login
'The' Gun Thread (Page 26)
-
No new posts
|
 2013-04-09 1:46 PM in reply to: #4693472 |
Champion  34263     Chicago |  Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Threadpowerman - 2013-04-09 1:14 PM pitt83 - 2013-04-09 11:37 AM powerman - 2013-04-09 1:35 PM How then do we stop shill buying? Short of knowing that you're buying a handgun weekly, which leads one to believe that you may be trafficking them, it's an acceptable risk?Big Appa - 2013-04-09 10:42 AM pitt83 - 2013-04-09 9:33 AM Thanks for the clarification. I disagree the database is a bad idea, but agree with the risks of it leaking. Mostly, if a thug murders someone, I would like traceability to who owned that gun the first time in a legal fashion. If you're a shill buyer selling stolen or even legally gotten firearms to drug dealers, etc., that's gotta stop. Knowing the legal first or subsequent legal purchases helps here. You say you want no record, I say I'd like a complete one. Is that right? Even the NAACP is against a kept records to keep a data base. The main problem is on back ground checks is how the data is recorded and how long it is kept. If they did a background check then deleted the check of a person who passed so it has no record besides passing or failing I am ok with that. Ya, and the ACLU has a problem with it too, for several reasons. You can't. Where there is a demand, there will be a supply.... what do you not understand about the illegal drug trade? Let's get this straight... I have no problem with universal background checks... yet I am under no illusion that will stop criminals from getting guns. None what so ever. It will stop criminals from buying guns from legal outlets. So... you get your hearts desire and a universal registration so you can track ever bullet and fire arm in this country... and criminals buy them from the black market shipped in from South America. What do you not understand about the illegal drug trade? You can not stop criminals from getting guns, period. But here is an idea... how about we stop harassing law abiding gun owners and restricting their constitutional rights? How about we erase all gun laws on the books? How about we let all drug offenders and non-violent offenders out of prison? How about we have a "Universal Gun Crime" bill. If you commit a violent crime with a gun, you just earned life in prison without the possibility of parole? Then, we can add if you are a prohibited person, and you are found guilty of possession of a fire arm.... life in prison without the possibility of parole. How about... we actually address the problem instead of the symptom... mmmkay? Sounds logical. |
| 2013-04-09 2:00 PM in reply to: #4643301 |
Iron Donkey 38643  , Wisconsin | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread If this is 'The' Gun Thread, why hasn't anyone recently posted a picture of 'The' gun? Edited by 1stTimeTri 2013-04-09 2:00 PM |
| 2013-04-09 2:02 PM in reply to: #4693550 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread 1stTimeTri - 2013-04-09 2:00 PM If this is 'The' Gun Thread, why hasn't anyone recently posted a picture of 'The' gun? It's too scary. |
| 2013-04-09 3:26 PM in reply to: #4693521 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread mr2tony - 2013-04-09 2:46 PM powerman - 2013-04-09 1:14 PM Sounds logical. But here is an idea... how about we stop harassing law abiding gun owners and restricting their constitutional rights? How about we erase all gun laws on the books? How about we let all drug offenders and non-violent offenders out of prison? How about we have a "Universal Gun Crime" bill. If you commit a violent crime with a gun, you just earned life in prison without the possibility of parole? Then, we can add if you are a prohibited person, and you are found guilty of possession of a fire arm.... life in prison without the possibility of parole. How about... we actually address the problem instead of the symptom... mmmkay? It sounds impossible because where in your end game do we remove all guns? After all, the goal has nothing to do with saving anyone. The goal is incremental removal. We all know it. This is why gun owners need to push more proactive ideas such as yours to assure the facts remain on our side. |
| 2013-04-09 3:32 PM in reply to: #4693502 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread mr2tony - 2013-04-09 2:32 PM I think a better analogy would be if a person put their child in a car, started the car and put it in drive, then got out and walked away. If the kid presses the gas pedal and backs over a pedestrian and kills them, then the parent would likely be arrested for, at minimum, child neglect, and at worst, some sort of homicide through negligence. What I still find bizarre is that the person still would not have all their vehicles seized and be barred from ever owning one again. Right, wrong or indifferent it doesn't seem to make sense. Both have the potential to do damage when handled irresponsibly. Why is the consequence so much different? That's really not directed to you from anything you have said. It's just an observation for discussion. My personal feeling is that it is driven by fear that is instilled in a person by propaganda or the unknown. |
