GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Record-Low 26% in U.S. Favor Handgun Ban (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1043668)

PornoMonster 10-31-2011 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 18528486)
No, the law currently does not treat lost or stolen guns this way. I am advocating that guns *should* be treated as Strict Liability matters... not saying that they already are treated that way. Making the change would be as simple as adding a new statute making the 'loss' of any legal gun a Felony. If it were a felony to lose your gun or have it stolen... less people would lose guns and the black-market for guns would quickly dry up in many areas. Also, as previously mentioned, if having your handgun stolen was a felony, any murder proximately caused by that act would constitute felony murder at trial and gun owners would take much more care to secure their arms.



What you say *should* be true, but the simple fact is that more handguns are lost and stolen every year than tigers are lost or stolen. That may surprise you as tigers may try to escape and handguns presumably do not. In my opinion the majority of 'lost or stolen' guns are intentionally 'lost' as part of a black-market operation to put illegal guns on the streets. That is exactly what the law should seek to prevent.



Nobody would keep a hungry tiger in their night table drawer and expect it to stay safe there. Why people keep a loaded handgun in an unlocked night table drawer and expect it to stay safe is beyond me. Furthermore, in the case of Felony Murder it makes absolutely no difference what 'precautions' you take to keep everyone safe. For example, if you are being chased by the cops after a bank heist and choose to go 25 mph in the right lane with your hazard lights on... if anyone dies as a result of the fallout from your felony - you STILL go to jail for murder. Saying the cop was recklessly chasing you does not in any way mitigate your guilt.

The point is, responsible gun ownership is not a problem and never was - irresponsible gun ownership is a massive problem that should be addressed and the responsible gun owners should be willing to step forward in agreement on the issue. For too long people have mistakenly believed gun owners and non-gun owners are at odds. In fact, responsible gun owners and non-gun owners are on the same team... the enemies are irresponsible gun owners and criminals (who in my opinion are exactly the same thing). :2 cents:

You are still grasping fro straws..
A Tiger can get out and walk away.

For the gun in my drawer, Don't touch my shit, and get the fuck out of my house! LOL
If you have children, Trigger lock it!
Your car chase story -- You are already breaking the LAW
Keep Grasping!

Vendzilla 10-31-2011 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucy - CSC (Post 18528531)
I am against hand gun ownership, However with everything that is happening in the world today I would actually buy one after taking some course on how to use it.

Find a local indoor shooting range, Tell the guy you want to learn unless you know someone that can teach you, you can rent guns while you're there. Ask them for a small caliber revolver to start, then move up till you're comformtable. Don't let a cop teach you, try to get someone with military training teach you. Most cops can't shoot very well.

Vendzilla 10-31-2011 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 18528486)
The point is, responsible gun ownership is not a problem and never was - irresponsible gun ownership is a massive problem that should be addressed and the responsible gun owners should be willing to step forward in agreement on the issue. For too long people have mistakenly believed gun owners and non-gun owners are at odds. In fact, responsible gun owners and non-gun owners are on the same team... the enemies are irresponsible gun owners and criminals (who in my opinion are exactly the same thing). :2 cents:

Don't tell the non gun owners this, the politicians won't have anything to pedal.

I have no problems with non gun owners,

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/f...1363304488.jpg

MaDalton 10-31-2011 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18528577)
Don't tell the non gun owners this, the politicians won't have anything to pedal.

I have no problems with non gun owners,

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/f...1363304488.jpg

there you have proof whats wrong with your society :2 cents:

Vendzilla 10-31-2011 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton (Post 18528603)
there you have proof whats wrong with your society :2 cents:


Where did I say we have a perfect society? I liked it over in Prague, food was kinda bland though.

