Gun Violence Stat

[autigeremt 6,598]

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.

It's about HIS world view not yours......

[homersapien 11,362]

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.

First, I didn't say adequately "stored", I said adequately "secured". It's not likely a gun will be stolen if it's actually with you and you are conscious (for example).

[autigeremt 6,598]

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.

It's not likely a gun will be stolen if it's actually with you and you are conscious.

Yeah....like you can carry it everywhere you go.....

[homersapien 11,362]

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.

It's about HIS world view not yours......

Of course what I post is about my world view. It's up to you to express yours. (That's what the forum is all about.)

[homersapien 11,362]

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.

It's not likely a gun will be stolen if it's actually with you and you are conscious.

Yeah....like you can carry it everywhere you go.....

Well, that's not for me, but plenty of people feel that way. But when I am home and in bed my handgun is within easy reach. I don't have to get up and dial a safe combination. Likewise, my shotgun is loaded and accessible, but hidden. I do have to unlock a trigger guard for it however.

See the loss/theft fine as an incentive not to lose your gun. It wouldn't be a major crime to have your gun stolen, but you should pay a fine for it. Sort of like a speeding ticket for being careless. After all, having your guns stolen does present a danger to the public, right?

[Mikey 16,575]

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.

That 400,000 figure assumes that the 250,000 plus of those that are suicides won't find a knife in the kitchen drawer. They will kill themselves if they want to, gun or not. It also fails to take into account the innocent lives saved because an honest citizen was legally armed.

Also, the problem can be addressed by stronger enforcement of existing laws. Making new laws is cheap and affords the opportunity for the sponsors to do a lot of chest thumping. Enforcing the laws, old and any new ones is expensive and takes a lot of work with no political gains. That's why the (IMO adequate) laws already on the books aren't being enforced while the politicians bellow for new laws.

[autigeremt 6,598]

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.

It's not likely a gun will be stolen if it's actually with you and you are conscious.

Yeah....like you can carry it everywhere you go.....

Well, that's not for me, but plenty of people feel that way. But when I am home and in bed my handgun is within easy reach. I don't have to get up and dial a safe combination. Likewise, my shotgun is loaded and accessible, but hidden. I do have to unlock a trigger guard for it however.

See the loss/theft fine as an incentive not to lose your gun. It wouldn't be a major crime to have your gun stolen, but you should pay a fine for it. Sort of like a speeding ticket for being careless. After all, having your guns stolen does present a danger to the public, right?

In your world, according to this, it is possible for the victim to be the criminal. WOW! :blink:

[Strychnine 1,802]

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?

Homer, I own automatic weapons. Three of them. The cost of replacing them, if it were even possible, would likely be in excess of $100,000.

Depending on the market, the non-NFA weapons could be around $10,000. That is a ridiculous fine for me to pay because someone stole them from me. How is something in a locked house, or a locked car not adequately secured? If I keep a firearm in my door panel, glove compartment, or center console for protection or peace of mind, it is not my fault at all that someone broke into my locked car and stole it. If I'm on the way to the range, and have all three NFA weapons with me, how is it my fault if someone robbed me at gunpoint and took my car when I stopped to get gas or get a few bottles of water?

I have no issue with a licensing system for the possession of firearms, and I have no problem with private sales having to go through the same checks as commercial sales. I have no problem with mandatory reporting of stolen firearms, and I have no idea why someone wouldn't report a stolen firearm (unless it was already illegal). Fines for having a firearm stolen? That's ridiculous.

[homersapien 11,362]

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?

Homer, I own automatic weapons. Three of them. The cost of replacing them, if it were even possible, would likely be in excess of $100,000.

Depending on the market, the non-NFA weapons could be around $10,000. That is a ridiculous fine for me to pay because someone stole them from me. How is something in a locked house, or a locked car not adequately secured? If I keep a firearm in my door panel, glove compartment, or center console for protection or peace of mind, it is not my fault at all that someone broke into my locked car and stole it. If I'm on the way to the range, and have all three NFA weapons with me, how is it my fault if someone robbed me at gunpoint and took my car when I stopped to get gas or get a few bottles of water?

