HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » would you supoport this g...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:58 PM

 

would you supoport this gun-control measure?

Simple question about an idea I had.

Would you support a law requiring a gun safe to accommodate firearm collections in homes, in tandem with a .gov subsidy for the implementation of the program?

Essentially, unless your gun is currently being used, it must be in a safe. A .gov subsidy would be introduced to ensure rapid compliance with the law. A gun stolen due to negligence of proper storing results in heavy fines (Say, $5K per firearm). A gun stolen and used in a crime results in a sentence half the length of the one imposed on the perpetrator.

I'm trying to take the middle road here. Screaming "Ban em all", or "Guns for all" are equally stupid positions, IMO.
33 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
I would support this.
20 (61%)
I wouldn't support this.
10 (30%)
Other (Specify).
3 (9%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

72 replies, 3726 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 72 replies Author Time Post
Reply would you supoport this gun-control measure? (Original post)
Marinedem Dec 2012 OP
Indydem Dec 2012 #1
Marinedem Dec 2012 #2
Indydem Dec 2012 #4
KarenS Dec 2012 #3
Squinch Dec 2012 #6
etherealtruth Dec 2012 #5
CTyankee Dec 2012 #7
etherealtruth Dec 2012 #10
CTyankee Dec 2012 #13
etherealtruth Dec 2012 #18
CTyankee Dec 2012 #21
etherealtruth Dec 2012 #24
Sgent Dec 2012 #30
CTyankee Dec 2012 #33
JimDandy Dec 2012 #59
DefenseLawyer Dec 2012 #55
CTyankee Dec 2012 #58
DefenseLawyer Dec 2012 #60
CTyankee Dec 2012 #62
JimDandy Dec 2012 #63
ohheckyeah Dec 2012 #39
CTyankee Dec 2012 #44
ohheckyeah Dec 2012 #46
CTyankee Dec 2012 #47
ohheckyeah Dec 2012 #49
CTyankee Dec 2012 #50
ohheckyeah Dec 2012 #54
JimDandy Dec 2012 #61
ohheckyeah Dec 2012 #68
0rganism Dec 2012 #56
JimDandy Dec 2012 #64
Union Scribe Dec 2012 #9
etherealtruth Dec 2012 #11
mmonk Dec 2012 #8
Logical Dec 2012 #12
Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #35
Logical Dec 2012 #37
Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #42
Logical Dec 2012 #45
oneshooter Dec 2012 #70
Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #72
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #14
etherealtruth Dec 2012 #19
CTyankee Dec 2012 #22
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #27
CTyankee Dec 2012 #38
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #65
CTyankee Dec 2012 #66
PD Turk Dec 2012 #15
99Forever Dec 2012 #16
Marinedem Dec 2012 #20
99Forever Dec 2012 #26
Marinedem Dec 2012 #31
Union Scribe Dec 2012 #34
99Forever Dec 2012 #41
Union Scribe Dec 2012 #43
Cetacea Dec 2012 #23
PD Turk Dec 2012 #17
forestpath Dec 2012 #25
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #28
JVS Dec 2012 #29
Marinedem Dec 2012 #32
JVS Dec 2012 #36
Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #40
DevonRex Dec 2012 #48
Kaleva Dec 2012 #67
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #51
bluestateguy Dec 2012 #52
AldoLeopold Dec 2012 #53
Mr.Bill Dec 2012 #57
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #69
oneshooter Dec 2012 #71

Response to Marinedem (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:01 PM

1. And what is the use of a firearm in a safe?

If used for home defense?

Saying "wait a minute, I have to get my handgun out of the safe and load it" to a douchebag intent on harming you or your family has proven to be highly ineffective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indydem (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:02 PM

2. Biometric locks.

 

They allow a safe to be accessed by an authorized user in seconds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marinedem (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:06 PM

4. I went to look to disprove you, but I see that they make biometric Rifle safes now.

I'll be ordering one next week for my shotgun that I use for home defense.

You learn something new every day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marinedem (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:03 PM

3. Other:

I'm in the "ban em all" phase of this and I probably will still be in the same place tomorrow.
I see that you think that's a stupid position,,,, whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KarenS (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:11 PM

6. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marinedem (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:07 PM

5. Doesn't do nearly enough

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to etherealtruth (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:12 PM

7. Norway has it and Norwegians are allowed guns and many own guns as they like to

hunt and shoot sports. But they have strict laws about carrying guns and keeping them locked up. The police can check your house to see if your safe is working properly. Norwegians don't seem to have a problem with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:18 PM

10. "The police can check your house to see if your safe is working properly."

I can't imagine US citizens allowing this?

