Again, we're back to "safe" storage. If I have a residential storage container (aka home "safe") and a burglar takes the entire safe, am I still liable for anything he does with my guns? What if I rent or live in an apartment where I'm not allowed to bolt it down? Just how far do I have to go balance my Constitutional right to KBA with public safety? If I bought a Stack-On am I satisfying the spirit of proposed law or am I legally & morally culpable because I should have bought a Liberty? If I buy a Liberty will I be prosecuted for not having spent the money on a Graffunder or AMSEC? Is just a deadbolt lock on my front door and the gun on the top shelf of my closet really the same as just walking up and giving my gun to a gang banger?

Democracy is a messy business.

CDFingers

BKinzey wrote:

MayhemVI wrote:

BKinzey wrote:

MayhemVI wrote:... I don't have all the answers. But that doesn't mean I'm determined to duck the questions...

MayhemVI wrote:Every question you asked, I've already answered.

Saying you don't have an answer is ducking the question.



Specifically this discussion was about "safe storage" for children. You brought up the possibility of breaking and entering, and theft. A trigger/chamber lock won't prevent that. It's also somewhat victim blaming.

Aaaand I've already answered that question.

Bang your head harder. I already addressed your objection.

I wasn't objecting to anything, but do carry on.

And BTW, saying I don't have an answer is not ducking a question. If you need a tutorial on how to duck questions, you've got a TV full of politicians that will bring you up to speed.

And since I've come this far in this little dance you insist on having, I'm looking at the OP right now and ....no, this discussion is not specifically about safe storage for children. In fact, children aren't mentioned, "specifically" or otherwise.

BKinzey wrote:
He also brought up kitchen knives, since a common kitchen knife is the #1 knife used to stab people with do you have your kitchen knives locked up?

This is not the "knife" conversation, the "chainsaw" conversation or the "swimming pool" conversation. This is the gun conversation.

Trying to derail the conversation doesn't come across as clever or enlightened, it comes across as ignorant since that's the tactic employed by all those libritarians and tea party members we regard as ignorant when they do it regarding immigration or social services.

While the anti-gunners commonly use an exaggerated reality to make their point, using non-reality to make a counter point (fucking snakes?) only wins over those detached from reality. it's no wonder that the majority of gun owners in America support stricter gun control, when gun ENTHUSIASTS on both the left and right would rather bury the "gun" in the "gun control" discussion with make believe scenarios and irrational fear.

Just in my time here I've started leaning more towards gun control: I don't want people that think leaving loaded guns in the couch cushions around children should be allowed to have guns, and I don't think anyone so consumed by fear that they need a gun to buy groceries should be allowed to conceal it.

These view evolved directly from the ridiculous arguments made against any type of gun legislation* here on the LGC.

EDITED>>>To change "Gun control" to "gun legislation", since the reforms I now support don't restrict who can own what, only what is required to do so.

We have to get all the ideas out on the table so we can see which ones leave a sticky residue.

CDFingers

REDONE wrote:Just in my time here I've started leaning more towards gun control: I don't want people that think leaving loaded guns in the couch cushions around children should be allowed to have guns, and I don't think anyone so consumed by fear that they need a gun to buy groceries should be allowed to conceal it.

These view evolved directly from the ridiculous arguments made against gun control here on the LGC.

I agree that part of being a gun owner involves making sure you are a responsible gun owner, and having a way to store your guns safely is part of being a responsible owner.

However, suggesting that the victim of a crime, like a burglary where guns were stolen, is somehow culpable because the guns weren't stored safely enough reminds me of blaming a rape victim because of the clothes they were wearing.

it's no wonder that the majority of gun owners in America support stricter gun control, when gun ENTHUSIASTS on both the left and right would rather bury the "gun" in the "gun control" discussion with make believe scenarios and irrational fear.

Just in my time here I've started leaning more towards gun control: I don't want people that think leaving loaded guns in the couch cushions around children should be allowed to have guns, and I don't think anyone so consumed by fear that they need a gun to buy groceries should be allowed to conceal it.

I don't know that the majority of gun owners favor stricter gun control, as nobody agrees on what stricter gun control is. "Do you favor stricter gun control" is actually a meaningless question unless you define what you mean by stricter gun control. Banning all guns would be stricter, but most would not favor this. Banning automatics is meaningless unless you know the difference between "automatic" and "semi auto" as it applies to guns. More background checks would be meaningful if the data was up to date. Registration sounds good, but doesn't do anything except help the govt grab guns. Saying that the majority favor more controls based on a Pew poll that has different results daily is probably not accurate.

There are people who carry to the grocery store because they are tired of being mugged and having to wait 30 minutes for the cops to show up. Not paranoid if the fear is based on reality. YMMV.

Which arguments do you find ridiculous ?

Dunce wrote:

REDONE wrote:Just in my time here I've started leaning more towards gun control: I don't want people that think leaving loaded guns in the couch cushions around children should be allowed to have guns, and I don't think anyone so consumed by fear that they need a gun to buy groceries should be allowed to conceal it.

These view evolved directly from the ridiculous arguments made against gun control here on the LGC.

I agree that part of being a gun owner involves making sure you are a responsible gun owner, and having a way to store your guns safely is part of being a responsible owner.

However, suggesting that the victim of a crime, like a burglary where guns were stolen, is somehow culpable because the guns weren't stored safely enough reminds me of blaming a rape victim because of the clothes they were wearing.

While I acknowledge your concern and respect your perspective, this isn't the rape discussion. Through legislation and court actions (precedence) we have set guns apart from all else. The gun discussion is only about guns.

dougb wrote:

it's no wonder that the majority of gun owners in America support stricter gun control, when gun ENTHUSIASTS on both the left and right would rather bury the "gun" in the "gun control" discussion with make believe scenarios and irrational fear.

Just in my time here I've started leaning more towards gun control: I don't want people that think leaving loaded guns in the couch cushions around children should be allowed to have guns, and I don't think anyone so consumed by fear that they need a gun to buy groceries should be allowed to conceal it.

I don't know that the majority of gun owners favor stricter gun control, as nobody agrees on what stricter gun control is. "Do you favor stricter gun control" is actually a meaningless question unless you define what you mean by stricter gun control. Banning all guns would be stricter, but most would not favor this. Banning automatics is meaningless unless you know the difference between "automatic" and "semi auto" as it applies to guns. More background checks would be meaningful if the data was up to date. Registration sounds good, but doesn't do anything except help the govt grab guns. Saying that the majority favor more controls based on a Pew poll that has different results daily is probably not accurate.

There are people who carry to the grocery store because they are tired of being mugged and having to wait 30 minutes for the cops to show up. Not paranoid if the fear is based on reality. YMMV.

Which arguments do you find ridiculous ?

Actually the majority of Americans polled after sandy hook felt that more gun control was NOT necessary. Of course the polls that don't gibe with what people want are always flawed. This whole thread is stupid and belongs somewhere stupid like daily kos or the democratic underground.

dougb, if I get some time later I'll compile a list of ridiculous arguments I've seen here but reference armedandliberals post on page 2 with snakes and chainsaws as the most recent one.

You example for the grocery store should open carry, far more effective deterrent, no less effective defense, and lets everyone else grocery shopping know they are afraid enough to take a gun to the grocery store.

eelj, if this thread to "stupid" for you, feel free to post elsewhere.

CDfingers, I completely agree. Time marches on, progress happens, change is coming. Destroying the conversation ensures that nobody is heard.

MayhemVI wrote:...And since I've come this far in this little dance you insist on having, I'm looking at the OP right now and ....no, this discussion is not specifically about safe storage for children. In fact, children aren't mentioned, "specifically" or otherwise.

You are correct, this thread is not specifically about children. My mistake. The link to an article is about vets and a vets perspective on firearm regulation. Children having access was mentioned later in the thread.

BKinzey wrote:

MayhemVI wrote:...And since I've come this far in this little dance you insist on having, I'm looking at the OP right now and ....no, this discussion is not specifically about safe storage for children. In fact, children aren't mentioned, "specifically" or otherwise.

You are correct, this thread is not specifically about children. My mistake. The link to an article is about vets and a vets perspective on firearm regulation. Children having access was mentioned later in the thread.

That was about the point I lost interest.

REDONE wrote:You example for the grocery store should open carry, far more effective deterrent, no less effective defense, and lets everyone else grocery shopping know they are afraid enough to take a gun to the grocery store.

I'm not sure how the thread turned to vitriol against concealed carry?? I very much look at CCW as a situation-ally dependent thing. Personally I would prefer to never open carry, as it just makes you a target. There are places I've lived where I did feel it was a good idea to be armed. Doesn't mean I was scared or paranoid, but that I was aware of the potential situation in the area I was in and took measures to ensure my and my families safety, as the areas we were in at the time had a much higher violent crime rate than some of the other areas we've lived/worked in. I wouldn't presume to make that choice for someone else.

