We have clarified the reasons so many times prior to this that we should either put up a sticky "why we don't negotiate our rights", or refer the op ,or ops to the literally hundreds of similar posts all of which have the same basic information in them.
Good and Bad
- Thread starter shootingthebreeze
- Start date
- Status
shootingthebreeze
Member
Coloradokevin
You made a good point yes I agree many criminals use firearms which are stolen. That I agree. One step, however, is responsible firearm ownership which includes a very important thing: physical security. I'm sure you know about physical security of weapons. Physical security will deny firearms to criminals and steps to increase physical security will make it harder for criminals to steal weapons.
That's something all of us can do. I have 2 layers of security thus very difficult if not impossible to access my firearms. If I carry I have physical control of the firearm at all times.
You made a good point yes I agree many criminals use firearms which are stolen. That I agree. One step, however, is responsible firearm ownership which includes a very important thing: physical security. I'm sure you know about physical security of weapons. Physical security will deny firearms to criminals and steps to increase physical security will make it harder for criminals to steal weapons.
That's something all of us can do. I have 2 layers of security thus very difficult if not impossible to access my firearms. If I carry I have physical control of the firearm at all times.
JRH6856
Member
Are you suggesting that crime victims should be prosecuted for being victims?
rbernie
Contributing Member
This topic comes up a lot here, usually when folk that want to be gun apologists come up short in the traditional 'law-abiding gun owners need to accept more responsbility for the misuse of firearms' arguments and are casting about for ways in which to sustain their misplaced empathy.
I've become a Very Hard Man when it comes to certain things, and this is one of them. When I look across the spectrum of how life is instantiated on this Earth and how it evolves and flourishes and survives, I note that in all successful ecosystems, there is one basic truth - individual decisions have consequences, and decisions that cause direct harm to others in the community are addressed as such.
Spreading the blame for bad decision making from the principal actor towards second- and third-order actors is the sort of muddled thinking that some folk engage in to deflect or defer personal responsibility for their decisions and actions, and that others accept out of a misplaced sense of empathy. Sadly, I fail to see how our society benefits from accepting and promulgating such an approach. It certainly helps the individual - it lessens the impact of responsbility - but in doing so society as a whole loses the ability to identify and hold accountable the root behavior that is dangerous to the community.
If somebody steals a car and uses it to mow down a bunch of nuns carrying rescued kittens to safety, the car owner is not responsible for the death of those nuns and kittens - EVEN IF THEY LEFT THE CAR UNLOCKED. They may be viewed as UNWISE to have left the car unlocked, but they are not RESPONSIBLE for the decision making that led some miscreant to commit theft and criminally bad driving. It is reasonably easy to articulate that the poor decision-making that was the menance to society was the product of the thief and not the car owner. Even as muddled as our civil laws may be in this area, our criminal laws still support this notion at the most basic level.
Why would we accept a differing position for firearms?
Last edited:
Arkansas Paul
Member
rbernie, I agree almost 100% with you.
The actions of criminals should not be construed to be the fault of someone else.
It shouldn't matter if your guns aren't locked in a safe as far as criminal liability. Someone else's criminal actions are just that.
The only time I think there should be any criminal charges is when a firearm is left out where a small child gets ahold of it and has a terrible accident. Even then, it should be thoroughly investigated as to whether negligence took place.
The actions of criminals should not be construed to be the fault of someone else.
It shouldn't matter if your guns aren't locked in a safe as far as criminal liability. Someone else's criminal actions are just that.
The only time I think there should be any criminal charges is when a firearm is left out where a small child gets ahold of it and has a terrible accident. Even then, it should be thoroughly investigated as to whether negligence took place.
rbernie
Contributing Member
Concur, but I am compelled to point out that anyone under 18 is already the legal responsibility of their guardians - until we legally decide that we wish to view the child as an adult because we wish to levy an adult-sized punishment upon them for their egregious misbehavior or the parents want to otherwise divorce themselves from the responsibility for behavior of their offspring. One area of US law in which I believe we have an unsafe amount of ambiguity is in how we define 'child' and/or 'minor'.
For some crime statistics, anyone under the age of 27 is considered a child. For most legal purposes, it's 18 but for others its 21. It's hard to say at what age a child could be considered 'gun safe', and I'd sure hate to try to codify that distinction in law.
I have three children, and I behave as if I'm legally responsible for their well being and everything that they do. That seems just about right to me.