Norwegians use assault weapons to hunt? I honestly can't imagine a legitimate reason to own one ... I am frankly very surprised that Norway allows this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to etherealtruth (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:23 PM

13. Well, as I said Norwegians agree with these house checks. Just because we can't imagine

U.S. citizens allowing this doesn't make us automatically right.

Norway is a very outdoorsy country, from what I have read. They like to hunt. I don't know if they use assault weapons to hunt and I don't think I said that.

Norway is a constitutional democracy, btw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #13)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:32 PM

18. I understand Norway's form of government

... I also understand they have agreed to these constraints. I can't imagine US citizens agreeing.

I was just wondering if they also owned assault weaponry ... as I really can't see any civil society allowing this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to etherealtruth (Reply #18)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:38 PM

21. Well, we can educate the American people. In the mid 19th century most Americans

didn't imagine/approve of women voting either. But that didn't stop the suffrage movement, did it?

I don't know the answer about the assault weapons in Norway. You can google it I am sure...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:45 PM

24. I thought you might have hadfirst hand knowledge ...

It appears that Norway has a ban on automatic weapons for civilians

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to etherealtruth (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:20 PM

30. So does the US (mostly)

automatic weapons were essentially banned in 1934.

Norway allows ownership of semi-automatic rifles, which all "assault weapons" banned by the AWB are.

Although the US doesn't have a *complete* ban on ownership of automatic weapons, they are mostly regulated to collectors, gun ranges and similar persons. The regulations and background checks are severe, and even the least expensive weapons start at 10,000+. There hasn't been a legal one used in the commission of a crime in the US in a very long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to etherealtruth (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:49 PM

33. No, but I had researched it once a while back and it was interesting how guns are

popular with the Norwegian people but they accept way more regulation of them than we do. It is possible to live like this. We don't have to do it "our way" and have all this bloodshed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to etherealtruth (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 05:21 PM

59. Good for them. We desperately need a ban on automatic/assault weapons in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #13)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 05:18 PM

55. Count me out on the "house checks" by the police.

Throwing out the Bill of Rights is a bit of an overreaction, even to something as tragic as this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DefenseLawyer (Reply #55)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 05:21 PM

58. Surely we can figure out a way to do this as a matter of public safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #58)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 05:38 PM

60. Almost every act that increases police power is done in the name of "public safety"

I'll keep the Fourth Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DefenseLawyer (Reply #60)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:12 PM

62. A good question is how other constitutional democracies keep their individual rights

with public safety concerns. We were talking about Norway but I am sure there are other countries as well. You seem to pose an "either/or" proposition and I am saying that other countries seemed to have balanced the concerns you cite, e.g. police power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DefenseLawyer (Reply #60)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:17 PM

63. Do you know of a legal reason

why a housing inspector couldn't perform that function as part of their housing safety inspection? They do not have police powers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:05 PM

39. Seriously...

the same people who most likely protested the Patriot Act over phone calls and emails being monitored think it's okay for the police to check your house for no other reason than to see if your guns are locked up?

Sweet Jesus, I don't care what the Norwegians have or don't have a problem with, not no but HELL NO.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ohheckyeah (Reply #39)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:12 PM

44. But that's just you. I don't feel that way. And I don't feel deprived of anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #44)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:32 PM

46. I don't feel deprived...

it's an invasion of privacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ohheckyeah (Reply #46)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:45 PM

47. I don't think a safety check is necessarily an invasion of privacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #47)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 05:02 PM

49. Opinion is irrelevant...

The Fourth Amendment isn't irrelevant.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What you are suggesting reeks of a police state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ohheckyeah (Reply #49)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 05:05 PM

50. Oh, no police state. But say the authorities were checking gas leaks in the neighborhood

I would let them check my gas valves to see if my house had a leak that would cause an explosion that could endanger others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #50)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 05:13 PM

54. I'd let the gas company check for gas leaks...

that's not the function of the police department.

I noticed you passed right over the 4th amendment. I don't think we have anything further to discuss.

Have a nice night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ohheckyeah (Reply #54)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:10 PM

61. What about having the city housing inspector

check the gun safe when they do a housing safety inspection? I'm absolutely against the police performing that safety check for the same reasons as you, but I think this idea would work. It's turning out that gun access/security is, at the very least, a community safety problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimDandy (Reply #61)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:49 PM

68. And why would a city housing inspector be

doing a safety inspection at my home? I live in the country on 1 1/2 acres of land. If somebody comes in to inspect something it's because I request it.

I think it's a terrible idea no matter who is doing the inspection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 05:19 PM

56. didn't Norway recently have a horrific massacre of its own?