Some people choose to carry all the time, and not knowing the individual reasons why seems to be a little naive.

Do I believe in training? Hell yes. Damned skippy I do.

Consider that the firearm throughout history has been a force equalizer. For a woman, the elderly, or any person for that matter, even if Bif is a 260lb linebacker, it gives you an ability to defend yourself against superior physical force. Does it mean it's a magic talisman and will ward off evil? Obviously not. The right to defend yourself however should not be predicated on your physical ability to do so.

One issue I take with 'common sense' restrictions is that they invariably add expense to armed self defense. IL is a great example.

$150 for the IL Permit, $150+ for the class required, $30 for the FOID card and all of that is before the actual cost of the firearm with gear to carry it.

Can't carry on public transportation - felony. Can't carry on your person in your car unless you are not an IL resident carrying on the permit from your state - felony.

In short, it is the 'if you are living on less than 2x the poverty level, you are not carrying legally".

RKBA permits are class warfare.

REDONE wrote:

ArmedAndLiberal wrote:

REDONE wrote:If a burglar breaks into your house, steals your gun and shoots a gas station clerk with it, I feel that's still your fault and your right to guns should be questioned by a judge and/or jury. I'm fine with the same law making this happen too.

If a burglar breaks into your house, steals your Hinkel chef's knife and stabs a gas station clerk with it, do you feel that's still your fault and your right to own kitchen knives should be questioned by a judge and/or jury?

If a burglar breaks into your house, steals your Blue Krait snake and facilitates the biting of a gas station clerk by your snake, do you feel that's still your fault and your right to own snakes should be questioned by a judge and/or jury?

If a burglar breaks into your house, steals your chainsaw and carves up a gas station clerk with it, do you feel that's still your fault and your right to own chainsaws should be questioned by a judge and/or jury?

If a burglar breaks into your house, steals your car and runs over a gas station clerk with it, do you feel that's still your fault and your right to drive should be questioned by a judge and/or jury?

When stolen chainsaws and snakes are being used to kill people, I will have that discussion. Right now we're talking about guns.

Anything can be used to kill people. Why the fixation on locking up guns an not anything else that could be deadly?

Shinzen thanks for the post! I'm baffled at the idea that I need to be able bare knuckle with a 20 year old. And if I'm not capable of that I shouldn't be able to use a firearm.

ArmedAndLiberal wrote: Anything can be used to kill people. Why the fixation on locking up guns an not anything else that could be deadly?

1) As anything can be used to kill people, why do you need guns to defend yourself?

2) This conversation is about guns. If you kid drowns in your backyard pool it's criminal, Kid drinks bleach-criminal, eaten by your dog-criminal, shoots self with your gun? Accident.

We've set guns apart, so this conversation is about guns. Not knives, not chainsaws, not snakes, guns.

On the surface laws that require certain storage requirements seem good. I mean, no one wants to be against safety right?

However, it's the devil in the details that always ruin these things, and why I have become more wary as a gun owner of any such proposals.

We know from the data that gun accident rates (and more specifically, gun accidents involving children) are going down. While we should have safety on our minds, the notion that we need safe storage laws because of epidemic gun violence is disingenuous and makes me question the real motives of those proposing suggestions. One of the other posters hit the nail on the head that most of the guys proposing these laws are doing it not to be pro-safety, but to be pro-make-it-more-difficult-to-own-guns.

Then comes the fact that how does one enforce these things? You can't really, and all such laws do is provide an added-on charge after a crime or accident has been committed. But ah, I know, there's the retort that it doesn't matter if it can't be enforced -- it is meant to change behaviour through fear. Will such laws be able to change human behavior in due to fear of repercussions? Maybe. But maybe there's better ways to achieve it rather than through burdensome laws. In fact, since we know that gun accident rates are dropping, such a better way to achieve safety is already going on within the gun community, and (generally) without extra burdensome laws. You can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar, right?

In terms of what I prefer doing, I mentioned earlier a tax credit -- or hell, just give away a free safe, even if it's a cheapie $30 gun lock box, for a first time gun purchase. Free vouchers for gun safety classes would be nice. And of course, community self-regulation, which I think is going on already right now, and quite successfully. The gun community (online, anyway) harps about the 4 rules, about ideal safety and storage, gun range no-nos, and shaming those that are irresponsible gun owners. I think that's great and it's certainly helped me become a safer and more diligent gun owner.