Why 10-31-2011 06:08 PM

im a firm believer in the 2nd amendment, i think EVERYONE in the world ought to own a gun(given certain qualifications of course), or at least have them available and anyone who cares to take my guns(as cliche as it sounds) can pry them out of my cold dead hands.

k, thanks

femdomdestiny 10-31-2011 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton (Post 18523552)
i dont want to live anywhere where i would feel the need to have a gun for my safety

Exactly. I never needed a gun, I've been in fight and conflicts dozen times, and I am glad that I didn't have a gun. Guns are for cowards . Also, they are changing your way of thinking and completely ruining normal way of life. Almost everyday I am reading in news drunk people killed each other, wife killed husband, accidental firing by kids, etc...all that mess just because morons had guns. I hope most of people are like you in Czech republic- I've wanted to visit Prague in November but I am out of money for travelling because of Panda....one more reason to avoid guns, I would kill every Panda that I meet....

femdomdestiny 10-31-2011 06:18 PM

guns
 
Guns are for primitive societies. all you people liking guns, just wait to see what ethnic tensions or economic collapse will do....japane have great law about this:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html

Mr Pheer 10-31-2011 06:40 PM

I like the way people get their feathers ruffled over this topic. Its like going on a car forum and asking what is best, synthetic or regular oil? Or go to a motorcycle forum and start a debate about sportbikes vs Harley Davidsons.

keysync 10-31-2011 07:07 PM

I look at it like this.
You can get a shot gun for $150 or so.
Use it for recreation. Shooting clay pigeons on boring weekends. Which I really enjoy doing. And so does my wife and two boys.
Stick it in the closet. And know that it's better to have it and never need it than need it and not have it.
It's like a little inexpensive insurance policy.

Choker 10-31-2011 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Pheer (Post 18528663)
I like the way people get their feathers ruffled over this topic. Its like going on a car forum and asking what is best, synthetic or regular oil? Or go to a motorcycle forum and start a debate about sportbikes vs Harley Davidsons.

Amazing isn't it? People are very passionate about thier guns and their haters are very passionate about them not owning guns. It's a very hot topic.

Domain Diva 10-31-2011 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18527192)
And where did you see that?

I grew up with guns, my daughter grew up with guns, there are things out there that kill more kids than guns do.

Rank Cause of Death Total Deaths No of Deaths Percent

here's a list from 2005
All Deaths 3018 3018 100.00%
1 Unintentional Injury 1176 38.97%
* Mohor Vehicle Traffic 621 20.58%
* Drowning 159 5.27%
* Fire/burn 153 5.07%
* Suffocation 40 1.33%
* Other Land Transport 33 1.09%
* Pedestrian, Other 27 0.89%
* Struck by or Against 20 0.66%
* Unspecified 20 0.66%
* Fall 18 0.60%
* Other Spec., classifiable 17 0.56%
* Poisoning 15 0.50%
* Firearm 14 0.46%

here's a few things that are killing more kids
2 Malignant Neoplasms 537 17.79%
3 Congenital Anomalies 199 6.59%
4 Homicide 140 4.64%
5 Heart Disease 92 3.05%
6 Benign Neoplasms 44 1.46%
7 Septicemia 42 1.39%
8 Chronic Respiratory Disease 41 1.36%
9 Influenza & Pneumonia 38 1.26%
10 Cerebrovascular 33 1.09%
11 Anemias 29 0.96%



Most of these are from ignorant people that thought they underestood guns and didn't

The statistic was " More USA children die in gun accidents than anywhere else in the civilized world" not that its the number 1 cause of child deaths in the USA.

Relentless 11-01-2011 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus H Christ (Post 18528745)
That's the dumbest thing I've ever read on this forum. So if someone steals your car and then uses it in a crime, you should be charged with the same crime?

A car is not an inherently dangerous weapon. If someone steals your sword, nunchucks, gun, tazer, pepper spray or other weapon and hurts someone with it I would have no problem at all with you being held responsible. Owning a weapon is a responsibility, failing to secure a weapon or unsafe use of a weapon is serious and dangerous misconduct. People should be held accountable for their failure to secure weapons and those who wish to avoid that responsibility can simply opt not to own weapons. The exact same thought process should be applied to drugs and alcohol.

If you can use it responiblt and secure it when not in use... Great. If you can not or will not then you should not own it in the first place and should be harshly punished if you do own it but use it improperly or fail to secure it. Your failure to lock away your gun IS my problem when that gun ends up stolen and is used illegally to hurt someone.

12clicks 11-01-2011 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 18527433)
Another common example for Strict Liability cases are those involving 'wild animals' - such as a lion tamer at a circus being held responsible if the lion attacks someone in the crowd (whether he took some precautions to prevent it or not). Allowing your handgun to be stolen is very similar to allowing a wild animal to get loose and attack someone.

If you own guns, how many have you had stolen during your lifetime? I'm going to guess zero. Most gun owners have also had zero guns stolen from them, zero incidents of gun related damage or injury due to guns they have owned and should be allowed to own and use their guns in any way consistent with the law.

However, as gun enthusiasts are quick to point out, most gun related crimes happen with a gun that is illegally owned. And many of those guns are guns that have been 'stolen or lost' by a legal gun owner. That nexus between legal gun purchases and illegal gun usage is the crux of the problem.

Like most things in society, people should be absolutely free to do as they please so long as their own actions or inaction do not cause harm to others in the same society. The decision to own a gun coupled with the failure to secure that gun from theft or loss DOES very seriously cause damage and harm to others in society. People should be able to choose not to own guns, or to own guns responsibly. There is no third choice that is acceptable. I am all for responsible gun ownership and I am also for extremely punitive criminal or civil action against anyone who misuses a gun or fails to responsibly care for it.

The exact same argument applies to drug usage. If someone wants to sit in their own house and do drugs all day without damaging anyone else they should be allowed to smoke, huff, inject or otherwise use whatever they like to get high from BUT the moment that drug ends up in the hands of a minor, causes an intoxicated person to drive a car into a pedestrian or any other damage in society... I frankly don't care what the excuses are - you owned the drug, you misused it or failed to secure it - you are accountable for the outcome.

This not a new or innovative idea regarding criminal law. Felony murder works exactly the same way. If you commit ANY felony and someone dies as a result of the aftermath of your felony, you are guilty of murder even if you never intended for anyone to die. The judicial system 'transfers your intent' from the original felony to the resulting death and holds you accountable. For example, you steal a car and intend to do it peacefully at night when nobody is around. A car chase ensues and during the chase a police car chasing you crashes into another car killing two people. You never meant to kill anybody, but the felony of stealing the car allows you to be prosecuted for the two murders as well.

Our legal system is currently being used to prevent honest responsible people from doing what they want to do because some people can't 'handle' their own freedom. Instead it should allow all people to do what they want, and be used to severely punish anyone who misuses those freedoms or proximately causes damage to society by their own lack of self-accountability.

this idea, no matter how wordy, has been found to be silly here in America and therefore, never seriously considered by either the people or the government.

Relentless 11-01-2011 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 18529386)
this idea, no matter how wordy, has been found to be silly here in America and therefore, never seriously considered by either the people or the government.

Strict liability is part of the existing law. Felony murder is part of the existing law. Neither is silly and both have been codified into our legal system.

Applying those same legal principles to weapon ownership is also not silly and is an easy solution to the idiotic 'yes guns / no guns' debate that too many people are stuck in. As always, thanks for your attempted insults which are entirely unhelpful to the discussion Ronald. :thumbsup

12clicks 11-01-2011 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 18529470)
Strict liability is part of the existing law. Felony murder is part of the existing law. Neither is silly and both have been codified into our legal system.