For some crime statistics, anyone under the age of 27 is considered a child. For most legal purposes, it's 18 but for others its 21. It's hard to say at what age a child could be considered 'gun safe', and I'd sure hate to try to codify that distinction in law.
I have three children, and I behave as if I'm legally responsible for their well being and everything that they do. That seems just about right to me.
Last edited:
RPRNY
Member
Great post! Cogent, eloquent and conclusive.
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
shootingthebreeze said:
Actually, your mention of physical security brings up another interesting point. Some states (CA, for example) require that guns are stored in a certain manner, otherwise the owner of the firearm may face criminal charges when the guns are stolen and used in crimes. Personally, I think that's a bit absurd in its own right, short of outright negligence on the part of the gun's lawful owner.
As a cop who formerly worked as a banker, I'm well aware of the fact that ANY security system/setup is only buying time. Even bank safes/vaults can be breached given a properly equipped thief with enough time to do so. Home security systems and safes are usually far less effective at stopping an attack. As such, I don't like the idea of creating laws that box gun owners into bureaucratic corners from which they must operate.
For example:
I have one gun "safe" at my house that wouldn't stand up to a very serious attack (more of a gun locker than anything). It may not even be a legal safe by the standards used in some states. So, I could be considered a criminal if I was in a place like CA and had my guns stolen from this locked steel container. But, all of that ignores other security measures that I have available to me, like:
1) Differing schedules that mean that we almost always have someone in our house (sucks most of the time, but works well for home security).
2) Good doors with deadbolts.
3) Effective outdoor lighting.
4) Good relationships with good neighbors who watch our place (just as we watch their homes).
5) Two large dogs who are very home protective
6) Alarms
7) Gun storage locations that wouldn't be immediately obvious to a burglar.
…and so on.
But, in a place like CA I could be considered a criminal, while the guy with the bare-bones minimum safe, set in plain view behind a picture window in a ghetto home that is often unoccupied and very insecure would be considered "legal". Yet, his/her guns would probably be a lot easier to steal than mine, despite meeting the legal definition of "secure".
Again, I'm certainly speaking in long-winded hypotheticals here, but I'm doing so in hopes of illustrating a point: legislation isn't usually the best way to protect our rights. It simply eliminates options. Ultimately the criminal who steals guns and/or uses guns for unlawful purposes is the only one who is truly responsible for gun crime.
Last edited:
RON in PA
Member
I wonder if the fellow who started this thread is the current POTUS? Sure do sound like him.
shootingthebreeze
Member
Coloradokevin, and others relating to physical security-my belief is that is a firearm owner has taken prudent means of securing firearms and if the physical security system is breached and weapons stolen then the firearm owner should not be prosecuted because he/she took prudent means to secure weapons. I agree that any security system buys time that I learned in the US Army basically physical security slows down access. In some cases of an arms vault the break in process would be slowed down a lot. Arms vault aside, physical security will slow down break ins in the hope the perps get caught in the act. I have a safe and ADT. 2 layers. Any firearm I carry is in my physical control at all times. Response by police to a breach to the ADT system is very fast in our community.
One thing too that I can suggest is if you don't have something solid to bolt your safe to (like small safes) get one of those fughgetoubit NY chains and lock it to something VERY heavy. Another Army trick secure something to a heavy object like in the field, chain the classified safe to a tank or howitzer.
But no, if someone has taken prudent measures to secure weapons then prosecution should not happen. Carelessness is another thing.
One thing too that I can suggest is if you don't have something solid to bolt your safe to (like small safes) get one of those fughgetoubit NY chains and lock it to something VERY heavy. Another Army trick secure something to a heavy object like in the field, chain the classified safe to a tank or howitzer.
But no, if someone has taken prudent measures to secure weapons then prosecution should not happen. Carelessness is another thing.
Deanimator
Member
That "tsunami" is a tempest in a teacup. Anti-gun laws are being enacted in small numbers, in places where you'd expect them to be.
On the other hand the rights of gun owners are being protected in more and more states. Even Illinois has concealed carry now. The Cleveland Plain Dealer is currently whining about a law to allow the use of suppressed firearms for hunting here.
"Sane firearms laws"? That sounds to me like "sane slavery laws" or "sane anti-sodomy laws". "Sane" always seems to equal "repressive, harmful and malicious".
The AHSA agenda is even less popular now than it was when AHSA finally keeled over and died.
As always, my answer is: "NO, I REFUSE."
Deanimator
Member
And therefore, criminals can't get guns?
Maybe we should try that with drugs too...
Deanimator
Member
Were Jews legally "GERMAN CITIZENS"?
I once had a former BATF(E) agent who wrote a pathetic vanity published book about his "adventures" try to run that scam on me YEARS ago. The funny thing is he refused for WEEKS to answer the above question. When he finally (and inevitably) answered, "no", I simply aked him:
"Why do you support a law which disarmed Jews, but not the Nazis who wanted to slaughter them?"
It's been over ten years without an answer. I'm not expecting one any time soon.
Last edited:
Deanimator
Member
Diane Feinstein's a "gun owner" too...
Deanimator
Member
Times have changed since the passage of the 13th Amendment. Want to do away with that?
I doubt they could envision:
- telephones
- motion pictures
- radio
- television
- computers
- the internet
rbernie
Contributing Member
No, he sounds like Dick Metcalf - a gun apologist that wants to make public policy on the basis of emotion and the "common sense" that comes from that starting point rather than actually starting at the macro objective.
Deanimator
Member
Back in the '90s, NPR did a week long series on the 2nd Amendment.
Their "pro-gun" spokesman was:
- a shotgunner.
- stated that he would NEVER own a handgun.
- admitted that with sufficient social pressure, he'd give up his SHOTGUNS.
The profound unpopularity of this idea with REAL gun owners is demonstrated by the humiliating demise of not one, but TWO anti-gun, supposed "gun owner" groups, the "National Firearms Association" and the "American Hunters and Shooters Association", the former so UTTERLY bogus that not one in five hundred gun owners remembers, or indeed has even heard of it.
The simple fact is that we're WINNING. These people would have surrendered to the Japanese in August of 1945.
shootingthebreeze
Member
Pizzapinochle
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 570
I was out for a few days and this thread went all sorts of places, not going to try and catch up, but this caught my eye.
The answer is no, as of 1935 they were not citizens. That is when they lost their rights to everything (including guns).
As for this load of baloney:
How in the world do you reach the conclusion that he "support a law which disarmed the jews?"
That is the kind of backwardness that makes it so hard to talk to pro-gun people.
Because I support increased background checks, Deanimator here assumes I support the Nurember Act of 1935 which stripped Jews of their civil rights as German citizens and separated them from Germans legally, socially, and politically and, for good measure, defined them as an entirely different race of people.
FANTASTIC logic there. Really. I am stunned. Clearly my support for moderate increases in gun control in the US in 2014 means that I think the Nazis had some great ideas in 1935.
I've been doing this a lot lately around here... :banghead:
So the answer to your question is... your question crap not worth answering. Ask a real question that doesn't include a false statement about the other persons position and you might get an answer.
The answer is no, as of 1935 they were not citizens. That is when they lost their rights to everything (including guns).
As for this load of baloney:
How in the world do you reach the conclusion that he "support a law which disarmed the jews?"
That is the kind of backwardness that makes it so hard to talk to pro-gun people.
Because I support increased background checks, Deanimator here assumes I support the Nurember Act of 1935 which stripped Jews of their civil rights as German citizens and separated them from Germans legally, socially, and politically and, for good measure, defined them as an entirely different race of people.
FANTASTIC logic there. Really. I am stunned. Clearly my support for moderate increases in gun control in the US in 2014 means that I think the Nazis had some great ideas in 1935.
I've been doing this a lot lately around here... :banghead:
So the answer to your question is... your question crap not worth answering. Ask a real question that doesn't include a false statement about the other persons position and you might get an answer.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Wow that is interesting! Look how OLD it is!
shootingthebreeze
Member
Sam1911...
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/31/opinion/glaze-gun-control/index.html
Wanted something more recent? There it is.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/31/opinion/glaze-gun-control/index.html
Wanted something more recent? There it is.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
LOL! Good one! 
What a hoot!
Guess that's what I get for "ask a stupid question" -- get a stupid answer.
What a hoot!Guess that's what I get for "ask a stupid question" -- get a stupid answer.
shootingthebreeze
Member
newer
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/wayne-lapierre-nra-background-checks_b_2590836.html
Another newer post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/wayne-lapierre-nra-background-checks_b_2590836.html
Another newer post.
shootingthebreeze
Member
If you...
...google "gun control and gun owners" or "gun control and gun owners not NRA members" you will get new hits on new articles relating to these subjects.
...google "gun control and gun owners" or "gun control and gun owners not NRA members" you will get new hits on new articles relating to these subjects.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
