HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » As a gun owner, these are...

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:10 PM

As a gun owner, these are the steps I support to reduce gun violence

1) I support intrA-state gun sales be run through an FFL. I don't want the seller to get any personal information, that would be run by the FFL at sale. This would be up to individual states to implement. Personally, I would never buy a used gun from anyone.

2) I support 10 round magazines (except for grandfathered weapons that hold more). It won't make a bit of difference, however. Cho at Va Tech used 10 round magazines and reloaded 17 times, but if it makes people feel good without effect, I can't help that.

3) I wholly support a media blackout on any shooters name and background. Many of these people do these despicable acts in an effort to get recognition in death they didn't get in life. Let them know no one will know who they are.

4) I support an AWB since it won't change anything except cosmetic features, especially if it's like the last ban. The functionality will remain the same and those weapons will be for sale, sans the scary bits.

5) Mandatory sentencing for gun crimes. Armed robbery gets X years, murder gets x years. No plea bargaining, no mercy. The prisons are crowded. To make room, let NON-violent pot users placed in jail for holding next to nothing in pot go. This would open up a lot of room.

6) Mandatory training for first time gun buyers for each type of weapon purchased. (Meaning, if you buy a semi-auto .40 pistol, you get training. Buy a rifle, get training, but a revolver, get training). When I bought my weapon, it wasn't required but I paid for it anyway. I was smarter than to just go home. I was taught how it worked, gun safety, concealed carry laws in my state, etc.

Look y'all. There is no way, no how, of getting rid of guns in the U.S. Jumping up and down is good exercise, but jumping up and down for bans and confiscation just won't work. If you want to talk about reducing gun violence, my suggestions above, I believe, are a starting point.

Your input is appreciated. This is a nice, polite opinion. Nice polite responses are REALLY appreciated.

41 replies, 2102 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 41 replies Author Time Post
Reply As a gun owner, these are the steps I support to reduce gun violence (Original post)
shadowrider Dec 2012 OP
atreides1 Dec 2012 #1
gejohnston Dec 2012 #4
Kennah Dec 2012 #7
_Liann_ Dec 2012 #37
gejohnston Dec 2012 #39
petronius Dec 2012 #2
gejohnston Dec 2012 #3
Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #5
Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #6
Pullo Dec 2012 #8
Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #11
gejohnston Dec 2012 #12
Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #13
gejohnston Dec 2012 #14
Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #15
gejohnston Dec 2012 #16
Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #17
hack89 Dec 2012 #18
Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #20
hack89 Dec 2012 #21
Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #24
hack89 Dec 2012 #26
Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #29
hack89 Dec 2012 #30
Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #34
gejohnston Dec 2012 #32
Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #36
gejohnston Dec 2012 #38
gejohnston Dec 2012 #28
Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #31
exboyfil Dec 2012 #33
Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #35
rbixby Dec 2012 #40
gejohnston Dec 2012 #22
Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #27
gejohnston Dec 2012 #19
Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #23
gejohnston Dec 2012 #25
Kennah Dec 2012 #9
Kennah Dec 2012 #10
spin Dec 2012 #41

Response to shadowrider (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:17 PM

1. Sounds reasonable

Though I disagree on grandfathering high capacity magazines...10 rounds should be more then enough for any target shooter or hunter.

You have 6 months to turn in any magazines that hold more then 10 rounds, and if caught you receive a fine and the magazines are confiscated, but you get to keep your weapon and ammunition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atreides1 (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:45 PM

4. many states have hunting regulations that limit you to five round

magazines. Wyoming and Florida I know do. Not grandfathering them might run into 5A issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:59 PM

7. Unless they are bought back, which would cost one helluva lot less than a cop in every school

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atreides1 (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:03 PM

37. Suggestions fail on some important points

It is already illegal for a felon to posses a firearm of any size magazine, any numbers of rounds. Yet the Sniper-Killer (of NY Firemen and his sister) William Spengler had a BUSHMASTER AR-15 same as Adam Lanza who massacred Sandy Hook School, same as the Aurora Colorado Theater Shooter James Holmes, same as the DC Sniper Malvo.

It is already the law that people with mental impairments be barred from owning firearms, but it takes court orders or a hospitalization stay for incapacity to impose the gun ban. David Michael Keene was hospitalized several times as a juvenile, but this son of the current NRA president Michael A. Keene was able to carry a weapon that he discharged at another driver in a road-rage attempted murder. The ten year prison sentence (release last February) include a court order that David Keene Jr be banned from gun possession for life. Who is going to police that order? Every felon, including William Spengler, is barred from guns for life.

Having mental impairments did not stop the son of Mike Huckabee, whom was expelled from summer camp for torture murder of a stray dog (torturing animals as a teen is an indicator of future sociopathy in adult life), from trying to carry a handgun onto a commercial flight.

Modern psychiatry has consensus that there are 4% of the population with the condition they name Anti-Social Personality Disorder, and the general public calls "sociopathy" or just "psychopathy". Four out of one hundred means that an Adam Lanza or William Spengler is living withing 13 houses away from everybody in America.

Somehow we let the crazies multiply like rabbits and here we are today.

Killers don't just use guns. The sociopath Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer and fuel oil to kill 169 people at the Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building.

WE NEED SOCIOPATH CONTROL, not just "gun control". These crazies likely were the first to stockpile arms in the latest gun buying boom. Many of them are already heavily armed.

Some parts of sociopath control looks like gun control -- removal of M16 look-alike fantasy weapons from civilian hands -- it looks like a war weapon by design, and it is bought by human-hunters because it looks like a gun known for hunting humans.

BUSHMASTER is a preferred weapon for hunting humans by sociopath mass murderers. We all know that. There is no right to sell civilians war weapons or their closest cousins. It was a Stag Arms AR-15 used in the Clackamas Mall two days before Sandy Hook. Put the Bushmaster, Stag Arms, and an army M16 on a table and ask civilians which is which and they couldn't tell you.

Killers want the AR-15 because it feeds the murder lust in them, and we all know that is true.


By the way, the note left by William Spengler, that killing is what he does best -- there ought to be a very intense study of his life to see if he is an unknown serial killer. He hardly had a lot of practice killing with just his grandma, so how did it become what he does best? Missing persons and unsolved gun deaths may be tied to him or his guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to _Liann_ (Reply #37)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:34 PM

39. some good points, however


It is already the law that people with mental impairments be barred from owning firearms, but it takes court orders or a hospitalization stay for incapacity to impose the gun ban. David Michael Keene was hospitalized several times as a juvenile, but this son of the current NRA president Michael A. Keene was able to carry a weapon that he discharged at another driver in a road-rage attempted murder. The ten year prison sentence (release last February) include a court order that David Keene Jr be banned from gun possession for life. Who is going to police that order? Every felon, including William Spengler, is barred from guns for life.
so is every drug dealer in Chicago and UK. If anyone knew the answer to that, they would be a well sought out consultant.

Having mental impairments did not stop the son of Mike Huckabee, whom was expelled from summer camp for torture murder of a stray dog (torturing animals as a teen is an indicator of future sociopathy in adult life), from trying to carry a handgun onto a commercial flight.
That is why I support juvenile convictions of animal cruelty be a NICS disqualification.

WE NEED SOCIOPATH CONTROL, not just "gun control". These crazies likely were the first to stockpile arms in the latest gun buying boom. Many of them are already heavily armed.

Some parts of sociopath control looks like gun control -- removal of M16 look-alike fantasy weapons from civilian hands -- it looks like a war weapon by design, and it is bought by human-hunters because it looks like a gun known for hunting humans.

BUSHMASTER is a preferred weapon for hunting humans by sociopath mass murderers. We all know that. There is no right to sell civilians war weapons or their closest cousins. It was a Stag Arms AR-15 used in the Clackamas Mall two days before Sandy Hook. Put the Bushmaster, Stag Arms, and an army M16 on a table and ask civilians which is which and they couldn't tell you.

Killers want the AR-15 because it feeds the murder lust in them, and we all know that is true.


By the way, the note left by William Spengler, that killing is what he does best -- there ought to be a very intense study of his life to see if he is an unknown serial killer. He hardly had a lot of practice killing with just his grandma, so how did it become what he does best? Missing persons and unsolved gun deaths may be tied to him or his guns.
Most of those people are not sociopaths, but I don't think they pick that brand or type because of any technical reasons. If TV and movies made crossbow wielding nuts anti-heros or heros, they would be using crossbows. In the 1950s, movies like Rebel without a Cause and High School Confidential caused a hysteria about switchblades, Congress even passed a law in 1958. Street gangs used knives and tire chains, but rarely guns. In 1965, only about half of all murders involved guns compared to about 70 percent today. In all of the movies, he bad guys had switchblades or maybe a POS revolver. That is how glamorization of smoking campaigns work. I think there are other forces at work.
Is there a test for sociopaths? Most of the worst damage sociopaths have done to our society hasn't been with a gun, bomb, knife, but with a Monte Blanc pen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:24 PM

2. I generally support most of that as well

On #3 however, I would oppose any attempt to legislate this blackout - it's far too much of a 1A violation. And I predict a 0% chance that it could ever happen voluntarily.