Applying those same legal principles to weapon ownership is also not silly and is an easy solution to the idiotic 'yes guns / no guns' debate that too many people are stuck in. As always, thanks for your attempted insults which are entirely unhelpful to the discussion Ronald. :thumbsup

there is no debate, silly kid.
there's paragraph after paragraph of what you imagine is best for everyone else.
Everyone else disagrees. Thats why we have liability laws, felony laws yet no laws concerning guns that even remotely reflect what you *wish* for.

as usual, you're wrong. pounding away at your keyboard won't change that.:thumbsup

Relentless 11-01-2011 07:57 AM

There is quite a debate about gun ownership and restrictions on it. There has been one for decades. It is a waste of time. Legally owning a gun is not a problem and never has been, losing a legally owned gun is a major problem. The debate needs to shift to something more constructive... but constructive debate is something you have repeatedly proven to know nothing about. Thanks for contributing nothing, as usual, Ronald. :thumbsup

12clicks 11-01-2011 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 18529525)
There is quite a debate about gun ownership and restrictions on it. There has been one for decades. It is a waste of time. Legally owning a gun is not a problem and never has been, losing a legally owned gun is a major problem. The debate needs to shift to something more constructive... but constructive debate is something you have repeatedly proven to know nothing about. Thanks for contributing nothing, as usual, Ronald. :thumbsup

:1orglaugh:
here's an idea, punish the criminal who STOLE the gun.

silly kid. don't be bitter because I pointed out that in your 20 paragraphs in this thread you've got nothing more than personal wishes about how you'd like things to be. instead, be bitter about paying for the education thats left you completely devoid of common sense.:thumbsup

Relentless 11-01-2011 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 18529537)
:1orglaugh: here's an idea, punish the criminal who STOLE the gun.

We already do, and should continue to do so.
We should also be punishing anyone who fails to secure a weapon they legally own.
Securing it should be required by the fact you chose to own it.
Failing to secure it is no better than misusing it.

12clicks 11-01-2011 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 18529562)
We should also be punishing anyone who fails to secure a weapon they legally own.
Securing it should be required by the fact you chose to own it.
Failing to secure it is no better than misusing it.

incorrect.
If I chose to keep a loaded gun under my pillow, I'm completely within my rights to do so.
If someone breaks into my home and steals it, THEY ARE THE CRIMINAL, not me.

and thats how it will always be. End of story.

Lace 11-01-2011 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18523506)
I read the other day that gun ownership is up too - half of American houses now have guns in them.

I understand why. Local city governments are strapped for cash, and cutting back on police. This is exactly what's happened in my small home town here. We used to have a massive police presence. Now, not so much.

We had one single Sheriff, who was let go last year. Our closest police station is about 30 minutes away. My neighbor is a State Police Lieutenant for the county below us which is nice but there isn't much he's going to do in the event of an emergency. I live in the sticks but I still like to protect myself. Crazy shit can happen anywhere.

Vendzilla 11-01-2011 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 18529562)
We already do, and should continue to do so.
We should also be punishing anyone who fails to secure a weapon they legally own.
Securing it should be required by the fact you chose to own it.
Failing to secure it is no better than misusing it.

It's funny how asshole thinking like this has lead the US to be the leader in most people in prison per capita, http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita.

You're a moron, I thought I would just throw that out there

12clicks 11-01-2011 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus H Christ (Post 18529610)
They


This makes as much sense as if someone breaks into your home, steals a knife from the kitchen, stabs you with it, you are just as responsible as the attacker, attacking you, as you "both" deserve to go to prison? - That's just stupid

he makes a lot of idiot statements. then types paragraph after paragraph explaining how everyone else is wrong, slowly changing his argument with each post to make him seem right.

Vendzilla 11-01-2011 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome (Post 18527753)
Yup. Two years of experience to prove it... little gay white boy dressed nice and strolling through the ghetto at 2 am without a incident to speak of. You're the expert though.

What's your experience besides getting arrested? (Something else that has never happened to me, btw)

I keep thinking of this video everytime you say shit like that, LMAO


grumpy 11-01-2011 09:13 AM

yeah, more guns in the usa. It makes it a much safer place.

Vendzilla 11-01-2011 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Domain Diva (Post 18528752)
The statistic was " More USA children die in gun accidents than anywhere else in the civilized world" not that its the number 1 cause of child deaths in the USA.

I asked where that statistic you had was, still waiting!!

Vendzilla 11-01-2011 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grumpy (Post 18529667)
yeah, more guns in the usa. It makes it a much safer place.

Good thing you live in the US then isn't, love how people from other countries are chiming in

MaDalton 11-01-2011 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18529670)
Good thing you live in the US then isn't, love how people from other countries are chiming in

this is an international board, if you only want to discuss with american people you need to post somewhere else. but since your employer probably also wants international webmasters you have to live with our opinions :winkwink:

scottybuzz 11-01-2011 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18529670)
Good thing you live in the US then isn't, love how people from other countries are chiming in

dont make a post on an international board then idiot :2 cents:

Relentless 11-01-2011 09:37 AM

Quote:

This makes as much sense as if someone breaks into your home, steals a knife from the kitchen, stabs you with it, you are just as responsible as the attacker, attacking you, as you "both" deserve to go to prison? - That's just stupid
Yes, that example is stupid and also has nothing to do with what I have said. Kitchen knives and cars are not weapons (anything can be used as a weapon but that is not the sole intent of owning the object). Owning a weapon carries responsibility to secure it. If someone steals your gun and shoots YOU with it, losing your weapon did not injure or harm anyone but you. However, if someone steals your gun and shoots your neighbor, your failure to secure your gun is absolutely part of what proximately caused your neighbor to be killed.

The laws that exist right now which are intended to 'punish' people for losing a gun or having one 'stolen' are much too lax. They ought to be much more strict. If losing a legally registered handgun were a felony, existing Felony Murder statutes would be easy to apply. If you want to go with something less, like a 1+ year jail sentence, 10K dollar fine and being forbidden from ever owning a gun again I'd be fine with that. The idea that people can 'report a gun lost or stolen' and be completely absolved from the damage that gun does in the future is ridiculous. You own it, you secure it. You can't or won't... you should be accountable for that failure.

theking 11-01-2011 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 18529744)
Yes, that example is stupid and also has nothing to do with what I have said. Kitchen knives and cars are not weapons (anything can be used as a weapon but that is not the sole intent of owning the object). Owning a weapon carries responsibility to secure it. If someone steals your gun and shoots YOU with it, losing your weapon did not injure or harm anyone but you. However, if someone steals your gun and shoots your neighbor, your failure to secure your gun is absolutely part of what proximately caused your neighbor to be killed.

The laws that exist right now which are intended to 'punish' people for losing a gun or having one 'stolen' are much too lax. They ought to be much more strict. If losing a legally registered handgun were a felony, existing Felony Murder statutes would be easy to apply. If you want to go with something less, like a 1+ year jail sentence, 10K dollar fine and being forbidden from ever owning a gun again I'd be fine with that. The idea that people can 'report a gun lost or stolen' and be completely absolved from the damage that gun does in the future is ridiculous. You own it, you secure it. You can't or won't... you should be accountable for that failure.

Pigshit.

Relentless 11-01-2011 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18529644)
thinking like this has lead the US to be the leader in most people in prison per capita, http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita.

No. The reason our prisons are overflowing with people is precisely what my stance would fix. Right now prisons are overcrowded with people convicted of illegally selling drugs. I would make the sale of every drug legal. I'd tax it and have it supervised the same way liquor is currently handled... and just like liquor I would punish the hell out of anyone who misused it.

If you want to do heroin or vodka, the law should be identical. Use it at home by yourself or with other consenting adults and stay within the law... have fun. Use it around minors, drive while high or do other things outside the law and find yourself being severely punished for your misuse of the item.

Guns are exactly the same. They are an inherently dangerous item that require an exceptional amount of care to use properly and stay within the limits of the law. If you use a gun properly and secure it when it is not in use, I am happy you - go own 10K guns and fire them off at your leisure. If you use them improperly or fail to secure them you should be accountable for that failure AND for the damage that your failure proximately causes.

If you put every person who had a gun stolen IN jail and took out every person convicted of selling dime bags of pot on a street corner the prison population would shrink immediately and forever. Best of all, you would have the actually dangerous people in prison instead of two-bit pot dealers. Gun owners who allow their guns to be lost or stolen ARE dangerous to society and so are people who allow drugs and alcohol to fuel their misconduct, people who properly use their guns or do drugs responsibly are not.

Vendzilla 11-01-2011 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton (Post 18529712)
this is an international board, if you only want to discuss with american people you need to post somewhere else. but since your employer probably also wants international webmasters you have to live with our opinions :winkwink:

You're right, I should never question those that talk about the US that don't live here. wait, that doesn't make sence? Do I get involved in the politics of your country?

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottybuzz (Post 18529729)
dont make a post on an international board then idiot :2 cents:

Sorry, I thought the fact that the thread was titled, "Record-Low 26% in US Favor Handgun Ban" was a give away.

Vendzilla 11-01-2011 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 18529772)
If you put every person who had a gun stolen IN jail and took out every person convicted of selling dime bags of pot on a street corner the prison population would shrink immediately and forever. Best of all, you would have the actually dangerous people in prison instead of two-bit pot dealers. Gun owners who allow their guns to be lost or stolen ARE dangerous to society and so are people who allow drugs and alcohol to fuel their misconduct, people who properly use their guns or do drugs responsibly are not.

So you want to lock up the victims of theft? BRILLIANT!

Relentless 11-01-2011 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18529796)
So you want to lock up the victims of theft? BRILLIANT!

As a gun owner you should never be the victim of gun theft. You should be required to take extraordinary precautions to secure your own weapons from theft because it is an inherently dangerous object to own, not unlike dynamite or a tiger. Owning a gun puts those around you at risk if it is ever lost or stolen, your should be responsible for creating that risk and failing to safeguard against it sufficiently. If you are unable or unwilling to secure your own weapons, simply choose not to own weapons.

If you do CHOOSE to own a weapon and you FAIL to secure it, that's your fault and should be severely punished.

Relentless 11-01-2011 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus H Christ (Post 18529825)
Who defines how secure a weapon is in your home?

That's why you can't write legislation requiring a certain level of security. If the law said 'the gun must be kept in a locked gun locker' those who 'lose' their guns would simply claim it was somehow taken from their gun locker whether it was in one or not. The litmus test should be very simple. If your gun has become lost or stolen, you failed to properly secure it. If you do not want to accept that responsibility... don't own a gun.

Quote:

What if I knocked on a gun owners door and then pointed a gun at his head to unlock his gun safe. Then took his gun and shot him and his neighbor?
The person doing the shooting goes to jail for murder, the person failing to secure their gun is punished severely as well. The only person in your example who is injured and innocent is the neighbor. Had you not chosen to own the gun which was taken from you and failed to secure it, he would not have been shot by a gun you owned.

Quote:

In short, it's people like you who flood our court system positioning stupid laws, causing more bureaucracy because you're common sense can't grasp self responsibility wanting a government entity to manage your life due to your flawed thinking.
Actually my method would immediately reduce the case load in courts from what it is presently. You would very quickly see less guns on the streets, would have less people choosing to own guns and would have those who do choose to own guns taking their care and security more seriously. There would be no lengthy trial or bureaucracy. If you 'lose' a gun, you are punished. If your gun is used in the commission of a subsequent crime you share in the blame for that incident as well.

The current system is what creates bureaucracy, protects incompetent gun owners and perpetuates the black market nexus between 'lost legal guns' and crimes committed by people with 'illegal guns' which are the same exact firearms in different hands.

theking 11-01-2011 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus H Christ (Post 18529825)
You can't be serious? Although, the volume of your text is impressive, it's completely irrelevant. Who defines how secure a weapon is in your home? What if I knocked on a gun owners door and then pointed a gun at his head to unlock his gun safe. Then took his gun and shot him and his neighbor?

In short, it's people like you who flood our court system positioning stupid laws, causing more bureaucracy because you're common sense can't grasp self responsibility wanting a government entity to manage your life due to your flawed thinking.

In short, your dumb-ass thinking is what causes more government in our lives.

In addition National Guard Armories have been broken into and weapons stolen as well as gun stores have been broken into and weapons stolen...so are the National Guardsmen and store owners to be punished if any of the guns are found to have been used in a crime. A ridiculous concept.

I have a friend that was a gun collector and his guns were well secured...because they were very valuable...but that did not keep a thief from breaking into his home and stealing his entire collection. The thief was never caught and none of his guns were ever recovered. But if it ever turns up that one of his guns that was stolen about fifteen years ago was ever found to be involved in a crime to punish him would be a total injustice.

MaDalton 11-01-2011 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18529776)
You're right, I should never question those that talk about the US that don't live here. wait, that doesn't make sence? Do I get involved in the politics of your country?

the thing is probably that you have no clue at all about the politics in my country - may it be germany or cz

while many people like to be informed about whats going on in the world, you and your opinions are completely US centered. which is too bad, cause sometimes it helps to look beyond your own nose :)

Relentless 11-01-2011 10:33 AM

Quote:

I have a friend that was a gun collector and his guns were well secured...because they were very valuable...but that did not keep a thief from breaking into his home and stealing his entire collection. The thief was never caught and none of his guns were ever recovered. But if it ever turns up that one of his guns that was stolen about fifteen years ago was ever found to be involved in a crime to punish him would be a total injustice.
Was your friend fined or punished in any way for allowing those guns to fall into the hands of a criminal? Where do you think criminals get guns? Very few if any criminals on the street committing violent crimes are capable of manufacturing their own guns. The pro-gun lobbyists are very fond of pointing out that the vast amount of gun related crimes are not committed by people who legally own guns. The fact is, most guns on the street were legally purchased originally... 'lost' intentionally or unintentionally and allowed to enter the black market where criminals have access to them.

One solution is to make owning any guns illegal. I am very much against that. People who responsibly own and secure their guns should be free to use them in any way allowable under the law. However, when someone decides to buy 25 guns and keep them in an unlocked showcase or has a firearm stolen out of their night table... they should be held to a very strict standard and punished severely for allowing their guns to find their way into the hands of criminals who would use them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking (Post 18529866)
In addition National Guard Armories have been broken into and weapons stolen as well as gun stores have been broken into and weapons stolen...so are the National Guardsmen and store owners to be punished if any of the guns are found to have been used in a crime. A ridiculous concept.

If you have any links to those events please post them. I'd be very curious to see what penalty was enforced against the National Guardsmen responsible for securing those guns who failed to do so and allowed them to become lost or stolen. I'd expect that they faced very significant penalties and an extremely rigorous investigation took place to identify any breach of security so that it would never happen again. I look forward to reading the news articles detailing these events that you are aware of...

Relentless 11-01-2011 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus H Christ (Post 18529883)
If an intruder held a gun at a gun-owners head and had him open his "secure" gun safe and then took his gun and committed a crime with it. Should the original gun owner be held responsible because it was his gun?

My prior post answers that question very directly.

"The person doing the shooting goes to jail for murder, the person failing to secure their gun is punished severely as well. The only person in your example who is injured and innocent is the neighbor. Had you not chosen to own the gun which was taken from you and failed to secure it, he would not have been shot by a gun you owned."


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123