ServiceSoon
Member
There is a lot of philosophical talk going on here. The bottom line is secure your firearms or the government will do it for you. Can we agree on that?
Omaha Shooter: AK47 Unlocked Closet, Handguns Hidden, Owner on Vacation
- Thread starter jakemccoy
- Start date
- Status
Antipasta wrote:
There you go, making the same kind of arguments the gun grabbers make about having to "justify" when and where to have a gun (or several guns). Do you have a crystal ball that tells you when and where someone is going to attempt to do you harm? Many people (until last week) would have said that it's perfectly safe to go to the mall or to church without having a gun.
A gun sitting locked up in a safe is totally useless to you if you need it quickly. If a person has lots of guns (and many people do) then they are far more likely to do you some good if they are readily available to you. The gun you left in your car does you no good if you are in the TV room and someone comes in your house.
Likewise, the gun in your nightstand does you no good if you drive down to the convenience store without it. Also, it may be a little hard to conceal that pump shotgun under your shirt when you go down to the convenience store for a package of Twinkies (or whatever).
There you go, making the same kind of arguments the gun grabbers make about having to "justify" when and where to have a gun (or several guns). Do you have a crystal ball that tells you when and where someone is going to attempt to do you harm? Many people (until last week) would have said that it's perfectly safe to go to the mall or to church without having a gun.
A gun sitting locked up in a safe is totally useless to you if you need it quickly. If a person has lots of guns (and many people do) then they are far more likely to do you some good if they are readily available to you. The gun you left in your car does you no good if you are in the TV room and someone comes in your house.
Likewise, the gun in your nightstand does you no good if you drive down to the convenience store without it. Also, it may be a little hard to conceal that pump shotgun under your shirt when you go down to the convenience store for a package of Twinkies (or whatever).
ServiceSoon wrote:
No, I DON'T agree with that. That's an attempt to put the blame for gun theft on the VICTIM. Any adult, and most teenagers too, who want a gun WILL get one, one way or another. To attempt to put the blame on the person he steals the gun from is to blame the victim. I suppose that you also blame any woman who gets raped for being too attractive????
I contend that the more gun owners like you who keep clamoring for ALL gun owners to follow YOUR idea of when it's necessary to secure their guns, the more likely it is that the government will do exactly what we don't want them to do..... i.e. MANDATE "safe storage" for ALL our guns. Then, we will have to keep all our guns under lock and key 24/7 unless we can prove we are either on our way to or from the shooting range which is the only place the guns will be allowed to be uncased and loaded.
No, I DON'T agree with that. That's an attempt to put the blame for gun theft on the VICTIM. Any adult, and most teenagers too, who want a gun WILL get one, one way or another. To attempt to put the blame on the person he steals the gun from is to blame the victim. I suppose that you also blame any woman who gets raped for being too attractive????
I contend that the more gun owners like you who keep clamoring for ALL gun owners to follow YOUR idea of when it's necessary to secure their guns, the more likely it is that the government will do exactly what we don't want them to do..... i.e. MANDATE "safe storage" for ALL our guns. Then, we will have to keep all our guns under lock and key 24/7 unless we can prove we are either on our way to or from the shooting range which is the only place the guns will be allowed to be uncased and loaded.
Snapping Twig
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 655
Back in the days of common sense, pre "progressivism", we would have blamed the one who did it - period.
Our minds have been twisted slowly through incrementalism that guns are bad and we no longer blame the one who did the crime, but the one who wasn't there. Why? Because that person is a gun owner. Bad person...
Truth be told, the adult in charge at the time of the theft is the most responsible, but to my mind, to call the victim of theft the guilty party is to blame an eating utensil for making someone fat and ignore the willful misuse of food by the fat person. Patently absurd.
We need to wake up and rescind these insane and prejudicial philosophies and get back to right and wrong. 100 shades of grey is nothing more than a wedge used by those that would see our ruination.
Our minds have been twisted slowly through incrementalism that guns are bad and we no longer blame the one who did the crime, but the one who wasn't there. Why? Because that person is a gun owner. Bad person...
Truth be told, the adult in charge at the time of the theft is the most responsible, but to my mind, to call the victim of theft the guilty party is to blame an eating utensil for making someone fat and ignore the willful misuse of food by the fat person. Patently absurd.
We need to wake up and rescind these insane and prejudicial philosophies and get back to right and wrong. 100 shades of grey is nothing more than a wedge used by those that would see our ruination.
Aguila Blanca
Member
It didn't sound to me like the ex step-dad knew the kid was a nut, and it certainly didn't sound like he knew the kid would be coming over.AZ Husker said:
Aguila Blanca
Member
Sorry - dunno how double taps can happen, the forum software isn't supposed to allow it
Aguila Blanca
Member
And you know for a certainty that the hidden handguns would have been found because ????????jakemccoy said:
Hawkins didn't find them, and he both knew the house and knew how much time he had to search. I think your statement is without merit.
Master Blaster
Member
100 shades of grey is the raison d'etre for the modern plaintiffs bar.
Other wise you cant go after the guy with the deep pockets.
You can't sue or punnish the dead criminal who is 100% responsible for the crime. He doesn't have any money anyway.
Other wise you cant go after the guy with the deep pockets.
You can't sue or punnish the dead criminal who is 100% responsible for the crime. He doesn't have any money anyway.
Aguila Blanca
Member
I'm beginning to wonder if many people on THR can read!Antipasta said:
The ex step-father HID the handguns, people. Apparently he hid them well enough that the kid, who KNEW the house and who KNEW his mother and sisters would be gone for some time, couldn't find them. Just exactly what part of this is irresponsible? Where did you come up with "six guns laying around the house"? It doesn't sound like the step-dad ever left guns "laying around the house." He kept them in a closet, and when he was going away he took precautions that SUCCESSFULLY prevented them from being stolen.
I am disgusted by the comments I'm seeing in this thread aimed at putting responsibility for this shooting on anyone other than the shooter. I am more concerned about the preservation of the 2nd Amendment after reading THIS thread than I have been in years.
What is the matter with you people?
Snapping Twig
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 655
Well MB, you say that like it's a bad thing.
Deep pockets philosophy is one of the reasons we're in the horrible shape we're in. Abolish it and we're good to go.
I know you'll have numerous reasons why my thought is naive, but let me assure you, it is not. The deep pockets rules have been horrific in their effects on the United States.
Go after the guilty party, leave all others unmolested.
If someone of deep pockets can be proved to be complicit, go after them, but to do so simply because you can is immoral and socially unacceptable.
Deep pockets philosophy is one of the reasons we're in the horrible shape we're in. Abolish it and we're good to go.
I know you'll have numerous reasons why my thought is naive, but let me assure you, it is not. The deep pockets rules have been horrific in their effects on the United States.
Go after the guilty party, leave all others unmolested.
If someone of deep pockets can be proved to be complicit, go after them, but to do so simply because you can is immoral and socially unacceptable.
jakemccoy
Member
............
Last edited:
jakemccoy
Member
Aguila wrote:
I see 2A rights in jeopardy also, but for the opposite reason you suggest.
I don't want government intervention on me or on the gun owner at issue here. That's the point!
We sometimes need to correct ourselves so that the government doesn't. You may get mad as hell at that statement. You may even flail your arms uncontrollably. However, doing so just shows a lack of awareness of how hardcore anti-gun people really are. I’m talking about the anti-gun people who have dedicated their lives to removing gun rights.
If you're disgusted by the logical statements of this thread, please stay here to argue where it's warm and safe; do not enter the real world where you'll have to deal with unfettered irrationality of anti-gun people.
It’s unfortunate that many gun owners have chosen to remain silent on this thread. I’ll speak up for them.
With the power of a gun comes a heightened level of responsibility. Hiding guns is not responsible. A common burglar knows all the locations that you think are top secret. Think about those guns as being out in the open. Responsible gun storage is in a safe.
It goes without saying that an unlocked AK47 in the closet is irresponsible, especially if you know you have a delinquent wandering around your premises. The wife should have had a safe for storing the AK47 and the handguns when she was not home. When she entered the home, she could have removed the AK47 while keeping the gun within her immediate space/awareness.
It's been said that even if the AK47 was locked up, the delinquent would have gotten the guns from elsewhere. That's good! Well, obvious it's not literally good, but it's good in the sense that the guns wouldn't have come from the law-abiding step father. We'd have one thing less to debate with anti-gun people.
I see 2A rights in jeopardy also, but for the opposite reason you suggest.
I don't want government intervention on me or on the gun owner at issue here. That's the point!
We sometimes need to correct ourselves so that the government doesn't. You may get mad as hell at that statement. You may even flail your arms uncontrollably. However, doing so just shows a lack of awareness of how hardcore anti-gun people really are. I’m talking about the anti-gun people who have dedicated their lives to removing gun rights.
If you're disgusted by the logical statements of this thread, please stay here to argue where it's warm and safe; do not enter the real world where you'll have to deal with unfettered irrationality of anti-gun people.
It’s unfortunate that many gun owners have chosen to remain silent on this thread. I’ll speak up for them.
With the power of a gun comes a heightened level of responsibility. Hiding guns is not responsible. A common burglar knows all the locations that you think are top secret. Think about those guns as being out in the open. Responsible gun storage is in a safe.
It goes without saying that an unlocked AK47 in the closet is irresponsible, especially if you know you have a delinquent wandering around your premises. The wife should have had a safe for storing the AK47 and the handguns when she was not home. When she entered the home, she could have removed the AK47 while keeping the gun within her immediate space/awareness.
It's been said that even if the AK47 was locked up, the delinquent would have gotten the guns from elsewhere. That's good! Well, obvious it's not literally good, but it's good in the sense that the guns wouldn't have come from the law-abiding step father. We'd have one thing less to debate with anti-gun people.
With the attraction of womanhood comes a heightened level of responsibility. Covering your goods is not responsible. A common rapist knows all the locations that you may think are so secret. Think about those goods as being out in the open. Responsible "goods" protection is in a chastity belt.
Accordinlgly, it goes without saying that an unlocked "goods" in a skirt is irresponsible, especially if you know you have a delinquent wandering around your premises. The lower goods and the upper goods here should have been kept in chastity belt and chastity breastplate whenever the woman was not home. When she entered the home, she could have removed the belts while keeping the goods within her immediate space/awareness.
It's been said that even if the goods were locked up, the delinquent would have raped someone else. That's good! Well, obvious it's not literally good, but it's good in the sense that the goods wouldn't have come from the law-abiding woman. Thus, we'd have one thing less to debate with anti-rape folks.
Aguila Blanca
Member
I will reiterate that (a) the kid, who knew the house, did NOT find the hidden handguns. Having been the victim of a burglary, I know how fast they enter, toss the place, and scoot. If Hawkins couldn't find them in an hour, a burglar would not have found them in the 2 or 3 minutes they allow themselves to toss a house.
(b) The step-father (ex) did NOT know that the kid would be in the house.
I'm sorry, but with all due respect I see your kind of "pro-gun" advocacy as being fully as dangerous to the 2A as anything the antis can throw at us. Probably more so, because it plays into their hands.
(b) The step-father (ex) did NOT know that the kid would be in the house.
I'm sorry, but with all due respect I see your kind of "pro-gun" advocacy as being fully as dangerous to the 2A as anything the antis can throw at us. Probably more so, because it plays into their hands.
jakemccoy
Member
Aguila, you need to get out more. Spend some time on the Hill if you can.
All of you who are making the analogy to rape ought to be ashamed of yourselves. The comparison of this gun owner to a rape victim is degrading to women. It shows how off some folks are when it comes to their guns. Every court in the country would think you're way off. I would never attempt to explain such an analogy with a rape victim.
All of you who are making the analogy to rape ought to be ashamed of yourselves. The comparison of this gun owner to a rape victim is degrading to women. It shows how off some folks are when it comes to their guns. Every court in the country would think you're way off. I would never attempt to explain such an analogy with a rape victim.
Odd you should say that, We were robbed before, 14 guns taken from locked gun box, they had about 3 hours to get it done, I was pissed when I got the call at work, my wife.... said she felt like she had been raped...hmmm.
We lock up our guns every time we leave the house, yet there are 14 of my firearms out there some where.:banghead:
We lock up our guns every time we leave the house, yet there are 14 of my firearms out there some where.:banghead:
jakemccoy
Member
gmhippie,
What??? Has she ever been raped? Have you ever been raped by another man? (I'll bet you never thought of that one.)
If no, then neither you nor she knows what it's like to be raped. I've never been raped, but I know you'd have to be a pretty insensitive person to present this analogy to a rape victim. Just leave it alone. People have carelessly presented this analogy for shock purposes only.
What??? Has she ever been raped? Have you ever been raped by another man? (I'll bet you never thought of that one.)
If no, then neither you nor she knows what it's like to be raped. I've never been raped, but I know you'd have to be a pretty insensitive person to present this analogy to a rape victim. Just leave it alone. People have carelessly presented this analogy for shock purposes only.
Check with your local Police Dept, MANY people who have been robbed identifie it with being raped, I cant tell you why I'm not a shrink, but that dont change the fact that most find it very similar, any unwanted violation although differnt physicaly is the same emotionaly!
jakemccoy
Member
Whatever, dude, I've been robbed before of almost everything I owned. Here's $100,000 and a vacation package to Hawaii. Now, I'm whole again.
Dude.Simply because the crime of rape is more heinous than the theft of a firearm does not disqualify the analogy.
Blaming the victim in both instances is WRONG. This is the point we are making.
Yes, more steps could have been taken to prevent the maniac from gaining access to the weapon. However, if the man had locked away the weapon while he was away, it would have been useless for self defense.
Have you not read many self-defense instances? A gentleman in "Armed Citizen" this month was charitable and brought three men into his house to feed them and was about to offer them jobs when they started stabbing him. Had he had his weapon locked away while he was gone, when he fought his way over to it, he'd have still been dead. (As it is, he fought them off and says "if I had a trigger lock, I'd be dead)
A locked gun is USELESS for defense. Why do you think we find the Washington, DC gun laws so awful? They require all guns in the house be locked up at all times, disassembled. This certainly prevents maniacs from breaking in and just walking away with a gun. What else does this prevent? That's right, home defense.
This is the reason we are fighting against your suggestion"\ that we require "reasonable" gun storage. "Reasonable" gun storage leads to "useless" guns. How many people have gotten attacked as they come home? How many people have been attacked as they are leaving home? What would locking up all their guns in a safe with trigger locks have done for them when they walk in?
This is why we compare this to BLAMING THE RAPE VICTIM. We do not compare the crime to that of rape, we compare your blaming the gun owner to that of blaming a rape victim. Both are victims, both are innocent of wrongdoing. Appealing to the emotional repulsion we all have for rape does nothing for your argument.
Tell me how your blaming the gun owner is any different than blaming a rape victim.
Blaming the victim in both instances is WRONG. This is the point we are making.
Yes, more steps could have been taken to prevent the maniac from gaining access to the weapon. However, if the man had locked away the weapon while he was away, it would have been useless for self defense.
Have you not read many self-defense instances? A gentleman in "Armed Citizen" this month was charitable and brought three men into his house to feed them and was about to offer them jobs when they started stabbing him. Had he had his weapon locked away while he was gone, when he fought his way over to it, he'd have still been dead. (As it is, he fought them off and says "if I had a trigger lock, I'd be dead)
A locked gun is USELESS for defense. Why do you think we find the Washington, DC gun laws so awful? They require all guns in the house be locked up at all times, disassembled. This certainly prevents maniacs from breaking in and just walking away with a gun. What else does this prevent? That's right, home defense.
This is the reason we are fighting against your suggestion"\ that we require "reasonable" gun storage. "Reasonable" gun storage leads to "useless" guns. How many people have gotten attacked as they come home? How many people have been attacked as they are leaving home? What would locking up all their guns in a safe with trigger locks have done for them when they walk in?
This is why we compare this to BLAMING THE RAPE VICTIM. We do not compare the crime to that of rape, we compare your blaming the gun owner to that of blaming a rape victim. Both are victims, both are innocent of wrongdoing. Appealing to the emotional repulsion we all have for rape does nothing for your argument.
Tell me how your blaming the gun owner is any different than blaming a rape victim.
jakemccoy
Member
Some people here are suggesting that having another man rape you AS A MAN is comparable to him taking your gun collection. I say take my guns, thanks for the option though. The comparison is so lopsided that it is only for shock value and lacks merit.
I said it pissed me off, can you not read and like you, I said money would make it go away, HOWEVER my wife doesnt feel that way...
jakemccoy
Member
It's about heightened responsibility.
Imagine this. You're a father with an awesomely gorgeous 18 year old daughter. Halloween night, she decides to go to a party in the hood wearing a G-string and a sexy top. You know the type of guys that will be there. You allow her to go as she is. She gets raped. Are you to blame legally? No, you are not. Could you have prevented the crime by responsibly guiding your daughter’s behavior? Quite probably, you could have.
Regarding other issues you might bring up, read my other posts.
Imagine this. You're a father with an awesomely gorgeous 18 year old daughter. Halloween night, she decides to go to a party in the hood wearing a G-string and a sexy top. You know the type of guys that will be there. You allow her to go as she is. She gets raped. Are you to blame legally? No, you are not. Could you have prevented the crime by responsibly guiding your daughter’s behavior? Quite probably, you could have.
Regarding other issues you might bring up, read my other posts.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked