|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433
Hall of Famer
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 |
I know we have a lot of gun advocates on here. I think, judging by the thread on the tragedy that happened in Sandy Hook, that this could be a good discussion to have. I'll start with a couple of questions to get the thread rolling. But, I'll give a bit of info on any sort of personal biases I have for/against guns. I've fired a .22 and a BB gun. I've held shotguns, pistols, and an AR-15 but never fired any of these three. They belong to a friend who I trust with the utmost respect to handle his weapons correctly. He's into hunting and has always been interested in ammunition and firepower. Guns aren't my type of thing. Although, I'm all for responsible individuals owning and using them. 1. Why would someone want to own an AR-15 (or similar high powered rifle)? It's a serious question. Is the primary use home defense? Couldn't just a regular shotgun, handgun, or other type of firearm do the same job the AR-15 can? (Might be similar to someone buying a mustang vs a kia for the commute to work everyday?) 2. There's a school of thought which says "Evil people will do evil things, regardless..." and another school of thought which says "Outright ban the sale of guns". Can there somehow be a nice middle ground between the two? 3. The Second Amendment was put in place way back when to address militias before the government had an adequate means of defense in the states and municipalities in those states. Do we need some sort of amendment to update the wording to make the whole "right to bear arms" issue a bit more clear? I'm interested to see where this is going to go. I think we'll all learn a lot. Oh, first person to go off topic will cause Mike Lombardi and Josh McDaniels to suddenly show up and immediately replace Shurmur and Heckert. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,530
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,530 |
I do not own such weapons, but I would guess that it is akin to someone driving a very fast car on a racetrack. It's not something you would use every day, but I can see why there would be a certain thrill to shooting such a weapon.
I see no real problem with allowing responsible people owning weapons. If they use a secured gun safe for storage, and only shoot them allowed and legal, then I don't have an issue.
I am of the mind that evil people do evil things with whatever they have at home. We have seen box cutters turned into WMD ..... we have seen underwear turned into a potential bomb ...... Trucks filled with fertilizer used to attack buildings ... and so on. Car bombs are almost routine in some parts of the world. Evil deeds are done by evil people with whatever weapons they can find to do the maximum damage to their victims.
On the one hand, I do believe that there should be limits placed upon the sale of such weapons. On the other hand, I do worry about the government having too much information and the ability to know who legally owns what, and to harass those legal owners of such weapons.
The problem as I see it is not responsible people owning firearms of any kind, but rather irresponsible people getting their hands on weapons of any and all types. Evil, insane people will commit their acts of evil with whatever they can get their hands on. Many people who commit horrific acts of terror and murder do so with the intent of inflicting not only death, but horror as well. Many see themselves as some sort of romantic figure, a courageous fighter for whatever they see as right. Specific weapons do not matter as much as the damage they can do.
As far as the 2nd Amendment, it is historically difficult to amend the Constitution. I do not see anyone getting the support necessary to amend the 2nd Amendment given the fairly even support given to those who believe in the right to bear arms, and those who would abolish such a right. I would never say never ..... but amending the Constitution is as close to never as possible.
The most recent amendment to the Constitution was the 27th. It was first proposed in 1789, and was ratified in 1992. The first 10 Amendments were ratified in 1791, obviously more commonly known as the "Bill of Rights". That means that 17 amendments have been ratified since the establishment of the Constitution. 2 amendments were the 18th, prohibition of alcohol, and the 21st, which repealed the 18th.
I can see it taking, literally, hundreds of years to get such an amendment even close to being ratified by more than a handful of states. The levels of support it would take on each state's part would be extraordinarily difficult to achieve, especially in the current heavily divided political environment.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
I am of the mind that evil people do evil things with whatever they have at home.
I don't think that you can necessarily apply this to all situations as some sort of blanketing statement. Different people commit (or attempt) acts of mass killing for different reasons, and I think that those reasonings or motivations play into what tools they choose to do the things that they do.
For some, it seems that the motivation is to make a statement. The act of killing people, to them, is totally impersonal and merely serves as a means of making sure that their messages are heard. Planting a bomb or explosive is a way to cause physical destruction to property as well as potentially kill a lot of people. Gunning down people takes a lot more work and also means having to be physically present. The risk of personal survival is much lower.
In other cases, the reason for killing appears to be vengeance. A person feels that he's been wronged by some person or some group of people and wants to settle the score or turn the table. Using a gun is a much more personal way of killing than a bomb or a fire. The killer can play God, for lack of a better term. He can ultimately be the one who determines if the victim lives or dies. It's gives a sense of power or control, which I think a lot of the people who do these things feel that they lack in their daily lives, especially when it comes to the perceived wrongdoer. I think that's also the reason a lot of these shootings end in suicides. The shooter has decided to do everything on his own terms.
And sometimes, people just want to incite fear, as with situations with snipers and things like that.
So, like I said, I don't think there is any one-size-fits-all solution, because not all mass killings are borne from the same motivations. It's also the reason I don't think that the argument that "if he didn't have guns, he would've just bombed the place" is necessarily a valid statement, because it only considers the end result. If the person is set on killing a bunch of people and has decided that a school is just a choice of venue, then its probably true. But if the goal is to make the start quarterback or the head cheerleader or the valedictorian or whoever beg for his life before executing him, maybe not so much.
As to why someone has a need for any particular type of gun, I think a shotgun for home protection, if you deem it necessary, is sufficient.
I agree that a Constitutional amendment is a pipe dream (or nightmare, depending on how you ask).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,530
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,530 |
Washington DC has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, yet one of the highest gun murder rates in the country. Mexico, Russia, and Brazil also all have stricter gun control laws than the US, yet also higher murder rates. Israel and Switzerland, 2 countries without strict gun control laws, have low murder rates. Violent crime worse in Britain than in US | Mail Online http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.htmlThe great gun control fallacy | Thomas Sowell | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/18/great-gun-control-fallacy-thomas-sowellFurther, there have been 151 victims of mass shootings in 2012. This is a large number of people, but it is a small number by comparison to the overall population, and the overall number of murders in the US and many other countries. Graph of the day: Perhaps mass shootings aren’t becoming more common http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...ng-more-common/Just a little to think about. There are no easy answers.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,493
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,493 |
Quote:
3. The Second Amendment was put in place way back when to address militias before the government had an adequate means of defense in the states and municipalities in those states. Do we need some sort of amendment to update the wording to make the whole "right to bear arms" issue a bit more clear?
It would appear not. The Supreme Court seems to think that not only do we have a right to shotguns as you have described for hunting, but also for self defense. Which considering the firepower on the streets today, would also include semi-automatic hand guns and rifles.
__________________________________________
On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. It also ruled that two District of Columbia provisions, one that banned handguns and one that required lawful firearms in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violate this right.
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php
_________________________________________
We had a gun show in Dayton just this week-end here in Dayton and of course there was a group protesting it due to flags still being at half mass for the Sandy Hook killings.
The figures I have seen range between 200,000,000 and 280,000,000 guns are already in circulation in our country today. The cat has long been out of the bag on this issue. The fact of the matter is, criminals already have the ability to attain guns and have done so. They will continue to do so with that many guns already out there. With 280 million guns already on our streets, how will gun control possibly keep guns out of the hands of criminals?
It hasn't and it won't. So at this juncture what will you accomplish by banning semi automatic pistols and rifles?
You will prevent law abiding citizens from the ability to arm themselves with somewhat equal firepower to wart off criminals and protect themselves and their property as the Supreme Court has already established as lawfull to do.
This is a part of the statement that Bill Goodman's put out that I find quite relative and simply put to address the absurdity of gun control advocates IMO.........
" We strongly believe that you can't protect people by rending them defenseless against people intent on causing harm. Banning guns won't keep them out of the hands of criminals any more than banning drugs ended illegal drug use. "
Drugs have been illegal in our nation for decades. Prohibition was attempted to be enforced in our nation for some time. All either ever accomplished was creating an illegal and underground business for criminals, giving criminals even more power and resources rather than accomplish the disired results these laws intended.
Hopefully we as a people have learned the frivolity of such laws and that by ennacting them, we only create a stronger criminal elemnet and create criminals within our own society who were never criminals until such restrictive laws were passed to begin with.
People wishing to protect their homes, families and their own person will have guns.
Unless one promotes going door to door seeking out all the guns already in circulation, all you end up doing is creating a situation where people who are doing their best to protect their own, will then become the newest criminal element in our society.
That's something I could never promote.....
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147 |
Quote:
1. Why would someone want to own an AR-15 (or similar high powered rifle)? It's a serious question. Is the primary use home defense? Couldn't just a regular shotgun, handgun, or other type of firearm do the same job the AR-15 can? (Might be similar to someone buying a mustang vs a kia for the commute to work everyday?)
The AR platform is a very effective home defense weapon that is light, compact and has little kick....meaning that women and frail individuals can use them effectively. They also have more range than the other weapons you mentioned.
Quote:
2. There's a school of thought which says "Evil people will do evil things, regardless..." and another school of thought which says "Outright ban the sale of guns". Can there somehow be a nice middle ground between the two?
There already is a middle ground. Automatic weapons are illegal, background checks are required to purchase firearms from dealers and gun shows (contrary to what you see on the news), mentally ill people are not legally permitted to own firearms, and neither are convicted felons or those who've committed violent crimes. We can't enforce the laws we already have. New legislation will only hamper the law abiding.
Quote:
3. The Second Amendment was put in place way back when to address militias before the government had an adequate means of defense in the states and municipalities in those states. Do we need some sort of amendment to update the wording to make the whole "right to bear arms" issue a bit more clear?
If you take into consideration that the founding fathers determined that the right to bear arms is a God given, inalienable right...the 2nd ammendment suddenly doesn't seem ambiguous as written.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
1. Calling an AR-15 a "high-powered rifle" shows a tremendous lack of understanding of the main subject. Other than it's "military-style" appearance, it is not very different than a 22 semi-auto, which used to be a common thing as a Christmas gift for 12-15 year-old boys. Just because it "looks like" a military weapon rather than a hunting weapon has nothing whatsoever to do with its effectiveness as a weapon.
If you personally wish to purchase the Mustang and NOT the Kia, through what means and by what right should you be prevented from doing so?
2. Sure, all you have to do is find a way to identify the potential whack-jobs, BEFORE they have done anything to justify locking them up. Either Before, or After, you will have to deal with all the people who will make excuses for their actions.
3.NO. The second amendment was put in place by a group of men who had just used guns as a means to overthrow a tyrannical government. It is, to me, Abundantly Clear and Inescapeable that they intended for the citizens of this country to have at hand the means to do that job again, if necessary.
It is my belief that possibly during my lifetime, and probably during my son's lifetime, that need may arise again. However, IMO there will not be enough citizens the likes of the Adamses, Hancocks, and Henrys, to do the job.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643 |
A little off topic here.
I drove into town yesterday and visited a couple gun stores. They were all busier then I have ever seen them. One of them was sold almost completely out of inventory. People are buying guns in record numbers. I could not believe my eyes. Bare walls and empty shelves.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
A did see a blurb that this Black Friday saw record gun sales.
Not really OT as this shows that large numbers of Americans see a real need to own weapons. Many are for hunting, many more for self-defense. Some are also looking to the future.
Multiple browsings of the magazine rack show a major increase in articles and entire magazines (the printed kind) devoted to self and home defense. Standard hunting publications are now in the minority, from what I have seen.
How many bullets will be required, and how fast will you need to fire them? The answer to both of those is "as much as you think you will need".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663 |
Quote:
1. Why would someone want to own an AR-15 (or similar high powered rifle)? It's a serious question. Is the primary use home defense? Couldn't just a regular shotgun, handgun, or other type of firearm do the same job the AR-15 can? (Might be similar to someone buying a mustang vs a kia for the commute to work everyday?)
The AR-15 is a very light, easy to use platform. It is accurate and has a very small learning curve. The only reason most folks look at it and target it as a bad gun is because of it's similar stylings to it's military counterparts.
Quote:
2. There's a school of thought which says "Evil people will do evil things, regardless..." and another school of thought which says "Outright ban the sale of guns". Can there somehow be a nice middle ground between the two?
These guns are all legal and have multiple systems in place already to keep them in check. The ones used in Newtown were legally purchased. There are some that I have heard saying there should be a education class required for purchase. Not a bad idea in my opinion. This won't stop someone from doing horrible things, but it will make the owners of the weapons at least aware of how to store their weapons, and handle them safely.
Quote:
3. The Second Amendment was put in place way back when to address militias before the government had an adequate means of defense in the states and municipalities in those states. Do we need some sort of amendment to update the wording to make the whole "right to bear arms" issue a bit more clear?
I don't see the issue here. It is quite clear to me the intention and reasons they put it in. And also quite clear why it was given such high priority as to go at #2.
KeysDawg
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. - Carl Sagan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,021
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,021 |
Some good questions Rocket..
I don't get the need for certain weapons, I also don't see the need for these big clips. Not sure there is any value for the home owner.
But listen, let's be real here, it's pretty rare that an experienced gun enthusiast goes into a school or mall or theater and opens up on people. those that do that are, to some degree, off balance. If they wanna kill, they'll find a way. If guns aren't available, they'll find a way.
I don't worry about my neighbor that just loves guns. he Goes to the Solon Gun Club and fires his guns at targets and he also hunts. (Which I view as a legitimate sport)
No, he's not the guy I worry about, I worry about the kid or guy that's off balance mentally. that kid that did the killings in Chardon, the theater in Colorado, the mall in Oregon and the rest all showed some mental issues.
I'm still not convnced it's a gun problem, I think it's a mental problem.
And I don't have a clue how to address that.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263 |
No amount of laws is going to change anything. That would be like New York out-lawing large drinks  The only viable way of stopping these things is to give everybody a blue pill, which shuts down the emotion part of the brain. And I don't think any of us wants that.
Dawginit since Jan. 24, 2000 Member #180
You can't fix yesterday but you can learn for tomorrow
#GMSTRONG
I want to do it as a Cleveland Brown because that's who I am.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Quote:
I'm still not convinced it's a gun problem, I think it's a mental problem.
And I don't have a clue how to address that.
If we follow the ancient Greek city/state of Sparta's methods on determining a child's fitness to be part of society we could probably make strides in addressing it.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Most has been covered and answered well, but I'll add my opinion anyway.  Quote:
. Why would someone want to own an AR-15 (or similar high powered rifle)? It's a serious question. Is the primary use home defense? Couldn't just a regular shotgun, handgun, or other type of firearm do the same job the AR-15 can? (Might be similar to someone buying a mustang vs a kia for the commute to work everyday?)
Much like some people want the V8 powerful sportscar versus the cheaper, less powerful V6 version. They both drive the same, they both have the same speed limit laws to follow, but for some the excitement of knowing what unde the hood is the diffence. There are enthusiasts about most everything, and they tend to want the best, the coolest, the rare, the unique of whatever it is.
Quote:
2. There's a school of thought which says "Evil people will do evil things, regardless..." and another school of thought which says "Outright ban the sale of guns". Can there somehow be a nice middle ground between the two?
There can be and there would be, except our history has shown that once people get what they want, they tend to eventually want more. The "slippery slope" if you will. And it is MUCH harder to regain what is lost that it was to lose it, and in the case of gun control, that is what most fear. Once they ban them or some of them, it would be very difficult to ever regain it.
Quote:
3. The Second Amendment was put in place way back when to address militias before the government had an adequate means of defense in the states and municipalities in those states. Do we need some sort of amendment to update the wording to make the whole "right to bear arms" issue a bit more clear?
With all the uprisings around the globe of oppressed people, we would think that more would understand what our forefathers put in place. A way for the people to defend themselves against a tyranical government. And anyone who thinks it can't ever happen in the U.S. is denying themselves the truth around them.
All through history people have revolted against their governments, and we haven't changed all that much. People still want to live free, and not feel enslaved. Ensuring the people had means to defend themselves against their government was something our forefathers had instituted, not only as a means of revolt if necessary, but as a means to ensure the government maintained its intent.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,021
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,021 |
Quote:
Quote:
I'm still not convinced it's a gun problem, I think it's a mental problem.
And I don't have a clue how to address that.
If we follow the ancient Greek city/state of Sparta's methods on determining a child's fitness to be part of society we could probably make strides in addressing it.
I don't know what that is so I have no clue what your speaking of.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663 |
Quote:
You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
There is speculation that it was or was not said. But it has a...je ne sais quois don't you think....
KeysDawg
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. - Carl Sagan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm still not convinced it's a gun problem, I think it's a mental problem.
And I don't have a clue how to address that.
If we follow the ancient Greek city/state of Sparta's methods on determining a child's fitness to be part of society we could probably make strides in addressing it.
I don't know what that is so I have no clue what your speaking of.
It began in infancy. When a Spartan baby was born, soldiers came to the house and examined it carefully to determine its strength.The baby was bathed in wine rather than water, to see its reaction. If a baby was weak, the Spartans exposed it on the hillside or took it away to become a slave (helot). Infanticide was common in ancient cultures, but the Spartans were particularly picky about their children. It was not just a matter of the family, the city-state decided the fate of the child. Nurses had the primary care of the baby and did not coddle it.
Copied from...
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
TULSA...
so the government shouldn't interfere with gun rights, but they should have rights to cull "unfit" children? i mean, perhaps i missed sarcasm in your post. i just don't know where you're going with that.
what do you all think about a new system of ACCOUNTABILITY? don't take away guns, but punish the legal owners for their crimes. if your gun is used in a crime, then you, as the owner, are liable for varying criminal and/or civil charges, depending on what degree of negligence you've shown. responsible gun owners would have nothing to worry about...secured guns aren't used in crimes.
same sort of rules could be applied for drugs, and most any other thing that government regulations attempt to influence. make the rules clear and punish crimes harshly. keep out of everything that happens in between.
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
yes, you missed the sarcasm.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147 |
Quote:
what do you all think about a new system of ACCOUNTABILITY? don't take away guns, but punish the legal owners for their crimes. if your gun is used in a crime, then you, as the owner, are liable for varying criminal and/or civil charges, depending on what degree of negligence you've shown. responsible gun owners would have nothing to worry about...secured guns aren't used in crimes.
I wouldn't have a problem with that. Anybody that chooses to own a firearm should assume the responsibility that comes with owning it.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,828
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,828 |
LIttle background: I grew up in a home that had NO guns (aside from a spring action bb gun that I wasn't allowed to shoot........and promptly shot my finger the day my brothers got it...)
I now own a few guns - from .22 rifle on up to .223 rifle (not an AR - I have a weatherby hunting rifle), to shotguns, a handgun or so, etc.
As to "why would anyone want an AR-15 or similar high powered rifle. Like I said, I have a rifle that shoots the same round as an AR-15. While "powerful", it's really (the round) on the very low end of "high power". (most states won't let you even hunt deer with a .223 round.) But, WHY would someone want an AR-15?
Some hunt with them, where it's legal. Some have them for "shooting" (think target shooting), some have them for home defense, although there are better, much better options. Some own them for the "wow" factor. (also, companies make what are basically "look alike" guns, chambered in .22 cal. Those are fun for backyard target shooting, etc, and a lot cheaper to fire also.)
As to "..evil people will do evil regardless".......yes, they will. Semi auto handguns, even with 10 round magazines, can be just as deadly as an ar-15 with a 30 round mag - you just have to change the mag more often.
"...some say outright ban the sale of guns...".....What about the 200 million plus guns in existence right now? Ban guns? How's that work?
Middle ground? We have a middle ground - but it apparently needs some tweaking.
As to your #3.When the 2nd amendment was written, they were referencing black powder guns, or muzzle loaders. As someone else mentioned, at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment, the authors had no idea where guns would head in the future (size, semi auto, capacity, etc). That is correct. They had no idea guns would become semi auto. They had no idea the range of cartridges that would be available. Not for the citizens, not for the military.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,828
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,828 |
Quote:
Quote:
what do you all think about a new system of ACCOUNTABILITY? don't take away guns, but punish the legal owners for their crimes. if your gun is used in a crime, then you, as the owner, are liable for varying criminal and/or civil charges, depending on what degree of negligence you've shown. responsible gun owners would have nothing to worry about...secured guns aren't used in crimes.
I wouldn't have a problem with that. Anybody that chooses to own a firearm should assume the responsibility that comes with owning it.
Agreed.
However, in that scenario, the problem becomes: What constitutes a "secured" gun? If my guns are locked up, I go to work, get broken into, and a gun is stolen and used in a crime, am I liable? If not - why not? If so, it's no different than if you go to work, someone steals your second car, gets drunk and kills someone - are you liable for that?
If someone has an unloaded gun in their house, and it gets stolen and used in a crime - is the home owner liable for that? If so, how, or why?
How about we prosecute the criminals? You know, the guy that broke a law by stealing your gun, or your car, and then further exacerbated it by committing another crime?
Thoughts anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
I don't see what the problem is. You register a gun in your name and it gets used in the commission of a crime, you are a liable to some degree (to be determined later, not in this discussion). I would think that a properly secured gun or guns should be undetectable to the outside world, not like a vehicle that sits in your garage or driveway in plain view of the public. Do what you have to do as a gun owner to ensure that your guns will not be stolen.
The criminal who commits the crime is not absolved of the crime(s) he commits, obviously.
Here's my question for discussion:
Should instances of people being shot in cases of mistaken identity (especially if it results in death), when the situation is protection of the home from intrusion, be prosecuted? I say yes. The gun was fired with the intent to kill or maim. That the person shot turns out to be family member, friend or loved one only serves as evidence that the shooter violated what I understand to be the "1st Golden Rule" of gun ownership: be sure of your target.
Discuss.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,828
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,828 |
As to your knew question - yes, they should be held accountable. And, they are in the vast, vast majority of situations......as always, the details do matter.
But please don't discard the questions I asked.
Your car is in your locked garage. No keys in it. It gets stolen, and used in a crime. Should you be held liable for not securing your car in a "better" fashion? If not, why?
Person A has an action lock on their gun. It gets stolen. Action lock is cut off, gun is used in a crime. Is person A liable? Obviously, the bad guy broke a law by breaking and entering, broke another law by stealing, and broke yet a 3rd law by using a gun in the commission of a crime, and broke a 4th law by committing the crime - but you want to hold the home owner liable to some degree? Why?
That's somewhat akin to holding a gas station partially liable for a robbery. After all, if they didn't have money, they wouldn't have been robbed, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147 |
Quote:
Here's my question for discussion:
Should instances of people being shot in cases of mistaken identity (especially if it results in death), when the situation is protection of the home from intrusion, be prosecuted? I say yes. The gun was fired with the intent to kill or maim. That the person shot turns out to be family member, friend or loved one only serves as evidence that the shooter violated what I understand to be the "1st Golden Rule" of gun ownership: be sure of your target.
Discuss.
One of the 4 rules of gun safety: "Be sure of your target and everything behind it." There are no accidents when it comes to somebody getting hurt with a firearm. It's either intentional or negligent.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
what do you all think about a new system of ACCOUNTABILITY? don't take away guns, but punish the legal owners for their crimes. if your gun is used in a crime, then you, as the owner, are liable for varying criminal and/or civil charges, depending on what degree of negligence you've shown. responsible gun owners would have nothing to worry about...secured guns aren't used in crimes.
I wouldn't have a problem with that. Anybody that chooses to own a firearm should assume the responsibility that comes with owning it.
Agreed.
However, in that scenario, the problem becomes: What constitutes a "secured" gun? If my guns are locked up, I go to work, get broken into, and a gun is stolen and used in a crime, am I liable? If not - why not? If so, it's no different than if you go to work, someone steals your second car, gets drunk and kills someone - are you liable for that?
If someone has an unloaded gun in their house, and it gets stolen and used in a crime - is the home owner liable for that? If so, how, or why?
How about we prosecute the criminals? You know, the guy that broke a law by stealing your gun, or your car, and then further exacerbated it by committing another crime?
Thoughts anyone?
He did say the liability would be dependent on the degree of negligence shown.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,828
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,828 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
what do you all think about a new system of ACCOUNTABILITY? don't take away guns, but punish the legal owners for their crimes. if your gun is used in a crime, then you, as the owner, are liable for varying criminal and/or civil charges, depending on what degree of negligence you've shown. responsible gun owners would have nothing to worry about...secured guns aren't used in crimes.
I wouldn't have a problem with that. Anybody that chooses to own a firearm should assume the responsibility that comes with owning it.
Agreed.
However, in that scenario, the problem becomes: What constitutes a "secured" gun? If my guns are locked up, I go to work, get broken into, and a gun is stolen and used in a crime, am I liable? If not - why not? If so, it's no different than if you go to work, someone steals your second car, gets drunk and kills someone - are you liable for that?
If someone has an unloaded gun in their house, and it gets stolen and used in a crime - is the home owner liable for that? If so, how, or why?
How about we prosecute the criminals? You know, the guy that broke a law by stealing your gun, or your car, and then further exacerbated it by committing another crime?
Thoughts anyone?
He did say the liability would be dependent on the degree of negligence shown.
Yup - I know. The question is, WHAT is negligence? I understand if I leave a loaded gun sitting around when my daughter has friends over - if something happens, I was negligent.
All I'm saying is, or asking - what is negligent when you consider a gun is locked - be it in a cabinet, a gun safe, or it has a trigger lock or bolt/action lock? Someone steals it - what is the negligence on the owners part?
He seems to be saying if that happens, the gun owner could've done more to prevent it, therefore, the gun owner was negligent in some manner.
How is that different than the car in the garage scenario?
To me, it's not.
Let's take it to extremes here - just as a court would....or COULD. You leave your door unlocked. Bad guy enters your home, steals your tv, sells it 10 minutes later. Person who bought the tv from the bad guy hooks it up, and a 3 year old pulls it down on themselves causing injury or death. Are you, as the original tv owner, liable in any manner?
Yes, that is extreme, I know. However, if a persons guns are in the home, locked up, unloaded - and get stolen..........is it that person's fault if the gun is used in a crime?
Hey - how about this: You (not "you", but Joe Blow) have a gun. It's locked up. You're at work. Your kid gets the key, takes the gun, kills your wife, and goes out and commits another crime with the gun. You think you should be held liable? If not - end of story. If you think you should be, then the stolen car scenario fits right in.....if your car gets stolen and is involved in a hit and run - you should be liable to some extent, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147 |
Quote:
Hey - how about this: You (not "you", but Joe Blow) have a gun. It's locked up. You're at work. Your kid gets the key, takes the gun, kills your wife, and goes out and commits another crime with the gun. You think you should be held liable? If not - end of story. If you think you should be, then the stolen car scenario fits right in.....if your car gets stolen and is involved in a hit and run - you should be liable to some extent, right?
The kid taking the gun and killing the mother and committing a crime doesn't happen in a vacuum. You just don't hear of completely normal, well adjusted kids going out and doing these horrific acts. There would be signs of dysfunctional behavior, and as a parent you are responsible for keeping your firearms out of their hands. So, in that case....and in the case of the Sandy Hook mother, I believe there is liability on the part of the parent. I'm not sure the car scenario is an accurate analogy, but if you feel your kid shouldn't be driving, he shouldn't have access to your car keys.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
As to your knew question - yes, they should be held accountable. And, they are in the vast, vast majority of situations......as always, the details do matter.
I agree. I asked because I read 10-15 articles a couple days ago of such situations, and in almost all of them there was a quote from an investigating law enforcement official to the effect of "no plans to file charges." That seems illogical to me.
Quote:
But please don't discard the questions I asked.
I'm not. Not intentionally, at least.
Quote:
Your car is in your locked garage. No keys in it. It gets stolen, and used in a crime. Should you be held liable for not securing your car in a "better" fashion? If not, why?
In my opinion, no (I am going to make the assumption that by "used in a crime" you mean a potentially violent situation like fleeing police or a homicide while joyriding drunk, and not something like being a luxury car that is stolen and sold on the black market).
A car's primary use (in the vast majority of cases) is as a vehicle to assist one in the performing of his day-to-day activities by serving as a means of transportation. I think that its unreasonable to require that a car owner be held to the expectation that if his vehicle is stolen it is likely to be used in the commission of a violent crime.
Furthermore, due to their size and for purposes of convenience, cars are generally kept in "plain view" of the public eye, in a garage, carport or driveway...even if a garage has no windows, it's reasonable to assume that there may be a car inside, as that's a primary purpose of a garage. It can easily be ascertained, through ordinary measures of observation, by someone on public property, such as a sidewalk or roadway, that a person owns a car. I think its unreasonable and unrealistic to expect car owners to take extraordinary measures to secure their cars to a degree that renders them unable to be stolen.
Quote:
Person A has an action lock on their gun. It gets stolen. Action lock is cut off, gun is used in a crime. Is person A liable? Obviously, the bad guy broke a law by breaking and entering, broke another law by stealing, and broke yet a 3rd law by using a gun in the commission of a crime, and broke a 4th law by committing the crime - but you want to hold the home owner liable to some degree? Why?
I'll start by saying that I'm not certain what an action lock is, but that I'll assume that it's a device designed to prevent the gun from being able to be fired by someone who isn't authorized. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I feel that the gun owner should be held liable because I think that when the object under discussion is something capable of providing such lethal force as a gun, and when its primary intention is to provide lethal force, that personal responsibility is of paramount importance. I think that if a person wants to take on the power that comes with owning a gun that he should be willing to take on the responsibility of taking on every reasonable measure to ensure that the gun doesn't wind up in the hands of an unauthorized user (yes, I know that sounds like the Spiderman cliché...sorry).
I also think that this is a reasonable expectation because, unlike cars as stated above, its not difficult to conceal the presence of guns in the home from the general public. If a person wants to advertise that he has guns in his house, then he accepts that someone may break into his home with the intention of stealing those guns. But I cannot look at my neighbor's house and know that he has guns inside the way I can tell that he owns a car. Store the guns in a safe or other container that is not easily moved and not easily accessed, and, preferably, is hidden from view, or find another secure method of storing them. I understand that the counter-argument is that decreased accessibility limits usefulness in situations of home protection, but that's not my problem to solve here.
I'm not advocating that a person who's gun is stolen and used in a crime be locked up for ten years, but I don't think a misdemeanor of whatever degree that carries a fine or probation or other similar penalty is unreasonable. I'm also willing to accept that the only way to ensure 100% that a gun won't get stolen from you is to not own a gun. I don't think I'm particularly unreasonable, and I would have no problem making exceptions for those who can clearly demonstrate that they exhausted every reasonable means of security and it still was not enough. The burden would have to be on the gun owner, though, and it would have to be a fairly heavy burden. I don't think that "it was hidden under my mattress" or "it was in this locked glass display case" are sufficient defenses to absolve one of responsibility.
I also think that the person who the gun is registered to could be able to specify a person or persons (within reason) who he authorizes to use the gun, and if that authorized person uses the gun in the commission of a crime or conveys it to someone who uses it to commit a crime, the registered owner may possibly be found not liable, again after bearing some burden of proof. This would be so that one could register a gun in his name but authorize his wife to use it for home protection, or a son or daughter for shooting at the range, or other similar purpose. Obviously something like this would have to be carefully considered and written.
Quote:
That's somewhat akin to holding a gas station partially liable for a robbery. After all, if they didn't have money, they wouldn't have been robbed, right?
I disagree, and I think that positing obviously absurd "they were asking for it" scenarios doesn't do anything to bolster one's point but rather makes him look a bit silly for putting it forth in the first place.
I'm trying to come up with a way of concisely wrapping this up, but it's not coming to me at the moment, so I'll just say I hope this can further the discussion in a positive direction. I'm obviously not writing legislation, but proposing general ideas for discussion. I'm going to pre-emptively say that I'm not going to argue every conceivable scenario that may present itself, but I'm happy to discuss reasonable plausible scenarios that are actual put forth for proactive discussion as opposed to being an attack or "gotcha" tactic. I'm sure this is coming across as defensive, but honestly I just don't feel like taking the time to argue every semantic point that could be brought up, especially after having spent well over an hour pondering and writing this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,828
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,828 |
Quote:
Quote:
Hey - how about this: You (not "you", but Joe Blow) have a gun. It's locked up. You're at work. Your kid gets the key, takes the gun, kills your wife, and goes out and commits another crime with the gun. You think you should be held liable? If not - end of story. If you think you should be, then the stolen car scenario fits right in.....if your car gets stolen and is involved in a hit and run - you should be liable to some extent, right?
The kid taking the gun and killing the mother and committing a crime doesn't happen in a vacuum. You just don't hear of completely normal, well adjusted kids going out and doing these horrific acts. There would be signs of dysfunctional behavior, and as a parent you are responsible for keeping your firearms out of their hands. So, in that case....and in the case of the Sandy Hook mother, I believe there is liability on the part of the parent. I'm not sure the car scenario is an accurate analogy, but if you feel your kid shouldn't be driving, he shouldn't have access to your car keys.
My kid doesn't have access to my car. My kid stole the keys. Or hot wired the car. Am I responsible? Not even my kid, but the crook down the street stole my car and used it to commit a crime........am I responsible? Even partly?
With what the original poster of this gun situation was saying - yes, I am at least partly responsible.
I think that's foolish.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
Quote:
Here's my question for discussion:
Should instances of people being shot in cases of mistaken identity (especially if it results in death), when the situation is protection of the home from intrusion, be prosecuted? I say yes. The gun was fired with the intent to kill or maim. That the person shot turns out to be family member, friend or loved one only serves as evidence that the shooter violated what I understand to be the "1st Golden Rule" of gun ownership: be sure of your target.
Discuss.
One of the 4 rules of gun safety: "Be sure of your target and everything behind it." There are no accidents when it comes to somebody getting hurt with a firearm. It's either intentional or negligent.
I agree. See my reply to Arch above.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,205
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,205 |
J / C...this happened some years back.. PLAIN TWP. (Canton, Ohio) — A 2-year-old boy playing with a loaded gun accidentally shot and killed his grandfather Sunday. Thomas Hopps, 55, of the 3100 block of Knollridge Avenue NE, was pronounced dead at 12:18 p.m. at Aultman Hospital, said Bill Dishong, an investigator with the Stark County coroner’s office. “The child found a .45-caliber gun,” said Stark County Sheriff Tim Swanson. “We don’t know where it was. There was a magazine rack beside the chair, or it could have been on a table.” Swanson said the boy was playing behind a chair in the living room when he pulled on the trigger. The bullet tore through the back of a chair where Hopps was sitting, striking him in the center of his back, he said. Hopps’ daughter, who also is the child’s mother, was in the same room. Neither she nor Hopps could see the boy behind the chair, Swanson said. Swanson said the gun, which belonged to Hopps, was loaded and apparently ready to fire. The child must have held the gun close to his body, he said, because when it went off, the slide came back and hit him in the chest. Dishong said the bullet hit a major artery in Hopps. “He was brought to the Aultman Hospital emergency room at about 11:30 and was pronounced dead during surgery ... ,” he said. The boy and his mother lived at the house. Another 14-year-old girl, a relative, also was in the house, Swanson said, but he didn’t know the relationship or if she also lived there. The accident remains under investigation. http://www.cantonrep.com/cantonrep01/menus.php?ID=4892&r=2&Category=11This was my wifes best friends child.and father.... He was big into guns and hunted...apparently he wasn't very accountable for keeping them safely stored... I have guns.. I don't hunt nor shoot them much...Mostly have them for protection... Thought about getting another dog.. But then.. my dog would be loveable like me and not hurt no-one...Dogs have their own minds unlike a gun..they will bite you if they feel threatened or are just damn mean... and they need a license like a gun.. Guns don't shed and crap...guns don't don't need attention like a dog...Guns don't lay next to ya and keep you company when your lonely ...or play with you... Hmm ? trying to think what's better to have...maybe both...Hell either way..it takes responsibility to own one.. I 'm pretty sure I'm responsible for either.... So far I've never shot anyone...or had a dog bite anyone...So yeah..I think it's all about responsibility....Sort of like getting behind the wheel of a car after drinking too much...ooops I screwed that up...Lesson learned, call a taxi or just don't drink and drive.. Sorry for babbling...tough subject....Just be responsible people...obey the laws... take your meds if you need them...and hug your kids or pet or family member..or yourself . Hope it gets figured out..so we can all live in peace...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,828
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,828 |
You said: "but I'm happy to discuss reasonable plausible scenarios that are actual put forth for proactive discussion as opposed to being an attack or "gotcha" tactic"
So define "reasonable, plausible scenarios".
If my gun is in my house, and locked up, and/or has a trigger lock on it (and "action lock" is probably the wrong term....but what I mean is - a lock with a cable on it that goes through the "action" of the gun thereby disabling the guns ability to fire, or even load a round).......if that's the case, isn't that reasonable precaution on my part? I think yes. You apparently disagree?
Tomorrow evening I will be getting a small gun safe for Christmas. yes, I know I am......finger print activated OR key activated.
Now, even if I screw that to the floor, it is still "stealable". Even if I don't bolt it to the floor............I think I've done my due diligence, don't you?
What about my gun safe? It's in my house. It's locked. If it is stolen, should I be held liable? I don't think so.
It's MY house. It IS locked. If someone breaks into my house, steals my guns, and uses them in a crime, and I get charged, I think that's stupid. Punishing a law abiding citizen for a criminals action is just stupid.
If you think it makes sense - then the car scenario makes sense as well, no 2 ways about it. I'm not looking for any "gotcha" moments - just stating what I think.
If someone steals a gun from me, you seem to think I should be held liable, or partially liable, yet you don't think if someone steals a car from you that you should be held liable.
What about a softball bat? For anyone that drives past my house in summer evenings, they will know we have bats. If that bat is stolen (I do not lock them up, so that enhances my culpability), I could or should be prosecuted if that stolen bat is used in a crime?
It seems to me the word "gun" makes you want to put the horse before the carriage, yet you won't do it with car, or bat, probably not with a can of mace.........all of these things are in "Joes" house.........all of these things can be used in a crime. Yet you only want to hold the stolen gun as criminal?
It is a crime to steal. But only if you steal a gun should the legal gun owner be held accountable? I don't get it.
Don breaks into your house, steals your unlocked computer, takes it home, hacks some people and steals millions of dollars from them.............you think you should be liable for that? If you are responsible enough to own a computer - and you don't advertise that you have a computer (or even if you do advertise it), you should be smart enough to lock it up so it can't be stolen, right? So there is NO WAY it can be stolen, and even if it is.......you're willing to take on the liability?
I understand "guns" is the key word in your scenario. Guns are terrible, they cause nothing but death and destruction.......in your scenario, and as you stated, you'd be fine with no one owning guns.
However, instead of putting the onus on legal ownership - why not put the onus on criminals?
I'm not trying to be a jerk here - please believe that. Even Jfan would agree that if he has his gun locked, in his locked (or even un locked house), and it gets stolen, he doesn't want to go to prison, or even be put on probation for it. Jfan, is that right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,828
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,828 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Here's my question for discussion:
Should instances of people being shot in cases of mistaken identity (especially if it results in death), when the situation is protection of the home from intrusion, be prosecuted? I say yes. The gun was fired with the intent to kill or maim. That the person shot turns out to be family member, friend or loved one only serves as evidence that the shooter violated what I understand to be the "1st Golden Rule" of gun ownership: be sure of your target.
Discuss.
One of the 4 rules of gun safety: "Be sure of your target and everything behind it." There are no accidents when it comes to somebody getting hurt with a firearm. It's either intentional or negligent.
I agree. See my reply to Arch above.
I agree as well. However, you're confusing the conversations. We're talking about a stolen gun being used in a crime, and holding the person that got robbed as liable. You are talking about an active shooter of his/her own gun that shot and or killed an innocent person. Apples to oranges.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
You said: "but I'm happy to discuss reasonable plausible scenarios that are actual put forth for proactive discussion as opposed to being an attack or "gotcha" tactic"
So define "reasonable, plausible scenarios".
Reasonable: the locked gun safe bolted to my floor gets stolen from my house and the gun inside it is used in the commission of the armed robbery of a bank.
Unreasonable: my buddy asks me to show him the new handgun I just got, and when I open up my safe he attacks me and knocks me unconscious, steals the gun and goes home and shoots his wife in the head.
Quote:
If my gun is in my house, and locked up, and/or has a trigger lock on it (and "action lock" is probably the wrong term....but what I mean is - a lock with a cable on it that goes through the "action" of the gun thereby disabling the guns ability to fire, or even load a round).......if that's the case, isn't that reasonable precaution on my part? I think yes. You apparently disagree?
Depends on what it's locked in. A safe hidden out of sight? Perhaps. A display case. Probably not. Just locked up with a cable? No; a cable won't thwart a bicycle thief, let alone a gun thief.
Quote:
Tomorrow evening I will be getting a small gun safe for Christmas. yes, I know I am......finger print activated OR key activated.
Now, even if I screw that to the floor, it is still "stealable". Even if I don't bolt it to the floor............I think I've done my due diligence, don't you?
What about my gun safe? It's in my house. It's locked. If it is stolen, should I be held liable? I don't think so.
I addressed that in my response to you.
Quote:
It's MY house. It IS locked. If someone breaks into my house, steals my guns, and uses them in a crime, and I get charged, I think that's stupid. Punishing a law abiding citizen for a criminals action is just stupid.
If you think it makes sense - then the car scenario makes sense as well, no 2 ways about it. I'm not looking for any "gotcha" moments - just stating what I think.
Obviously I don't necessarily agree.
Quote:
If someone steals a gun from me, you seem to think I should be held liable, or partially liable, yet you don't think if someone steals a car from you that you should be held liable.
What about a softball bat? For anyone that drives past my house in summer evenings, they will know we have bats. If that bat is stolen (I do not lock them up, so that enhances my culpability), I could or should be prosecuted if that stolen bat is used in a crime?
It seems to me the word "gun" makes you want to put the horse before the carriage, yet you won't do it with car, or bat, probably not with a can of mace.........all of these things are in "Joes" house.........all of these things can be used in a crime. Yet you only want to hold the stolen gun as criminal?
It is a crime to steal. But only if you steal a gun should the legal gun owner be held accountable? I don't get it.
Don breaks into your house, steals your unlocked computer, takes it home, hacks some people and steals millions of dollars from them.............you think you should be liable for that? If you are responsible enough to own a computer - and you don't advertise that you have a computer (or even if you do advertise it), you should be smart enough to lock it up so it can't be stolen, right? So there is NO WAY it can be stolen, and even if it is.......you're willing to take on the liability?
A car is made to drive. A softball bat is made to hit a softball. A personal computer is made to write an email or chat with a friend or read dawgtalkers.net or a million other innocuous purposes. A gun is made to deliver lethal force to an object, living or inanimate. When you take ownership of something who's sole purpose is to deliver lethal force I believe that you should take on the responsibility of doing everything reasonably within your power to ensure that it isn't misappropriated by someone who isn't authorized to use it. I don't think its a difficult distinction to make.
Quote:
I understand "guns" is the key word in your scenario. Guns are terrible, they cause nothing but death and destruction.......in your scenario, and as you stated, you'd be fine with no one owning guns.
I don't think I ever stated that guns are terrible or cause nothing but death or destruction. I do believe that they are not a necessity for civilian use. No, it would not bother me in the least if no civilian owned a gun. That said, I don't have a problem with those that do own guns, and obviously, no one owning guns is an impossibility.
Quote:
However, instead of putting the onus on legal ownership - why not put the onus on criminals?
I stated from the very beginning that using someone else's gun to commit a crime should in no way absolve the criminal from his act.
Do you think the onus of responsible gun ownership should fall on someone other than the gun owner? I think that's silly, to be quite honest. It seems to me that you're saying that we should simply expect criminals to stop being criminals.
Quote:
I'm not trying to be a jerk here - please believe that.
I don't think you're being a jerk. We've had our differences on here in the past but that doesn't change how I perceive your response. I hope the same is true for you.
Quote:
Even Jfan would agree that if he has his gun locked, in his locked (or even un locked house), and it gets stolen, he doesn't want to go to prison, or even be put on probation for it. Jfan, is that right?
I didn't say that I feel anyone should go to prison. Quite the opposite, in fact. Reading your response to me, I get the impression that you read it either very quickly or not very carefully. Several challenges you presented to it were not consistent with what I said.
Like I said before, I don't think I'm a particularly unreasonable person. That's why I'm perfectly willing to discuss the topic, as long as it is actually a discussion and not a headbutting contest (not that I'm implying that this is). I think we would both agree that the paramount issue here is individual responsibility. I think that when one chooses to become a gun owner he is accepting a tremendous amount of responsibility. I feel that part of that means understanding that if someone wanted to steal your gun from you, the likelihood is great that the motivation for doing such a thing is so that it can be used to commit a violent crime. Because of that, I think that measures to secure a gun should be taken that are well above and beyond those taken for other items which, will its possible that they could be used to commit a violent crime, are not typically used to do so. If the vast majority of stolen softball bats turn out to be stolen so that the thieves can use them to bludgeon people to death, then I'd probably say that extra steps should be taken to ensure that those are not stolen either.
I'm not insisting on or pushing for some sort of strict liability. What I would like to see is something that may serve to weed out those who don't feel that they are willing to accept the great responsibility that is gun ownership. I would also like to see strict penalties for those who are found to be in possession of guns that aren't registered to them or that they're not authorized to use. In short, I don't want people owning or possessing guns unless they're going to be as responsible with that gun as they would be with a newborn child, for lack of a better descriptor. Since the irresponsible ones don't usually manifest themselves until something tragic has happened, I think more proactive steps should be taken.
I get the impression that the majority of pro-gun posters here are just that. While I don't see the need for having three different types of guns for shooting tin cans (yes, I'm being hyperbolic), I don't have an issue with it. Contrary to how I might sound, I'm not anti-guns. I've entertained the idea of getting one before. I went trap shooting (I think? whatever it is where you go from station to station and shoot at clay pigeons) for the first time with my brothers-in-law and some friends last fall and had fun...I'd probably do it again. I'm just someone who, like all of us, is tired of reading about so much violence and wondering what has to be done to put an end to it. I think responsible gun ownership is a good place to start.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Here's my question for discussion:
Should instances of people being shot in cases of mistaken identity (especially if it results in death), when the situation is protection of the home from intrusion, be prosecuted? I say yes. The gun was fired with the intent to kill or maim. That the person shot turns out to be family member, friend or loved one only serves as evidence that the shooter violated what I understand to be the "1st Golden Rule" of gun ownership: be sure of your target.
Discuss.
One of the 4 rules of gun safety: "Be sure of your target and everything behind it." There are no accidents when it comes to somebody getting hurt with a firearm. It's either intentional or negligent.
I agree. See my reply to Arch above.
I agree as well. However, you're confusing the conversations. We're talking about a stolen gun being used in a crime, and holding the person that got robbed as liable. You are talking about an active shooter of his/her own gun that shot and or killed an innocent person. Apples to oranges.
I know. I was trying to present a separate sub-topic for discussion within the greater umbrella of "A Discussion On Guns".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
ARCH...
i'm not smart enough to know what the specific degrees of negligence would be. obviously a loaded pistol on the nightstand is unsecured, while an unloaded rifle in the gunsafe is secure. discussion would have to involve the scenarios between, and i, as a non-owner, don't know all the range of things people do with their weapons.
but a locked weapon MAY not be enough to absolve the owner of any accountability. e.g. if your safe has a combo that your clever child can crack, then maybe documents to show you've put your children through a training course. therefore, you would've taken multiple reasonable steps to secure them. we can't prevent everything, but addressing the most commonly used murder weapons should be part of the solution, and i see such a system as a more tolerable option than trying to remove them from gunowners.
as for the car in the garage, here is where i do feel the "utility' argument is appropriate...a car is an item used regularly for nonlethal purposes. as you said, we can take such an accountbility system to the point of silliness. i.e. i could use my neighbors xmas lights to strangle the mailman.
but let's come back to the real world. our violent culture is gun-centric. admitting that people view, seek, and use them for violent crimes a big chunk of the time is not akin to admitting guilt for the weapon itself.
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I agree as well. However, you're confusing the conversations. We're talking about a stolen gun being used in a crime, and holding the person that got robbed as liable. You are talking about an active shooter of his/her own gun that shot and or killed an innocent person. Apples to oranges.
Interesting topic.. my $.02... if your gun is sitting out on the nightstand, either loaded or with ammunition equally available, and one of your children or somebody who is legally allowed in the house (relative, neighbor with a key, house cleaner, etc) picks it up and shoots himself or somebody else with it.. the gun owner should be held liable.
I don't care if the gun is sitting on the nightstand loaded with the safety off, if somebody breaks into your house and takes that gun and uses it in the commission of a crime, then the gun owner should not be held liable. People can give all of the analogies they want but if the gun is obtained by a person who illegally broke into your home then that person just became the defacto gun owner and is solely liable for their own actions with that gun from that point forward.
I think gun safes are a great idea to protect against the first scenario of kids, grandkids, friends, relatives, etc... but I don't think a gun safe should even be required to protect me from liability if somebody breaks into my house (or car) and steals the gun which I have legally purchased and is stored within my own property...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,828
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,828 |
Quote:
Quote:
I agree as well. However, you're confusing the conversations. We're talking about a stolen gun being used in a crime, and holding the person that got robbed as liable. You are talking about an active shooter of his/her own gun that shot and or killed an innocent person. Apples to oranges.
Interesting topic.. my $.02... if your gun is sitting out on the nightstand, either loaded or with ammunition equally available, and one of your children or somebody who is legally allowed in the house (relative, neighbor with a key, house cleaner, etc) picks it up and shoots himself or somebody else with it.. the gun owner should be held liable.
I don't care if the gun is sitting on the nightstand loaded with the safety off, if somebody breaks into your house and takes that gun and uses it in the commission of a crime, then the gun owner should not be held liable. People can give all of the analogies they want but if the gun is obtained by a person who illegally broke into your home then that person just became the defacto gun owner and is solely liable for their own actions with that gun from that point forward.
I think gun safes are a great idea to protect against the first scenario of kids, grandkids, friends, relatives, etc... but I don't think a gun safe should even be required to protect me from liability if somebody breaks into my house (or car) and steals the gun which I have legally purchased and is stored within my own property...
I agree 100%. And I do think this is what currently happens.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,021
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,021 |
Ok,, I'm out on that whole thing.. sorry,, I ain't killin babies.. not gonna happen..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... A Discussion On Guns...
|
|