I have no issue with a licensing system for the possession of firearms, and I have no problem with private sales having to go through the same checks as commercial sales. I have no problem with mandatory reporting of stolen firearms, and I have no idea why someone wouldn't report a stolen firearm (unless it was already illegal). Fines for having a firearm stolen? That's ridiculous.

Whoa..... I just imagined this idea during this thread. It's not like I've really worked through it.

I am just thinking of a way we can impose general accountability for gun ownership, not to punish people who are already responsible. You could write specifications for gun security within such a law that if met for a specific gun, would make exempt you from such a penalty - or as a see it for a violation of basic security. I can imagine that many hobbyists/collectors/enthusiasts with a significant investment in their guns probably have reasonable security as it is.

[Strychnine 1,802]

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?

Homer, I own automatic weapons. Three of them. The cost of replacing them, if it were even possible, would likely be in excess of $100,000.

Depending on the market, the non-NFA weapons could be around $10,000. That is a ridiculous fine for me to pay because someone stole them from me. How is something in a locked house, or a locked car not adequately secured? If I keep a firearm in my door panel, glove compartment, or center console for protection or peace of mind, it is not my fault at all that someone broke into my locked car and stole it. If I'm on the way to the range, and have all three NFA weapons with me, how is it my fault if someone robbed me at gunpoint and took my car when I stopped to get gas or get a few bottles of water?

I have no issue with a licensing system for the possession of firearms, and I have no problem with private sales having to go through the same checks as commercial sales. I have no problem with mandatory reporting of stolen firearms, and I have no idea why someone wouldn't report a stolen firearm (unless it was already illegal). Fines for having a firearm stolen? That's ridiculous.

Whoa..... I just imagined this idea during this thread. It's not like I've really worked through it.

I am just thinking of a way we can impose general accountability for gun ownership, not to punish people who are already responsible. You could write specifications for gun security within such a law that if met for a specific gun, would make exempt you from such a penalty - or as a see it for a violation of basic security. I can imagine that many hobbyists/collectors/enthusiasts with a significant investment in their guns probably have reasonable security as it is.

There is no need to punish someone for having a firearm stolen. They committed no crime; the person that stole it did. I could possibly agree with punishing someone for failing to report a stolen firearm that was subsequently used in a crime, but there is only one logical reason for not reporting a stolen firearm (which rules out the effectiveness of that since no sane individual would have an illegal weapon registered to them). That said, any focus on punishing someone for having a firearm stolen is a focus in the wrong direction to me.

Create a license for firearm possession, and make it a felony to possess a firearm while unlicensed. Have private sales go through the same checks (including license) as commercial sales, and make failing to abide by that a felony as well. If government records, and subsequent enforcement based on them, were more reliable, I could agree with registration requirements and a felony for possessing an unregistered firearm. Given the paperwork and hassle one must go through to legally possess an NFA weapon, I do not think simple registration is an unreasonable requirement. That said, I do not think helping the government by registering all of my weapons should be a convenient opportunity for them to collect fees for doing so.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

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?

I answered this in an earlier response that you replied to but since you might probably didn't read my entire post before responding...I don't own any guns. Although, I am very proficient with weapons of all kinds and have expert pistol and rifle qualifications. I don't own weapons because it was a pain keeping them when I lived in base housing...you cannot keep them in your house but have to store them at the armory...and you cannot carry them around legally unless you check them in and out...so...I get time on the range when needed so I don't own a gun of any kind...

[homersapien 11,362]

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?

I answered this in an earlier response that you replied to but since you might probably didn't read my entire post before responding...I don't own any guns. Although, I am very proficient with weapons of all kinds and have expert pistol and rifle qualifications. I don't own weapons because it was a pain keeping them when I lived in base housing...you cannot keep them in your house but have to store them at the armory...and you cannot carry them around legally unless you check them in and out...so...I get time on the range when needed so I don't own a gun of any kind...

That's interesting.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

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?

I answered this in an earlier response that you replied to but since you might probably didn't read my entire post before responding...I don't own any guns. Although, I am very proficient with weapons of all kinds and have expert pistol and rifle qualifications. I don't own weapons because it was a pain keeping them when I lived in base housing...you cannot keep them in your house but have to store them at the armory...and you cannot carry them around legally unless you check them in and out...so...I get time on the range when needed so I don't own a gun of any kind...

That's interesting.

Why is that interesting? You cannot carry weapons on board a military installation and if you get caught up in a random search and they find one it is a big deal now a days carry permit or not. I am a big believer in the second amendment. I grew up hunting. I am ok with people owning multiple fire arms. I am also a believer in being able to 3d print a weapon. Guns are not the problem...People are the problem...before guns people were killing others with a multitude of weapons. People were committing suicide by other means. Guns are a tool like other tools. In public school they used to teach fire arm safety in certain areas of the country. People who really oppose gun ownership don't understand or are typically afraid of guns or they believe that they have armed security and don't own a gun so why should others own a gun. People are the problem...lack of gun education is also a big problem.

[japantiger 4,051]

Which branch Tiger?

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?

I answered this in an earlier response that you replied to but since you might probably didn't read my entire post before responding...I don't own any guns. Although, I am very proficient with weapons of all kinds and have expert pistol and rifle qualifications. I don't own weapons because it was a pain keeping them when I lived in base housing...you cannot keep them in your house but have to store them at the armory...and you cannot carry them around legally unless you check them in and out...so...I get time on the range when needed so I don't own a gun of any kind...

Which branch Tiger?

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

Which branch Tiger?

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?

I answered this in an earlier response that you replied to but since you might probably didn't read my entire post before responding...I don't own any guns. Although, I am very proficient with weapons of all kinds and have expert pistol and rifle qualifications. I don't own weapons because it was a pain keeping them when I lived in base housing...you cannot keep them in your house but have to store them at the armory...and you cannot carry them around legally unless you check them in and out...so...I get time on the range when needed so I don't own a gun of any kind...

Which branch Tiger?

US Navy!!

[alexava 6,973]

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?

I answered this in an earlier response that you replied to but since you might probably didn't read my entire post before responding...I don't own any guns. Although, I am very proficient with weapons of all kinds and have expert pistol and rifle qualifications. I don't own weapons because it was a pain keeping them when I lived in base housing...you cannot keep them in your house but have to store them at the armory...and you cannot carry them around legally unless you check them in and out...so...I get time on the range when needed so I don't own a gun of any kind...

That's interesting.

i kept a shotgun for my uncle for years while he was in the army. he didn't go into detail but said it was beyond a pain in the ass to keep a gun on base.

[autigeremt 6,598]

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?

I answered this in an earlier response that you replied to but since you might probably didn't read my entire post before responding...I don't own any guns. Although, I am very proficient with weapons of all kinds and have expert pistol and rifle qualifications. I don't own weapons because it was a pain keeping them when I lived in base housing...you cannot keep them in your house but have to store them at the armory...and you cannot carry them around legally unless you check them in and out...so...I get time on the range when needed so I don't own a gun of any kind...

That's interesting.

Why is that interesting? You cannot carry weapons on board a military installation and if you get caught up in a random search and they find one it is a big deal now a days carry permit or not. I am a big believer in the second amendment. I grew up hunting. I am ok with people owning multiple fire arms. I am also a believer in being able to 3d print a weapon. Guns are not the problem...People are the problem...before guns people were killing others with a multitude of weapons. People were committing suicide by other means. Guns are a tool like other tools. In public school they used to teach fire arm safety in certain areas of the country. People who really oppose gun ownership don't understand or are typically afraid of guns or they believe that they have armed security and don't own a gun so why should others own a gun. People are the problem...lack of gun education is also a big problem.

[kd4au 1,145]

Since 2001, the harm from terrorists to Americans both here and abroad accounts for 0.8% of all American deaths by firearms in the United States in the same time period.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/03/us/gun-deaths-united-states/

You do know that some of those numbers are terrorism recorded as gun violence don't you.As in the Fort Hood shooting.When the government wants to outlaw guns it's hard for me to trust there numbers.