Anders Behring Breivik shoots 69 people (mostly children) dead on 22 July 2011:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway_massacre

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:49 PM

64. Was the law allowing police to check gun safes in Norway

passed before or after the Brevik massacre las year?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to etherealtruth (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:15 PM

9. It's one thing, though.

There isn't going to be just one overarching law that will fix everything. It will take a number of smaller initiatives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:18 PM

11. You are probably right about incremental steps

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marinedem (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:12 PM

8. I'd rather assault weapons be heavily regulated and difficult to obtain

or be modified before a sale could take place. This would cut down on the body count of mass muderers and lead to quick apprehension.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marinedem (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:22 PM

12. LOL, are you fucking serious......

"A gun stolen and used in a crime results in a sentence half the length of the one imposed on the perpetrator?"

This place is insane at this point.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #12)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:55 PM

35. You'd rather ban them all?

Nothing wrong with responsibility and accountability. I think he's trying to find a viable solution to the madness that already exists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #35)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:00 PM

37. So 20 years in prison for leaving your gun safe unlocked? So the person breaks in my house......

steals the gun, then murders someone with the gun and I get 1/2 the blame and prison time? Maybe 10 years after he stole it?

I am sure that will be OKed by the SCOTUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #37)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:09 PM

42. It would be the last time you left it unlocked.

What price do you put on human life? The sentence is arbitrary. We're discussing an idea which would demand accountability for endangering public safety through negligence.
It could be argued that you were an accessory before the fact, depending on any personal connection with the perpetrator of the crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #42)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:18 PM

45. I agree with gun safes being the law. But not 1/2 the sentence of the idiot who actually did it. I..

think parents who leave a gun accessible for a kid should be in prison if the kid shoots himself with a gun that was not locked up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #42)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:17 PM

70. ST, according to you if you had a 500# safe in your house

and the thieves stole it from you, you should be held responsible for the results.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117289027

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #70)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:56 PM

72. That's right. Secure means secure.

I think we all agree on some degree of accountability. It's all about where you draw the line.
I'm not suggesting that the gun owner who is robbed should serve any particular sentence, but if it is determined that they were negligent, then they should have a degree of accountability. What degree is for a court to decide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marinedem (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:26 PM

14. To what purpose?

 

I have one. Everyone that lives here knows where the keys are. If one of us were to go insane and decide that people must die, how is the safe going to prevent that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:34 PM

19. That was my thought ....

The "kid" that went on the rampage and slaughtered people resided in that house and likely had access.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:41 PM

22. I think we could figure out a solution to that problem...

limit the number of people who know where the keys are. Esp. limit the ones who are likely "to go insane." Somehow other countries that have such safes have figured out answers to this problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #22)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:08 PM

27. I just know this is going to end badly, but here goes.

 

We are a violent, paranoid, authoritarian culture. We are taught from birth that there is no problem that cannot be fixed with an ass-kicking, or some killing.

If guns didn't exist, but everything else in America was the same, this guy would have killed his mother with an axe or a hammer and then killed or maybe only maimed two or five other innocents.

Is that really acceptable?

We have determined that allowing a few million more Americans to die from lack of health care is acceptable in order to save some taxes. We have determined that spending a billion or two blowing up little kids far away is acceptable in order to kill some bad people. We have determined that it is acceptable to suspend the right to privacy of the entire population on the off chance that some bad people will try to repeat the 9/11 attack.

Need I go on? The list of examples seems endless, so I can. Easily.

Is the body count all that matters? Really?

So, let's just ban guns and create yet another black market to meet the demand for them. Americans killing tens of thousands of other Americans every year is traditional. If it's poor people being killed it doesn't even rate a spot on the news.

In the end, it doesn't matter what we do or don't do about firearms. We are a profoundly disturbed society and this is the butchers bill for failing to address that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:01 PM

38. I can see how you come to your belief that guns cannot ever be banned in this

country. If I believed in that dystopic vision I would probably feel the way you do...or maybe not (I'd probably just get out of the country and live in some place more peaceful).

But you see, I just don't share your view. Or at least most of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #38)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:53 PM

65. I don't believe that guns cannot ever be banned, I just don't think it would do much good.

 

Nor do I think it is very likely to happen.

And believe me, if it were as easy to do as to say, I would have got out of this insane asylum long ago. One of the few regrets I have is not taking an opportunity to move to Europe when I had it in the 90s.

But I am curious. What did I write that leads you to believe that my assessment is a vision? Beside the no guns scenario, I gave only three examples, all of them current and historical facts. Do you dispute them or do you think any are likely to change?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #65)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:24 PM

66. Well, let's use "view" then. Fine with me.

I just think there are ways we can control guns better. You are doubtful that this can ever be done. I think it can. I think we just have to try. And I get that you don't share that view...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marinedem (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:28 PM

15. Yes

I'm a gun owner and sporting enthusiast and I support regulations requiring arms to be secured when not in use. Rights come with responsibilities and keeping your weapons locked up away from criminals and others is a big part of that responsibility .

Extending background checks to all gun sales and strengthening the system to raise red flags for possible mental health issues are among other measures I support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marinedem (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:31 PM

16. Hell no!

And we should "subsidize" your fetish?


Fuck that. You don't have 'em, you don't need a safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:35 PM

20. I'm glad you don't own guns.

 

Overly emotional people never should.

"Fetish", LOL.

I collect antique bolt action rifles from WW2 and earlier. I do a little recreational target shooting as well. If that is a "Fetish" to you, well.....seek help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marinedem (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:08 PM

26. I don't need a gun for my masculinity to be alright.

I doubt you can say the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #26)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:38 PM

31. Well...

 

I CAN say I never had to imply anything about my masculinity on an internet board, so I guess I'm ahead of you there.


Funnily enough, to fetishize something means that you have ascribed some sort of intangible, extra quality to something. Lust, love, hate, safety, spiritual well being, etc...

My guns are hunks of wood and steel. Some plastic. I view them as interesting pieces of history and craftsmanship. I view the ones for target shooting as mere tools for my sport.

You, on the other hand seem to view guns as some sort of masculinity totem. I can't say I feel this way about them though. It's fine that you do see them this way, albeit a bit creepy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #26)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:52 PM

34. A poster presents a positive, realistic plan

and you make dick jokes. How old are you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #34)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:08 PM

41. Old enough not to require a surrogate penis extension...

.. to feel like a man. I wasn't joking, smart guy. Bub bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #41)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:10 PM

43. You seem to have dick on the brain.

The rest of us are talking about solutions, maybe you can join us after a quick fap or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:42 PM

23. +1000

lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marinedem (Original post)


Response to Marinedem (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:50 PM

25. Sounds like window dressing to me.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marinedem (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:10 PM

28. Nowhere near enough. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marinedem (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:10 PM

29. I need a better definition of used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Reply #29)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:41 PM

32. Okay.

 

For the purposes of this thread, let's say:

Taken out for cleaning, modification, repair, range use, hunting, transport to transfer agent, and use in a home defense situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marinedem (Reply #32)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:56 PM

36. Would use in a home defense situation apply to the gun in the dresser drawer next to a sleeping...

user or would it be restricted to encompass only the wielding of the gun in such a situation?

I'm not really too interested in the debate, but I foresee a sticking point around the definition if people perceive the regulation as making the gun less accessible in an emergency. That's why I needed clarification.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marinedem (Reply #32)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:05 PM

40. I'm with you all the way.

You are the perfect example of what I call a "responsible gun owner". I think handguns should be required to have some sort of embedded safety system too, like biometrics and maybe a GPS tracker. We also have the technology to make effective, less lethal, self defense tools for those who feel unsafe outside their homes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marinedem (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:52 PM

48. Other. They pay for it. If they can't they turn in their guns.

Prior to purchasing a gun they must have verified safe storage. Combination plus key lock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #48)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:37 PM

67. A view 1%ers may support

They may feel safer knowing only they could afford guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marinedem (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 05:07 PM

51. I will go a step further

Once the tech gets mature enough, every civilian weapon that can accept it, smart weapon technology back fitting. I know a Henry probably should not be touched...safe for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marinedem (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 05:08 PM

52. A lot of people who be fined or jailed overmisunderstandings and simple oversights

I am not against talking about more gun laws, but not laws that will be hard to enforce, needlessly clog the courts and put more people in jail on vague "weapons charges".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marinedem (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 05:08 PM

53. Other: Ban 'em all

and let a recycling company sort 'em out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marinedem (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 05:20 PM

57. Good idea in theory

and we already have some laws about trigger locks, penalties for adults that allow children to get access, etc.

But in the end they are unenforcible laws that are too often not followed by the very people we need to follow them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marinedem (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:34 PM

69. No

 

Because

A) a safe wouldn't stop a thief
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117289027
Thieves break into Springfield home, steal 500-pound gun safe containing 15 weapons

B) as you can see in the thread, some boneheads want to hold the owner liable even though it was in the safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marinedem (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:40 PM

71. All of my safes are 650# empty, bolted to the wall(concrete filled concrete blocks)

that hake up the walls of my safe (gun)room. The door is a steel 3hour fire door that I salvaged from a hospital. Two dead bolt 2" locks locking into a steel frame. House is built of 12" thick rock and both front and back doors are the same as the gun room door. Windows are double pane in steel frames.

Built the house myself, I live on 40 acres, 30 miles from town. LE response is 30-45 min.

Am I a"responsible" gun owner?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread