Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Swifty Morgan, May 18, 2018.
There are ways to secure firearms against unauthorized access while keeping them quickly available to authorized users. Lockboxes are reasonably secure, not expensive and easy to quickly open. They may be secured unobtrusively various places around the house.
Yup, it'll be up to a jury to decide if a gun owner exercised reasonable care with regard to securing his firearms.
And let's see what a Montana court of appeal said about the standard of care that applies to firearms (Estate of Strever v. Cline, 278 Mont. 165 (Mont., 1995), at 174 -- 175 (emphasis added)):
Well, I reckon if this thread was about responsible bomb ownership, and this was a 'bomb enthusiast' forum, perhaps that part of the story would garner more attention,,,
Hope most folks here are 'equally oblivious' when it comes to bomb making, and that we already have very similar views on it.
If so, I just don't see how it has direct effect on the larger, more opinionated subject of this thread relative to, for lack of a better definition, firearm control and (perhaps I missed the memo) why folks who are 'very 2A' aren't appearing like they want to take the lead and speak out publicly about 'an already generally agreed upon' principal that certain folks must not be allowed to have access to firearms, and that the first step in that process should begin in your own home, and not by the government.
Unless there is some 'publically shared and mutually agreed upon' stances showing unity from both sides of the debate, and some fraction of willingness to work on the subject together, with the possibility of give and take occurring on both sides of the aisle, sooner or later it will boil down to a decision by a simple majority.
A brief search indicated current firearm owners make up roughly ~1/3 rd~ of Americans, and that the percentage of owners is decreasing,,,
Can't speak for everyone, but is every gun owner willing to 'roll the dice' with those odds on the chance of an 'all or none' proposition that could be headed our way somewhere down the road?
If so, the outlook appears pretty grim to me, but perhaps many believe that quite a few 'non-owners' are somehow going to side with the "not gonna give a damn inch!" folks,,, (Insert 'Oceanfront property in Arizona' joke here)
While I'm sure many here will disagree, both sides better start emphasizing 'some' form common ground / unity ASAP, and display a willingness to work together to some kind of 'shared direction' ,,,however so small,,,,. Only then will a 'moderate majority' made up of both owners and non owners determine guns should remain a part of our civilian society.
The problem is bad people. And the answer is there's no way (civilly) to get rid of the problem.
And it's nothing new, this has been an issue since forever.
We already have laws that make no difference so unless folks are willing to wander down the road of less civil ideas then we just deal with it.
I'm 57. I, literally, have been around guns for as long as I can remember - because my dad collected old guns and was a gun enthusiast (hunted and shot recreationally) long before I was born. I'd walk with him while he was pheasant hunting before I could carry a gun. As I grew older we did all sorts of hunting, shooting and reloading together.
He was a typical, crusty conservative. He believed deeply in the Second Amendment and conservative principles in general. He instilled deeply in me the responsibility of gun ownership and safety. He was very easy-going when we were together, *except* if he saw me do something that broke the safety rules. Then he'd come down on me like a ton of bricks. And he appreciated it when I was observing him, holding him accountable to the rules as well. (Although I can't say I recall a time where I caught him doing something wrong.)
Was I allowed to have a cap gun growing up? Nope. Would he get mad if I made the shape of a gun with my hand and pretended to shoot someone? Yup. His mantra was "Guns aren't toys. We don't play with guns." This crusty conservative, in the '60s and '70s, took stances that I think we'd generally associate with liberals: "I'm not going to let my kid play with guns."
We exhibit and demand safety when we shoot. We not only hold other people on the firing line accountable, I've seen people get very direct and very blunt with someone - to make the point they made a serious error. We hold each other accountable and we demand everyone act accordingly. At least where I shoot, if you ever want to see if this "invisible police force" is in action, simply touch your gun when there is a cease fire. Folks will be all over you in a heartbeat.
Why does this attitude toward other gun owners seemingly get abandoned when we leave the grounds of our gun clubs?
It’s a lie when they say they merely want to have a “conversation” and seek only “bipartisan compromise.” Foamy Marco Rubio got suckered into that grift just like Chuck Schumer suckered him into pushing amnesty, and they’ve been ritually disemboweling him ever since.
“Bought and paid for by the NRA; wants children murdered; blah blah blah.” We all know the score. He went to that CNN town hall, which seemed more like a dinner theater staging of The Crucible, and tried to be a cordial, open-minded guy, and they eviscerated him. There’s a lesson for you—never show these aspiring Red Guards any weakness. They despise us adherents of the Constitution for resisting, but at least they have to grudgingly respect that we won’t roll over. But Rubio is weak, and he showed his belly, and they despise him for it.
Though soft boys like Marco and his ilk refuse to acknowledge it, the other side’s ultimate goal is simple—they want us disarmed. But why?
They realize that Normal Americans are perfectly capable of safely owning all sorts of firearms. You slice the Democrat-run blue cities out of the statistics and America’s criminal misuse of firearms rate is comparable to Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood. They absolutely understand that. But that’s not remotely the point.
let's never change anything - they will change it for us.
p.s. I have a beef with "thoughts and prayers" b/c it is a phrase , empty words
just like "how are you ? '' became a greeting
gun in what they just lectured you about. That will get them frothing at the mouth. Then explain that these items do kill and maim more innocents and "children" than any thing involving firearms every single day of the year. They then shut down their rational? thinking and try to out shout you and usually become violent. Ironic is it not. They are the ones that want us to be tolerant of a few "different" individuals/ideals. Again, this is about using useful idiots to further the complete gun removal agenda from ones political enemies. I personally feel that if things come down to a massive change in things gun related there will be more of a push back that the other side wants. The last incident used "common hunting and self defense firearms" to cause lots of harm. Those that always say "I am a hunter, they are not after my firearms." will now see that they indeed are after them. Rant over.
...didn't go off. More, they wouldn't have worked according to reports. The fact that they were present pales against what actually caused harm to others when people consider the risk and their response.
First let's be straight - If you have a nut job living under your roof, it's your responsibility to see that he/she is no longer a threat to society. It that means confining him/her in a mental health institution, then that's what is reasonable.
Second, many of our recommendations to prevent these school shootings haven't been implemented. Like securing the front entry against armed folks entering the facility to commit mayhem.
Third, gun free zones only mean those that could act to stop an event like the last couple can't because they don't want to break the law. They become a target rich environment.
They were never tolerant to begin with, they just pretended to be in their own minds.
Yes, people should secure things but if someone breaks into my home (felony) and steals my firearms (felony) which I have secured those felonies are on them. Not me. Now, if I give a dangerous person a weapon that is another matter.
Pushing to secure will become a classicist argument (which the left loves). The low income single mom who needs to defend herself will have to scrap to buy a reasonable firearm and then have to meet the security requirements which may well cost more than the firearm.
When people steal a car and injure others I don't think I have ever heard a cry to secure them better. Maybe everyone should pull their car battery each night and put it into an approved safe.
A single entrance at the school protected by a metal detector is one improvement. Alarmed secondary exits would allow emergency escape from the school without allowing a collaborator to let a shooter in the back door. Video surveillance with a full time security officer monitoring all entrances and exits would also help. Costly? Yes. Necessary? Also, yes.
I'm sure you're right about many people in the "formerly tolerant" group. I'm sure you're wrong about the person I described.
At the end of the day whether you're right or I'm right doesn't matter: The numbers of people willing to vote "anti" are growing.
So what do we do as a result? Dig in our heels deeper and offer nothing different than our standard answers? It's those standard answers that are causing the number of antis to grow.
So many people here seem to be thinking some here are advocating gun control. I'm advocating demonstrating a level of concern and willingness to hold each other accountable in all areas of gun ownership, not just when we're at the range. Make it socially unacceptable within our group to act irresponsibly. This is what happened with drinking and driving. It was when it became an embarassment to drink and drive that numbers started to fall.
I think you have a fair point. This is part of the reason that the schools have been putting so much effort into anti-bullying, other than anti-bullyings obvious educational utility. I do see that all of the schools in my district have gone to an airlock system with doors that are remotely opened. The trouble is not only in developing security, but also in ensuring that the resulting system also promotes education.
However, this takes us a distance from the issue of securing firearms. I remain opposed to mandates because it moves the criminal behaviour from the thief to the victim. As far as allowing one's own children access to firearms, I think that we can all see that going either way.
It already is.
He's not going to try to harm anyone, but when he gets worse, he could very well forget what a pistol is, pick one up to look at it, and pull the trigger. If I start having mental issues, I hope I will be honest enough to give up my guns and take my chances without them before I put anyone else in danger.
It's too bad the parents of Adam Lanza and Dimitrios Pagourtzis didn't take similar measures. The victims, their families, and every gun owner in America are paying the price for their denial.
We call that place New Jersey.
Sorry about your dad. He obviously raised you to be responsible, as a parent should.
In too many families there has been no responsibility for generations. More laws can't fix that and bigger government will make (has made) it worse.
au contraire mon ami, ... it is considered a "teaching opportunity".
From our sister board:
And now I understand that it was a Rem 870 and a revolver?
You're going to just loooove paragraphs 3 & 4 ....
Classic spin when the facts don't fit the narrative.
Separate names with a comma.