Gun ownership poll

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Deertick

I guess if we are calling people who don't want unfettered access "banners", I'll use "willy-nillys" to differentiate the groups.

The willy-nillys fought with all of it's might background checks and waiting periods. They still fight the closing of the 'gun show loophole'. The FBI doesn't complete background checks on hundreds of thousands of requests within the 3 day period (noted, not all result in purchase), meaning that legally, the sale can be completed. (Although the few gun shops I have patronized made it clear that they wait for the background all clear.)

Waiting period / background checks have been shown to put a dent in ineligible individuals purchasing firearms legally. Something like 35% rejection due to felonies or DVI's. Make every purchase everywhere subject to the same standards.

Also, I fully support charging individuals who have their unsecured / unattended firearms stolen / accessed and subsequently used in a felony. And, no, in the center console of your unlocked vehicle is NOT secured.

Willy nillys, who's with me?

Good effort but you will not get thoughtful responses.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Good effort but you will not get thoughtful responses.

They are thoughtful responses you just don't like them because they do not agree with you.

I HAVE had a gun stolen out of my locked house. Why by any stretch of the imagination should I be held responseable for a gun that some POS stole from me?

I was working at Whiteman AFB and living off base. I had a week off so took a short vacation. When I got home one of my guns was missing. I instantly called the PoPo to report it. They did show up but acted like it was no big deal and didn't even want to do a report.

Weirdly the thieves stole by far the cheapest gun of the 4 in the room a Ruger 9mm. I did get it back almost a year later because it ended up being 2 people that broke into my house. One of them got arrested on a different charge and turned in his friend for stealing my gun to get his current charges reduced.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by bnorth

They are thoughtful responses you just don't like them because they do not agree with you.

I HAVE had a gun stolen out of my locked house. Why by any stretch of the imagination should I be held responseable for a gun that some POS stole from me?

I was working at Whiteman AFB and living off base. I had a week off so took a short vacation. When I got home one of my guns was missing. I instantly called the PoPo to report it. They did show up but acted like it was no big deal and didn't even want to do a report.

Weirdly the thieves stole by far the cheapest gun of the 4 in the room a Ruger 9mm. I did get it back almost a year later because it ended up being 2 people that broke into my house. One of them got arrested on a different charge and turned in his friend for stealing my gun to get his current charges reduced.

Well you see, you should be charged with a crime because holding the actual criminal responsible does little to serve the political agenda, while if you are held responsible they can score some points. We're right back to a few hundred posts ago, just criminalizing the other side, regardless of how many other principles, laws and rights must be trampled or ceded in order to do so.


Let's see if anyone will agree with this new legal principle when it is applied to anything beyond guns, that if the victim of a crime does not do enough to stop the crime, they are legally culpable and should be charged (I am unclear if the argument is that they should be charged with a new crime of negligence or that they should be charged with the acts of the actual perpetrator).

1) A homeowner has a hammer stolen from their garage. The hammer is unsecured, the garage door unlocked but closed. The burglar later uses the hammer in a homicide. Should the homeowner be charged with a crime and imprisoned?

2) A young woman walks down a dark alley in a seedy side of town late at night in a very short skirt. Is she to be charged alongside her rapist?

3) A man wearing nice clothes that signal he has some wealth is out in a high-crime neighborhood. He is robbed, and offers no real resistance to the robber. Is he to be charged alongside the robber?

The answer, of course, is no. Charging the victim of the crime is, of course, a complete bastardization of the purpose of law. It violates every liberal principle. History shows us that principles are easily ignored when one sees a chance to criminalize people they don't like.

I can't wait to see what the next loony proposal is to criminalize groups of people someone doesn't like.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by bnorth

They are thoughtful responses you just don't like them because they do not agree with you.

I HAVE had a gun stolen out of my locked house. Why by any stretch of the imagination should I be held responseable for a gun that some POS stole from me?

I was working at Whiteman AFB and living off base. I had a week off so took a short vacation. When I got home one of my guns was missing. I instantly called the PoPo to report it. They did show up but acted like it was no big deal and didn't even want to do a report.

Weirdly the thieves stole by far the cheapest gun of the 4 in the room a Ruger 9mm. I did get it back almost a year later because it ended up being 2 people that broke into my house. One of them got arrested on a different charge and turned in his friend for stealing my gun to get his current charges reduced.

Thoughtful responses do not have to agree with me by any stretch. A serious response addressing points is what is thoughtful. Yours qualifies in my view. I think the idea is if you have weapons, don’t secure them, and a child in your home gains access to it and goes on a shooting spree then you face consequences. Not if someone breaks into a safe.

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Thoughtful responses do not have to agree with me by any stretch. A serious response addressing points is what is thoughtful. Yours qualifies in my view. I think the idea is if you have weapons, don’t secure them, and a child in your home gains access to it and goes on a shooting spree then you face consequences. Not if someone breaks into a safe.

If a child gains access and uses a steak knife, baseball bat, automobile, tire iron, frying pan, drill, saws all or a 2x4 etc…. and commits multiple homicides, is the homeowner is on the hook for leaving them unlocked?

What if a child takes a 5 gallon can of gasoline from an open garage and burns down an apartment building killing everyone inside……? Homeowner is on the hook for that too? What if the same child stole his grandmothers magnifying glass to use as the ignition source? Grandma is in trouble too?

Firearms are not a problem. They are a symptom of problems not being identified and used as leverage to try and disarm the country.

Firearms are a protection against tyranny.

[Leon]

+1.
Gun laws generally keep guns away from law abiding folks. Anyone in America that wants a gun can get one, if they so desire. Guns don't kill, people do.

Originally Posted by nwobhm

If a child gains access and uses a steak knife, baseball bat, automobile, tire iron, frying pan, drill, saws all or a 2x4 etc…. and commits multiple homicides, is the homeowner is on the hook for leaving them unlocked?

What if a child takes a 5 gallon can of gasoline from an open garage and burns down an apartment building killing everyone inside……? Homeowner is on the hook for that too? What if the same child stole his grandmothers magnifying glass to use as the ignition source? Grandma is in trouble too?

Firearms are not a problem. They are a symptom of problems not being identified and used as leverage to try and disarm the country.

Firearms are a protection against tyranny.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by nwobhm

If a child gains access and uses a steak knife, baseball bat, automobile, tire iron, frying pan, drill, saws all or a 2x4 etc…. and commits multiple homicides,

I'd say that's one hell of a rampage.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by steve B

I'd say that's one hell of a rampage.

But a kid with a can of gasoline and a match could kill more than even the worst mass shooting, in the right building.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by bnorth

They are thoughtful responses you just don't like them because they do not agree with you.

I HAVE had a gun stolen out of my locked house. Why by any stretch of the imagination should I be held responseable for a gun that some POS stole from me?

I was working at Whiteman AFB and living off base. I had a week off so took a short vacation. When I got home one of my guns was missing. I instantly called the PoPo to report it. They did show up but acted like it was no big deal and didn't even want to do a report.

Weirdly the thieves stole by far the cheapest gun of the 4 in the room a Ruger 9mm. I did get it back almost a year later because it ended up being 2 people that broke into my house. One of them got arrested on a different charge and turned in his friend for stealing my gun to get his current charges reduced.

Ben, in 10 pages there have been many attempts to label any group other than the willy nillys as "banners". When several (apparently) WNINO posted a suggestion that 'made sense and they could live with', REAL willy nillys threw down the "what part of shall nots" and "criminals don't follow laws' tripe.

OK. So let's grant that any firearm located in a home (couch, microwave, cereal box, safe) is considered secure and not subject to possible prosecution. Let's say LOCKED vehicles are secure.

Can we agree that storing in an unlocked vehicle is not? And if it is stolen that it just might be considered negligent? Who knows, maybe if it is found on some kids shooting cans in a field, a fine approximately like parking at an expired meter. If it's used to shoot a convenience store clerk, I'd have to insist on a minimum of a running a red-light ticket.

Edit: post not directed at Ben personally.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Ben, in 10 pages there have been many attempts to label any group other than the willy nillys as "banners". When several (apparently) WNINO posted a suggestion that 'made sense and they could live with', REAL willy nillys threw down the "what part of shall nots" and "criminals don't follow laws' tripe.

OK. So let's grant that any firearm located in a home (couch, microwave, cereal box, safe) is considered secure and not subject to possible prosecution. Let's say LOCKED vehicles are secure.

Can we agree that storing in an unlocked vehicle is not? And if it is stolen that it just might be considered negligent? Who knows, maybe if it is found on some kids shooting cans in a field, a fine approximately like parking at an expired meter. If it's used to shoot a convenience store clerk, I'd have to insist on a minimum of a running a red-light ticket.

Edit: post not directed at Ben personally.

Because of the location I live and the way it works here. I can only say no matter the location of the gun the thief is responsable period. As an example it is hot as BLEEP here today. I can guarantee I can go to the parking lot of easily 5 different stores and there will be a vehicle with the windows open and a gun out in the open.

In all seriousness if the window is open or the car is locked with the windows up. The difference between the time it would take to steal the gun is at the most 5 seconds. To me it is plain and simple, you only punish the thief.

Now a gun laying out in the open around small kids is a whole different thing.

The one thing I hope we can all agree on is our dfferences on this subject stay in this section. As an example I think every post a fellow member made in the Covid thread is beyond moronic. Saying that I personaly think he is a great guy and would never hold that one small thing against him in the overall scheme of life. I truly wish you all a great day if we agree or not.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by bnorth

The one thing I hope we can all agree on is our dfferences on this subject stay in this section. As an example I think every post a fellow member made in the Covid thread is beyond moronic. Saying that I personaly think he is a great guy and would never hold that one small thing against him in the overall scheme of life. I truly wish you all a great day if we agree or not.

Differing opinions or ignorance of a subject matter may be frustrating sometimes, but is just discussion or debate. For me, it rarely affects a relationship. I don't speak to one acquaintance anymore due to Qanon, JFK Jr, Jewish space laser stuff. That is not just a difference of opinion.

But I will not tolerate racists, anti-Semites, or 'true' homophobes. That is not just a difference of opinion.
Just a bigot, I still have hope.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Differing opinions or ignorance of a subject matter may be frustrating sometimes, but is just discussion or debate. For me, it rarely affects a relationship. I don't speak to one acquaintance anymore due to Qanon, JFK Jr, Jewish space laser stuff. That is not just a difference of opinion.

But I will not tolerate racists, anti-Semites, or 'true' homophobes. That is not just a difference of opinion.
Just a bigot, I still have hope.

right i dated a girl who said she understand what mainstream historians say what happened in the holocaust and she asked what does the 'other' side say...i said there is no other side...

As for being responsible for no matter what for having a gun stolen under 'strict liability' you rarely would see that...i do support making people purchase insurance in order to own certain guns or to be able to carry them on your person as opposed to in your home ..

[Mark17]

To illustrate the absurdity, and the extreme lenghts some anti-gun people will go, there is a movement now for victims of shootings to sue gunmakers.

A company makes a legal product which is not defective and works as intended, but they are sued because a criminal uses it to hurt someone.

This kind of thing is why I'm generally suspicious of people who point first at the gun, rather than the criminal, when assigning blame.

[icurnmedic]

Only here can a victim become the perpetrator and be held liable ...
I sure hope my axes, chainsaws, kitchen knives are never stolen and used in any kind of assault.... wait does that make it an assault kitchen knife..

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by icurnmedic

Only here can a victim become the perpetrator and be held liable ...
I sure hope my axes, chainsaws, kitchen knives are never stolen and used in any kind of assault.... wait does that make it an assault kitchen knife..

If you have a gun which can legitimately kill many people rather quickly, take reasonable steps to prevent it from be used by someone else to do bad things. A knife does not carry the same risk. It’s a cavalier post like that that makes me scared about what’s going on with these guns. Be responsible owners. Seems like it should be a basic requirement but it has not been.