| 2013-04-09 5:06 PM in reply to: #4693743 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Pector55 - 2013-04-09 3:32 PM mr2tony - 2013-04-09 2:32 PM I think a better analogy would be if a person put their child in a car, started the car and put it in drive, then got out and walked away. If the kid presses the gas pedal and backs over a pedestrian and kills them, then the parent would likely be arrested for, at minimum, child neglect, and at worst, some sort of homicide through negligence. What I still find bizarre is that the person still would not have all their vehicles seized and be barred from ever owning one again. Right, wrong or indifferent it doesn't seem to make sense. Both have the potential to do damage when handled irresponsibly. Why is the consequence so much different? That's really not directed to you from anything you have said. It's just an observation for discussion. My personal feeling is that it is driven by fear that is instilled in a person by propaganda or the unknown. I guess my thought in this situation would be that the cop who left his personal gun loaded and ready to shoot on a bed when there are children present should be punished in some way because it was a death that could've been avoided. Losing his gun permit or his right to own a gun for a period of time shouldn't be off the table. And neither should jail time. |
| 2013-04-09 5:26 PM in reply to: #4693875 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread mr2tony - 2013-04-09 4:06 PM Pector55 - 2013-04-09 3:32 PM I guess my thought in this situation would be that the cop who left his personal gun loaded and ready to shoot on a bed when there are children present should be punished in some way because it was a death that could've been avoided. Losing his gun permit or his right to own a gun for a period of time shouldn't be off the table. And neither should jail time.mr2tony - 2013-04-09 2:32 PM I think a better analogy would be if a person put their child in a car, started the car and put it in drive, then got out and walked away. If the kid presses the gas pedal and backs over a pedestrian and kills them, then the parent would likely be arrested for, at minimum, child neglect, and at worst, some sort of homicide through negligence. What I still find bizarre is that the person still would not have all their vehicles seized and be barred from ever owning one again. Right, wrong or indifferent it doesn't seem to make sense. Both have the potential to do damage when handled irresponsibly. Why is the consequence so much different? That's really not directed to you from anything you have said. It's just an observation for discussion. My personal feeling is that it is driven by fear that is instilled in a person by propaganda or the unknown. But that does not jive with what juries have done in the past. What do you do to a mother that backs over her child in the drive way? What law/penalty do you impose that gets parents to realize killing their family members in a moment of carelessness is a really bad thing that you should make sure does not happen? You are telling me a law and a penalty is going to stop that? These things happen all the time... in real life, and prosecuters do not prosecute, and juries do not convict. You are telling me sending the father to jail, taking the childs only parent away after he kills his mother is just punishment for the death of his wife? WOW. |
| 2013-04-09 5:28 PM in reply to: #4693889 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread How does leaving an unattended child in a car in the summer with the windows rolled up play into this? I'm not taking either side, just observing, but it made me think of this. It's careless, but the parent gets prosecuted, no? They take that extremely seriously here when it get's to 110 routinely. You can die in minutes in a closed car. Edited by Kido 2013-04-09 5:28 PM |
| 2013-04-09 5:37 PM in reply to: #4693889 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread powerman - 2013-04-09 5:26 PM mr2tony - 2013-04-09 4:06 PM Pector55 - 2013-04-09 3:32 PM I guess my thought in this situation would be that the cop who left his personal gun loaded and ready to shoot on a bed when there are children present should be punished in some way because it was a death that could've been avoided. Losing his gun permit or his right to own a gun for a period of time shouldn't be off the table. And neither should jail time.mr2tony - 2013-04-09 2:32 PM I think a better analogy would be if a person put their child in a car, started the car and put it in drive, then got out and walked away. If the kid presses the gas pedal and backs over a pedestrian and kills them, then the parent would likely be arrested for, at minimum, child neglect, and at worst, some sort of homicide through negligence. What I still find bizarre is that the person still would not have all their vehicles seized and be barred from ever owning one again. Right, wrong or indifferent it doesn't seem to make sense. Both have the potential to do damage when handled irresponsibly. Why is the consequence so much different? That's really not directed to you from anything you have said. It's just an observation for discussion. My personal feeling is that it is driven by fear that is instilled in a person by propaganda or the unknown. But that does not jive with what juries have done in the past. What do you do to a mother that backs over her child in the drive way? What law/penalty do you impose that gets parents to realize killing their family members in a moment of carelessness is a really bad thing that you should make sure does not happen? You are telling me a law and a penalty is going to stop that? These things happen all the time... in real life, and prosecuters do not prosecute, and juries do not convict. You are telling me sending the father to jail, taking the childs only parent away after he kills his mother is just punishment for the death of his wife? WOW. That sure puts a whole new perspective on it. |
| 2013-04-09 6:04 PM in reply to: #4693892 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Kido - 2013-04-09 4:28 PM How does leaving an unattended child in a car in the summer with the windows rolled up play into this? I'm not taking either side, just observing, but it made me think of this. It's careless, but the parent gets prosecuted, no? They take that extremely seriously here when it get's to 110 routinely. You can die in minutes in a closed car. Usually in those cases it is some serious neglegence going on. It wasn't a momentary lapse of judgment... usually it is the mother on a 2 hour shopping spree, or sitting in a crack house... at least those are the ones I remember. It wasn't an "accident". |
| 2013-04-09 6:20 PM in reply to: #4693922 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread powerman - 2013-04-09 4:04 PM Kido - 2013-04-09 4:28 PM How does leaving an unattended child in a car in the summer with the windows rolled up play into this? I'm not taking either side, just observing, but it made me think of this. It's careless, but the parent gets prosecuted, no? They take that extremely seriously here when it get's to 110 routinely. You can die in minutes in a closed car. Usually in those cases it is some serious neglegence going on. It wasn't a momentary lapse of judgment... usually it is the mother on a 2 hour shopping spree, or sitting in a crack house... at least those are the ones I remember. It wasn't an "accident". I would say that's probably the case. But every summer around here, a child is left for only minutes as she went in to get stamps or something and by the time she get's back, heat stroke/death is unavoidable. A car can get to 150 in less than 10 minutes in the summer. Could be for the cameras or court, but they sound distraught and say it was only for a couple minutes. Neglagence vs carelessness get's sticky. That's why in 2005 they get around making that determination and passed a law that if you leave a child in a car at all, it's endangerment. Period. Starts with up to 6 months in jail and up to a $1000 fine even if the child was unhurt. If they should suffer injury? Look out. Could the same be said about leaving a loaded gun around? It's endangerment? |
| 2013-04-09 6:51 PM in reply to: #4693937 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Kido - 2013-04-09 5:20 PM powerman - 2013-04-09 4:04 PM Kido - 2013-04-09 4:28 PM How does leaving an unattended child in a car in the summer with the windows rolled up play into this? I'm not taking either side, just observing, but it made me think of this. It's careless, but the parent gets prosecuted, no? They take that extremely seriously here when it get's to 110 routinely. You can die in minutes in a closed car. Usually in those cases it is some serious neglegence going on. It wasn't a momentary lapse of judgment... usually it is the mother on a 2 hour shopping spree, or sitting in a crack house... at least those are the ones I remember. It wasn't an "accident". I would say that's probably the case. But every summer around here, a child is left for only minutes as she went in to get stamps or something and by the time she get's back, heat stroke/death is unavoidable. A car can get to 150 in less than 10 minutes in the summer. Could be for the cameras or court, but they sound distraught and say it was only for a couple minutes. Neglagence vs carelessness get's sticky. That's why in 2005 they get around making that determination and passed a law that if you leave a child in a car at all, it's endangerment. Period. Starts with up to 6 months in jail and up to a $1000 fine even if the child was unhurt. If they should suffer injury? Look out. Could the same be said about leaving a loaded gun around? It's endangerment? Sometimes people do not understand how dangerous cars are in the Summer. Hard to imagine with as many times as it has happened... However, the law is to punish a parent nearly killing their child. Do we really need a law for that.... for negligence/carlessness... not murder? How do we enforce the "loaded gun" law? Well, first it has to be loaded and shoot someone and the cops show up. So now all we do is punish the parent for the tradgedy. What good is that? I'm being serious, what does that do for society? Teach parents to be responsible, gets people not to have kids that are not responsible? I'm talking the big picture here... not guns. How exactly do we fix stupid? So far I have not seen a solution. But that's fine, if we want to lock up people for accidentally killing someone so be it. If it is with a gun, life without parole. |
| 2013-04-09 7:04 PM in reply to: #4693964 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread powerman - 2013-04-09 4:51 PM Kido - 2013-04-09 5:20 PM powerman - 2013-04-09 4:04 PM Kido - 2013-04-09 4:28 PM How does leaving an unattended child in a car in the summer with the windows rolled up play into this? I'm not taking either side, just observing, but it made me think of this. It's careless, but the parent gets prosecuted, no? They take that extremely seriously here when it get's to 110 routinely. You can die in minutes in a closed car. Usually in those cases it is some serious neglegence going on. It wasn't a momentary lapse of judgment... usually it is the mother on a 2 hour shopping spree, or sitting in a crack house... at least those are the ones I remember. It wasn't an "accident". I would say that's probably the case. But every summer around here, a child is left for only minutes as she went in to get stamps or something and by the time she get's back, heat stroke/death is unavoidable. A car can get to 150 in less than 10 minutes in the summer. Could be for the cameras or court, but they sound distraught and say it was only for a couple minutes. Neglagence vs carelessness get's sticky. That's why in 2005 they get around making that determination and passed a law that if you leave a child in a car at all, it's endangerment. Period. Starts with up to 6 months in jail and up to a $1000 fine even if the child was unhurt. If they should suffer injury? Look out. Could the same be said about leaving a loaded gun around? It's endangerment? Sometimes people do not understand how dangerous cars are in the Summer. Hard to imagine with as many times as it has happened... However, the law is to punish a parent nearly killing their child. Do we really need a law for that.... for negligence/carlessness... not murder? How do we enforce the "loaded gun" law? Well, first it has to be loaded and shoot someone and the cops show up. So now all we do is punish the parent for the tradgedy. What good is that? I'm being serious, what does that do for society? Teach parents to be responsible, gets people not to have kids that are not responsible? I'm talking the big picture here... not guns. How exactly do we fix stupid? So far I have not seen a solution. But that's fine, if we want to lock up people for accidentally killing someone so be it. If it is with a gun, life without parole. At the moment (it's late) I don't got no dog in this fight. We already lock people up for accidently killing people or because of a death due to negligance and I'm comfortable with the laws we currently have. (If someone takes that statemet and now finds some obsucre/rediculous law about having to have the lights on while reparing a refridgerator in Arkansas and asks me if I'm comfortable with it, I may have to reach throught the monitor and smack them). What I DO know? If I accidently left my gun out and my kid/wife accidently killed themselves, or if I ran into 7-11 to get a big gulp when it was 115 degrees out and my baby died? It wouldn't matter what the law did to me. I would punish myself harder than any court could. Both are irrisponsible in my eyes, no matter what the courts say or the court of public opinion says. Shoot, my dog "lost" an eye this weekend due to acute glaucoma that set in while I was at work. The vet said there was no way I could have known or done anything differently (save maybe get a vetinary degree and know what to look for). And I still feel sick to my stomach that I failed her somehow and beat myself up. Can't imagine if something happend if/when I have kids. |
| 2013-04-09 7:04 PM in reply to: #4693937 |
Champion 16151 Checkin' out the podium girls | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Kido - 2013-04-09 7:20 PM powerman - 2013-04-09 4:04 PM Kido - 2013-04-09 4:28 PM How does leaving an unattended child in a car in the summer with the windows rolled up play into this? I'm not taking either side, just observing, but it made me think of this. It's careless, but the parent gets prosecuted, no? They take that extremely seriously here when it get's to 110 routinely. You can die in minutes in a closed car. Usually in those cases it is some serious neglegence going on. It wasn't a momentary lapse of judgment... usually it is the mother on a 2 hour shopping spree, or sitting in a crack house... at least those are the ones I remember. It wasn't an "accident". I would say that's probably the case. But every summer around here, a child is left for only minutes as she went in to get stamps or something and by the time she get's back, heat stroke/death is unavoidable. A car can get to 150 in less than 10 minutes in the summer. Could be for the cameras or court, but they sound distraught and say it was only for a couple minutes. Neglagence vs carelessness get's sticky. That's why in 2005 they get around making that determination and passed a law that if you leave a child in a car at all, it's endangerment. Period. Starts with up to 6 months in jail and up to a $1000 fine even if the child was unhurt. If they should suffer injury? Look out. Could the same be said about leaving a loaded gun around? It's endangerment? Stamps? Really? Any one who uses stamps is over the age of 60. |
| 2013-04-09 7:09 PM in reply to: #4693983 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Get off my lawn. |
| 2013-04-09 7:20 PM in reply to: #4693405 |
| Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread pitt83 - 2013-04-09 1:52 PM Why not a ballistic fingerprint? That changes over time and can be completely changed with a nail file. |
| 2013-04-09 7:33 PM in reply to: #4693981 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Kido - 2013-04-09 7:04 PM powerman - 2013-04-09 4:51 PM Kido - 2013-04-09 5:20 PM powerman - 2013-04-09 4:04 PM Kido - 2013-04-09 4:28 PM How does leaving an unattended child in a car in the summer with the windows rolled up play into this? I'm not taking either side, just observing, but it made me think of this. It's careless, but the parent gets prosecuted, no? They take that extremely seriously here when it get's to 110 routinely. You can die in minutes in a closed car. Usually in those cases it is some serious neglegence going on. It wasn't a momentary lapse of judgment... usually it is the mother on a 2 hour shopping spree, or sitting in a crack house... at least those are the ones I remember. It wasn't an "accident". I would say that's probably the case. But every summer around here, a child is left for only minutes as she went in to get stamps or something and by the time she get's back, heat stroke/death is unavoidable. A car can get to 150 in less than 10 minutes in the summer. Could be for the cameras or court, but they sound distraught and say it was only for a couple minutes. Neglagence vs carelessness get's sticky. That's why in 2005 they get around making that determination and passed a law that if you leave a child in a car at all, it's endangerment. Period. Starts with up to 6 months in jail and up to a $1000 fine even if the child was unhurt. If they should suffer injury? Look out. Could the same be said about leaving a loaded gun around? It's endangerment? Sometimes people do not understand how dangerous cars are in the Summer. Hard to imagine with as many times as it has happened... However, the law is to punish a parent nearly killing their child. Do we really need a law for that.... for negligence/carlessness... not murder? How do we enforce the "loaded gun" law? Well, first it has to be loaded and shoot someone and the cops show up. So now all we do is punish the parent for the tradgedy. What good is that? I'm being serious, what does that do for society? Teach parents to be responsible, gets people not to have kids that are not responsible? I'm talking the big picture here... not guns. How exactly do we fix stupid? So far I have not seen a solution. But that's fine, if we want to lock up people for accidentally killing someone so be it. If it is with a gun, life without parole. At the moment (it's late) I don't got no dog in this fight. We already lock people up for accidently killing people or because of a death due to negligance and I'm comfortable with the laws we currently have. (If someone takes that statemet and now finds some obsucre/rediculous law about having to have the lights on while reparing a refridgerator in Arkansas and asks me if I'm comfortable with it, I may have to reach throught the monitor and smack them). What I DO know? If I accidently left my gun out and my kid/wife accidently killed themselves, or if I ran into 7-11 to get a big gulp when it was 115 degrees out and my baby died? It wouldn't matter what the law did to me. I would punish myself harder than any court could. Both are irrisponsible in my eyes, no matter what the courts say or the court of public opinion says. Shoot, my dog "lost" an eye this weekend due to acute glaucoma that set in while I was at work. The vet said there was no way I could have known or done anything differently (save maybe get a vetinary degree and know what to look for). And I still feel sick to my stomach that I failed her somehow and beat myself up. Can't imagine if something happend if/when I have kids. Dammit, i was so going to do that... OK, I can't resist.... In Maryland, it's illegal to take a lion to the movies... Are you comfortable with this? Why can't I take my Lion to the movies??? I'm ok with this one because it obviously prevents crime... In Washington state, there is a law that states that 'a motorist with criminal intentions [must] stop at the city limits and telephone the chief of police as he is entering the town.' On a serious note though, you'd be amazed at how many laws are on the books in various regions that criminalize what you and I would consider normal things. Granted, they don't often get prosecuted, but they can. So I am most emphatically not comfortable with many laws that are on the books. :-P |
| 2013-04-09 9:41 PM in reply to: #4693981 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Kido - 2013-04-09 6:04 PM
What I DO know? If I accidently left my gun out and my kid/wife accidently killed themselves, or if I ran into 7-11 to get a big gulp when it was 115 degrees out and my baby died? It wouldn't matter what the law did to me. I would punish myself harder than any court could. Both are irrisponsible in my eyes, no matter what the courts say or the court of public opinion says. Shoot, my dog "lost" an eye this weekend due to acute glaucoma that set in while I was at work. The vet said there was no way I could have known or done anything differently (save maybe get a vetinary degree and know what to look for). And I still feel sick to my stomach that I failed her somehow and beat myself up. Can't imagine if something happend if/when I have kids. EXACTLY! How exactly do I "punish" you in that case? What is the pound of flesh society is "owed" from your mistake? And I have heard those stories of mothers running over and killing their kids... like you... I would be near suicidal if I ran over and killed my dog. But a tragic event happens and we have to rush to the gun thread so we do not pass up a chance to roll eyes. Oh... sorry... not a tragic accident.... epidemic of gun violence. |
| 2013-04-10 5:38 AM in reply to: #4643301 |
| Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread National police survey: most officers oppose gun control, support concealed carry http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6... More than 15,000 verified law enforcement professionals took part in the survey, which aimed to bring together the thoughts and opinions of the only professional group devoted to limiting and defeating gun violence as part of their sworn responsibility. |
| 2013-04-10 6:41 AM in reply to: #4643301 |
| Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Yet another interesting development: Colorado sheriffs plan lawsuit challenging state gun control laws http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/10/colorado-sheriffs-plan-l... and in the Denver Post: http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22988195/colorado-sheriff... Edited by DanielG 2013-04-10 6:42 AM |
| 2013-04-10 7:43 AM in reply to: #4692739 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread pitt83 - 2013-04-09 9:09 AM Big Appa - 2013-04-09 8:54 AM 1.) It was during a weekend cookout. I highly doubt he was coming on or off his shift. I highly suspect a couple of beers were had. 2.) He was showing them to friends in his bedroom. This likely means he kept his pitol in his bedroom. It's highly unlikely there's a gun safe in that bedroom. 3.) The pistol was apparently left lying on the bed unsupervised. 4.) It is certain a live round was left in the gun. Lots of fail here. Not an accident, but disregard for basic safety.tealeaf - 2013-04-09 5:47 AM http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/us/tennessee-gun-death/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 A pistol in the hands of a 4-year-old boy went off during a weekend cookout, killing the wife of a Tennessee sheriff's deputy who was showing his guns to a relative, state police said Monday. No one saw the boy pick up the weapon before the shooting, which occurred Saturday night in Lebanon, east of Nashville, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation spokeswoman Kristin Helm said. The single shot killed 47-year-old Josephine Fanning, the wife of Wilson County Sheriff's Deputy Daniel Fanning. The couple were hosting family and friends at their house when Daniel Fanning and a relative went into a bedroom to check out some of Fanning's guns, Helm said. Josephine Fanning and the boy walked into the room later, and at some point the boy picked the loaded pistol up off the bed. No doubt this deputy would have considered himself a so-called "responsible gun owner." So what would you have done about this tragic event? I'm just curious, why is it "highly unlikely there was a gun safe in the bedroom?" I keep my firearms in my bedroom and I have a gun safe? |
| 2013-04-10 7:47 AM in reply to: #4694289 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread DanielG - 2013-04-10 5:41 AM Yet another interesting development: Colorado sheriffs plan lawsuit challenging state gun control laws http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/10/colorado-sheriffs-plan-l... and in the Denver Post: http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22988195/colorado-sheriff... It's been on going. My county Sheriff Maketa has been pretty outspoken. I'm not sure their legal challenge will succede. But a lot of their frustration stems from the complete disregard for the peoples voice. During hearings, citizens were kept out of input. and the straw was when Kelly came to talk and was offered the red carpet when he isn't a resident of the state, is not a gun expert, and hundreds and hundreds of Coloradoans were completely dismissed and not allowed to speak. Edited by powerman 2013-04-10 8:17 AM |
| 2013-04-10 7:54 AM in reply to: #4693264 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread mr2tony - 2013-04-09 1:01 PM Pector55 - 2013-04-09 10:57 AM I was very clear in my first post that if you can't responsibly own a gun, then you shouldn't be allowed to have one. I really don't see why this is so controversial. Second, you act like this shooting was just some random happening that couldn't have been avoided, and I couldn't disagree more. Leaving the gun out, loaded and charged, is negligent, or actually reckless, at best. So jail time and/or permit revocation would be a proper punishment for the person who left out the gun because he was negligent or reckless. To use a car analogy, when someone drives negligently or recklessly, they lose their license or go to jail because they've proven they can't operate a vehicle responsibly. mr2tony - 2013-04-09 11:52 AM powerman - 2013-04-09 10:29 AM Power, that's painting with a pretty broad brush isn't it? I'm a gun control advocate and I want less crime, less violence and fewer accidents. I am for universal background checks and punishments for things just like this incident. I am not for eliminating guns completely, I am for responsible ownership, and if you prove you can't be trusted with a gun (like the guy in this story who left it lying around) then you should be convicted of a crime with one of the consequences being that you lose your right to bear arms. He would then lose his job and have his guns confiscated. All rights come with restrictions. The right to bear and have arms should be no different. Pector55 - 2013-04-09 9:20 AM I think it has become apparent that it is the right approach Appa. The so-called "high road" is the path of least resistance and as a result of decades of being passive, our rights have erroded. It is time for the LB approach to beat these misguided folks back. And that is exactly where I'm at. I've said it plenty... I do not have a problem with universal background checks... but universal back ground checks isn't the end, it's the beginnning. gun control advocates do not want less crime, less violence, or less accident. they want less guns...meaning no guns. so their solutions to problems are not solutions to problems, they are nothing more than using any thing they can to advancing their agenda to get rid of guns. Again, if that's what you want, that's fine, just begin a honest movement to repeal the 2A and we can vote on it. But until then, meaningful solutions to crime and violence go by the way side because they are so focused on getting rid of guns. Hence the compelety ridiculous effort to outlaw a "type" of gun responsible for 1% of the problem. And the equally ridiculous use of a tragic event to highlight a "type" of accidental death that is responsible for .0047% of all accidental deaths. But ya... let's just ignor that and keep giving into their ridiculous demands and illogical arguments for why I do not get the choice to exercise a right. So Tony, can you elaborate on what you just said? I don't want to hit you with the same "broad brush" comment before giving you an opportunity to clarify. When a person has an auto accident, do you believe they should have their license and automobiles confiscated and refused the priviledge to ever drive again? After all, that is dangerous and nobody has a right to drive in the first place.
I'm still unclear...you say "responsible gun owner" what in your definition is "responsible?" Additionally, huge difference between negligence and reckless...typically in the US you cannot criminalize simple negligence...even in laws that criminalize negligence it is not simple negligence but rather gross negligence. So people actually don't go to jail for simple negligence... |
| 2013-04-10 8:02 AM in reply to: #4693981 |
Veteran 1019 St. Louis | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Kido - 2013-04-09 7:04 PM What I DO know? If I accidently left my gun out and my kid/wife accidently killed themselves, or if I ran into 7-11 to get a big gulp when it was 115 degrees out and my baby died? It wouldn't matter what the law did to me. I would punish myself harder than any court could. Both are irrisponsible in my eyes, no matter what the courts say or the court of public opinion says. Shoot, my dog "lost" an eye this weekend due to acute glaucoma that set in while I was at work. The vet said there was no way I could have known or done anything differently (save maybe get a vetinary degree and know what to look for). And I still feel sick to my stomach that I failed her somehow and beat myself up. Can't imagine if something happend if/when I have kids. Pretty sure having one of those is illegal. |
| 2013-04-10 8:37 AM in reply to: #4694371 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Brock Samson - 2013-04-10 7:54 AM mr2tony - 2013-04-09 1:01 PM Pector55 - 2013-04-09 10:57 AM I was very clear in my first post that if you can't responsibly own a gun, then you shouldn't be allowed to have one. I really don't see why this is so controversial. Second, you act like this shooting was just some random happening that couldn't have been avoided, and I couldn't disagree more. Leaving the gun out, loaded and charged, is negligent, or actually reckless, at best. So jail time and/or permit revocation would be a proper punishment for the person who left out the gun because he was negligent or reckless. To use a car analogy, when someone drives negligently or recklessly, they lose their license or go to jail because they've proven they can't operate a vehicle responsibly. mr2tony - 2013-04-09 11:52 AM powerman - 2013-04-09 10:29 AM Power, that's painting with a pretty broad brush isn't it? I'm a gun control advocate and I want less crime, less violence and fewer accidents. I am for universal background checks and punishments for things just like this incident. I am not for eliminating guns completely, I am for responsible ownership, and if you prove you can't be trusted with a gun (like the guy in this story who left it lying around) then you should be convicted of a crime with one of the consequences being that you lose your right to bear arms. He would then lose his job and have his guns confiscated. All rights come with restrictions. The right to bear and have arms should be no different. Pector55 - 2013-04-09 9:20 AM I think it has become apparent that it is the right approach Appa. The so-called "high road" is the path of least resistance and as a result of decades of being passive, our rights have erroded. It is time for the LB approach to beat these misguided folks back. And that is exactly where I'm at. I've said it plenty... I do not have a problem with universal background checks... but universal back ground checks isn't the end, it's the beginnning. gun control advocates do not want less crime, less violence, or less accident. they want less guns...meaning no guns. so their solutions to problems are not solutions to problems, they are nothing more than using any thing they can to advancing their agenda to get rid of guns. Again, if that's what you want, that's fine, just begin a honest movement to repeal the 2A and we can vote on it. But until then, meaningful solutions to crime and violence go by the way side because they are so focused on getting rid of guns. Hence the compelety ridiculous effort to outlaw a "type" of gun responsible for 1% of the problem. And the equally ridiculous use of a tragic event to highlight a "type" of accidental death that is responsible for .0047% of all accidental deaths. But ya... let's just ignor that and keep giving into their ridiculous demands and illogical arguments for why I do not get the choice to exercise a right. So Tony, can you elaborate on what you just said? I don't want to hit you with the same "broad brush" comment before giving you an opportunity to clarify. When a person has an auto accident, do you believe they should have their license and automobiles confiscated and refused the priviledge to ever drive again? After all, that is dangerous and nobody has a right to drive in the first place.
I'm still unclear...you say "responsible gun owner" what in your definition is "responsible?" Additionally, huge difference between negligence and reckless...typically in the US you cannot criminalize simple negligence...even in laws that criminalize negligence it is not simple negligence but rather gross negligence. So people actually don't go to jail for simple negligence... Dude, you're gonna ruin the TV viewing. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK