those guns in places like Chicago and Baltimore but buy them in Indiana and Virginia...the cops could charge those guys and they should.... If your guns are stolen then you didn't have them adequately secured by definition. Now that principle could be fine-tuned - say maybe a commercial establishment that met specified minimum security standards would be exempt, but most thefts are a lot simplier that what you described. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 ..... Now here is one aspect we haven't talked about in these debates....personal responsibility of gun owners...but I forget most on the left don't want to be responsible but want to ensure by laws that we wouldn't enforce until way after the fact to blame someone...a fact that many people might find interesting is I am a huge supporter of the 2nd amendment and I own no guns...but I will fight for the right of others to own one... I disagree. The subject of personal responsibility is basic to both sides. It's the basis for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Granted, no matter what restrictions are passed the problem will always remain due to the number of guns in our society, but that's hardly an argument for making it so easy for them. And talking about responsibility, that's one reason I would advocate registration. If a gun shows up in a crime, then charge the purchaser as an accessory. If you purchase a gun, you are responsible for that gun until it's destroyed, sold or you die. Someone uses it to commit suicide? You are charged as an accessory to it. Stolen from you? You must report it, then pay a fine for allowing it to be stolen. Yeah, I'm all for personal responsibility. (BTW, I own a rifle, shotgun and handgun.) When you purchase a firearm you are already registering it as the owner of the firearm. Records are kept on those situations. Regardless of who owns what a person who commits a crime with a firearm, knife, bomb, ice pick.....is a criminal. It's pretty simple but only in this politically divisive world we live in is it such a big deal. Only one of my guns was purchased from a commercial dealer. The others were purchased from an individual and inherited respectively. And I never implied that anyone who commits a crime with any given weapon is not a criminal, so I don't really get your last sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,569 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 ..... Now here is one aspect we haven't talked about in these debates....personal responsibility of gun owners...but I forget most on the left don't want to be responsible but want to ensure by laws that we wouldn't enforce until way after the fact to blame someone...a fact that many people might find interesting is I am a huge supporter of the 2nd amendment and I own no guns...but I will fight for the right of others to own one... I disagree. The subject of personal responsibility is basic to both sides. It's the basis for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Granted, no matter what restrictions are passed the problem will always remain due to the number of guns in our society, but that's hardly an argument for making it so easy for them. And talking about responsibility, that's one reason I would advocate registration. If a gun shows up in a crime, then charge the purchaser as an accessory. If you purchase a gun, you are responsible for that gun until it's destroyed, sold or you die. Someone uses it to commit suicide? You are charged as an accessory to it. Stolen from you? You must report it, then pay a fine for allowing it to be stolen. Yeah, I'm all for personal responsibility. (BTW, I own a rifle, shotgun and handgun.) When you purchase a firearm you are already registering it as the owner of the firearm. Records are kept on those situations. Regardless of who owns what a person who commits a crime with a firearm, knife, bomb, ice pick.....is a criminal. It's pretty simple but only in this politically divisive world we live in is it such a big deal. Only one of my guns was purchased from a commercial dealer. The others were purchased from an individual and inherited respectively. And I never implied that anyone who commits a crime with any given weapon is not a criminal, so I don't really get your last sentence. General statement, homer. Nothing more......and I don't think you should be required to register the firearms you purchased from another individual or received from a family member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU_Tiger_88 417 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I disagree. The subject of personal responsibility is basic to both sides. It's the basis for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Granted, no matter what restrictions are passed the problem will always remain due to the number of guns in our society, but that's hardly an argument for making it so easy for them. And talking about responsibility, that's one reason I would advocate registration. If a gun shows up in a crime, then charge the purchaser as an accessory. If you purchase a gun, you are responsible for that gun until it's destroyed, sold or you die. Someone uses it to commit suicide? You are charged as an accessory to it. Stolen from you? You must report it, then pay a fine for allowing it to be stolen. Yeah, I'm all for personal responsibility. (BTW, I own a rifle, shotgun and handgun.) That is the dumbest thing I have ever read...pay a fine for allowing it to be stolen? Seriously? If that were the case there is a gun store down here in Tampa that would be paying a ton of money when Criminals broke through a concrete wall and stole a ton of guns & ammo and the cops didn't respond in time to catch the criminals...the criminals were caught on video but the alarm wasn't answered by the cops quickly. I disagree about your premise of charging the gun owner for what you stated....however, I will agree that those who knowingly sell to criminals should be prosecuted...there are those that make a great deal of money buying in bulk and then going to sell those guns in places like Chicago and Baltimore but buy them in Indiana and Virginia...the cops could charge those guys and they should.... If your guns are stolen then you didn't have them adequately secured by definition. Now that principle could be fine-tuned - say maybe a commercial establishment that met specified minimum security standards would be exempt, but most thefts are a lot simplier that what you described. BS...if I have something in a safe and the thieves take that safe then you cannot say that I didn't have them adequately secured. Oh before you say that it should be imbedded in concrete or some such crap....you can't always do it if you live in an apt. also if someone breaks in before I can get a gun out to defend myself then they can also force someone to open up safes, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I disagree. The subject of personal responsibility is basic to both sides. It's the basis for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Granted, no matter what restrictions are passed the problem will always remain due to the number of guns in our society, but that's hardly an argument for making it so easy for them. And talking about responsibility, that's one reason I would advocate registration. If a gun shows up in a crime, then charge the purchaser as an accessory. If you purchase a gun, you are responsible for that gun until it's destroyed, sold or you die. Someone uses it to commit suicide? You are charged as an accessory to it. Stolen from you? You must report it, then pay a fine for allowing it to be stolen. Yeah, I'm all for personal responsibility. (BTW, I own a rifle, shotgun and handgun.) That is the dumbest thing I have ever read...pay a fine for allowing it to be stolen? Seriously? If that were the case there is a gun store down here in Tampa that would be paying a ton of money when Criminals broke through a concrete wall and stole a ton of guns & ammo and the cops didn't respond in time to catch the criminals...the criminals were caught on video but the alarm wasn't answered by the cops quickly. I disagree about your premise of charging the gun owner for what you stated....however, I will agree that those who knowingly sell to criminals should be prosecuted...there are those that make a great deal of money buying in bulk and then going to sell those guns in places like Chicago and Baltimore but buy them in Indiana and Virginia...the cops could charge those guys and they should.... If your guns are stolen then you didn't have them adequately secured by definition. Now that principle could be fine-tuned - say maybe a commercial establishment that met specified minimum security standards would be exempt, but most thefts are a lot simplier that what you described. BS...if I have something in a safe and the thieves take that safe then you cannot say that I didn't have them adequately secured. Oh before you say that it should be imbedded in concrete or some such crap....you can't always do it if you live in an apt. also if someone breaks in before I can get a gun out to defend myself then they can also force someone to open up safes, etc... Well sometimes s*** happens. But - hypothetically speaking of course - I was envisioning a fine equal to the replacement or market value of the gun or $500, whichever is higher. So, how many guns do you have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeBags7277 734 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I disagree. The subject of personal responsibility is basic to both sides. It's the basis for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Granted, no matter what restrictions are passed the problem will always remain due to the number of guns in our society, but that's hardly an argument for making it so easy for them. And talking about responsibility, that's one reason I would advocate registration. If a gun shows up in a crime, then charge the purchaser as an accessory. If you purchase a gun, you are responsible for that gun until it's destroyed, sold or you die. Someone uses it to commit suicide? You are charged as an accessory to it. Stolen from you? You must report it, then pay a fine for allowing it to be stolen. Yeah, I'm all for personal responsibility. (BTW, I own a rifle, shotgun and handgun.) That is the dumbest thing I have ever read...pay a fine for allowing it to be stolen? Seriously? If that were the case there is a gun store down here in Tampa that would be paying a ton of money when Criminals broke through a concrete wall and stole a ton of guns & ammo and the cops didn't respond in time to catch the criminals...the criminals were caught on video but the alarm wasn't answered by the cops quickly. I disagree about your premise of charging the gun owner for what you stated....however, I will agree that those who knowingly sell to criminals should be prosecuted...there are those that make a great deal of money buying in bulk and then going to sell those guns in places like Chicago and Baltimore but buy them in Indiana and Virginia...the cops could charge those guys and they should.... If your guns are stolen then you didn't have them adequately secured by definition. Now that principle could be fine-tuned - say maybe a commercial establishment that met specified minimum security standards would be exempt, but most thefts are a lot simplier that what you described. In order to have them "adequately stored" by your standards, it would seem to defeat the purpose of owning the gun in the first place. It would be so hard to get to in the event of an emergency as to render it useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.