ErikO wrote:One issue I take with 'common sense' restrictions is that they invariably add expense to armed self defense. IL is a great example.

$150 for the IL Permit, $150+ for the class required, $30 for the FOID card and all of that is before the actual cost of the firearm with gear to carry it.

Can't carry on public transportation - felony. Can't carry on your person in your car unless you are not an IL resident carrying on the permit from your state - felony.

In short, it is the 'if you are living on less than 2x the poverty level, you are not carrying legally".

RKBA permits are class warfare.

When I lived in Orange County, CA, a law was passed banning guns from public buses. I always figured there wasn't much of a need to pack heat while taking the bus. I also figured that it was a nonsensical law inasmuch as anyone wishing to do harm wouldn't really care.

I'm for subsidized training. I have been around too many bozos who were a threat to themselves and others because they didn't know what the hell they were doing and were pretty much 0 for 4 on the four rules. Cost is an issue and it shouldn't be prohibitive, which is why I'm for some form of subsidy for both training and storage. Responsibility needs to be pushed, in my opinion; If someone can afford a firearm (plus cartridges, cleaning stuff, etc.) then they should budget for training... or find a competent uncle, friend, church group, or whomever to train them up. Personally, I think minimal safety training ought to be taught in schools nationwide, but that's a dream.

sikacz wrote:Shinzen thanks for the post! I'm baffled at the idea that I need to be able bare knuckle with a 20 year old. And if I'm not capable of that I shouldn't be able to use a firearm.

Hell, I couldn't bare knuckle with a 20 year old when I was 20.

Shinzen: Agreed on all counts.

Bacchus wrote:

sikacz wrote:Shinzen thanks for the post! I'm baffled at the idea that I need to be able bare knuckle with a 20 year old. And if I'm not capable of that I shouldn't be able to use a firearm.

Hell, I couldn't bare knuckle with a 20 year old when I was 20.

Shinzen: Agreed on all counts.

Me neither. In my athletic prime I was a 150lbs 5'-11" distance runner. Shit I needed 400 yard head start to outrun a sprinter. At 55 I'm 30 lbs overweight I don't exactly project fearsome.

sikacz wrote:

Bacchus wrote:

sikacz wrote:Shinzen thanks for the post! I'm baffled at the idea that I need to be able bare knuckle with a 20 year old. And if I'm not capable of that I shouldn't be able to use a firearm.

Hell, I couldn't bare knuckle with a 20 year old when I was 20.

Shinzen: Agreed on all counts.

Me neither. In my athletic prime I was a 150lbs 5'-11" distance runner. Shit I needed 400 yard head start to outrun a sprinter. At 55 I'm 30 lbs overweight I don't exactly project fearsome.

Same here. To that I would add a sketchy back, knee surgery, arthritis...

Bacchus wrote:

sikacz wrote:

Bacchus wrote:

sikacz wrote:Shinzen thanks for the post! I'm baffled at the idea that I need to be able bare knuckle with a 20 year old. And if I'm not capable of that I shouldn't be able to use a firearm.

Hell, I couldn't bare knuckle with a 20 year old when I was 20.

Shinzen: Agreed on all counts.

Me neither. In my athletic prime I was a 150lbs 5'-11" distance runner. Shit I needed 400 yard head start to outrun a sprinter. At 55 I'm 30 lbs overweight I don't exactly project fearsome.

Same here. To that I would add a sketchy back, knee surgery, arthritis...

My asthma that I got rid of after I started to run has come back. Yep, can't escape or fight barehanded. I know my limitations and needs. I don't need anyone projecting their fears and insecurities on me. If carrying a weapon for self defense is something a person can't handle then don't do it. Don't judge my needs.

sikacz wrote:

Bacchus wrote:

sikacz wrote:Shinzen thanks for the post! I'm baffled at the idea that I need to be able bare knuckle with a 20 year old. And if I'm not capable of that I shouldn't be able to use a firearm.

Hell, I couldn't bare knuckle with a 20 year old when I was 20.

Shinzen: Agreed on all counts.

Me neither. In my athletic prime I was a 150lbs 5'-11" distance runner. Shit I needed 400 yard head start to outrun a sprinter. At 55 I'm 30 lbs overweight I don't exactly project fearsome.

One thing I learned along time ago is never fuck with a Finn, especially if he's drunk.

eelj wrote:]One thing I learned along time ago is never fuck with a Finn, especially if he's drunk.

Or he has a light saber.