On #4, there's no reason to assume that a future AWB would be as inept and cosmetically-focused as the original. The only things that really matter are capacity and speed of reloading (Unless the bill goes as far as single-shot only, which I would definitely oppose). You've dealt with capacity in #2 and I imagine that a retooled AWB would address detachable magazines (which is fine with me as long as bullet buttons or similar tools are still allowed). I would hope that all of the "military-style" appearance nonsense is left out of any future legislation.

We have something like #6 here in CA with handguns at least, and I think it's a good idea as long as it doesn't create any sort of significant financial or time-related impediment...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:43 PM

3. I like most of your ideas.

1
) I support intrA-state gun sales be run through an FFL. I don't want the seller to get any personal information, that would be run by the FFL at sale. This would be up to individual states to implement. Personally, I would never buy a used gun from anyone.
Same here. I think the flea market guys, who are there every week, should have FFLs. I think each state can set up its own mechanism. MI has a "purchase permit" for private sales. That is a reasonable alternative.

2) I support 10 round magazines (except for grandfathered weapons that hold more). It won't make a bit of difference, however. Cho at Va Tech used 10 round magazines and reloaded 17 times, but if it makes people feel good without effect, I can't help that.
I like that for rifles. For pistols, I think it should be what the pistol was designed for. Or, go with Bill Ruger's 15 round mgs.

I wholly support a media blackout on any shooters name and background. Many of these people do these despicable acts in an effort to get recognition in death they didn't get in life. Let them know no one will know who they are.
Completely agree, don't need to make anti heros.

I support an AWB since it won't change anything except cosmetic features, especially if it's like the last ban. The functionality will remain the same and those weapons will be for sale, sans the scary bits.
I never got the bayonet lug thing.

Mandatory sentencing for gun crimes. Armed robbery gets X years, murder gets x years. No plea bargaining, no mercy. The prisons are crowded. To make room, let NON-violent pot users placed in jail for holding next to nothing in pot go. This would open up a lot of room.
Legalize pot, that will gut the gangs.

Mandatory training for first time gun buyers for each type of weapon purchased. (Meaning, if you buy a semi-auto .40 pistol, you get training. Buy a rifle, get training, but a revolver, get training). When I bought my weapon, it wasn't required but I paid for it anyway. I was smarter than to just go home. I was taught how it worked, gun safety, concealed carry laws in my state, etc.
You have had experience with "I bought it but have no clue how to load it" types too?

One thing I would like to add: I would like a study or series of studies to see why only 57 percent of murders were with guns while something like 70 percent are now. Obviously, it isn't laxer gun laws from then. Maybe there is a media influence like smoking and the switchblade hysteria in the 1950s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:50 PM

5. yes, these are good. #3 is most excellent. #2 is weakly reasoned but, it makes people feel good and

that is a good thing so, I can get behind it.

I guess 10 is a good a number as any.

Dang, I think my Ruger holds eleven.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 07:34 PM

6. All good, but I see none of them being effective. Basically feel-good lip service.

A true AWB ban would ban all semi-automatics. The argument about full-auto and semi-auto is ridiculous. We all know that the most effective way to kill as many people as possible is not with an M-16 on full-auto select.
Grandfathering in something that you make illegal, totally defeats the purpose. And how would you implement that?
Keeping semi-autos out of the public venue is the only solution I can see, which means being able to track them when outside the owner's perimeter.

I like the mandatory training for ownership. The training necessary for carrying should be extremely rigorous and uniform across the country. All training should be combined with accountability.
I like number 5.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:01 AM

8. A semiauto ban is much more straightforward ....

but realistically speaking, banning them outright won't happen anytime soon. Most guns sold today are semiautos of some variety. Any type of compulsory buyback or outright confiscation of weapons already in circulation would face ferocious opposition.

Basically, such a push would legitimize the NRA's paranoia, and many more gun owners who aren't currently politically active would join their cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pullo (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 05:39 PM

11. I agree. That's why they need to be trackable and owners need to be accountable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 05:51 PM

12. how are the owners not accountalble?

or less accountable than anyone else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:16 PM

13. They are not accountable when their guns are stolen and used by others to kill.

Anyone else what? Those who kill are accountable, but not those who provide the means.
I think I make it clear how to achieve accountability here http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=94334

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:28 PM

14. if they provide it volunteerly and

illegally, but all means. But jailing victims of theft, like Canada does (or at least tries to since juries nullify if it goes to trial), is total nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:53 PM

15. Holding people accountable for gross negligence is not jailing victims.

The victims are those who get killed not those who supplied the guns.
In Sandy Hook, ironically, one of the victims was also the supplier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 07:20 PM

16. having a 500 pound safe is not gross negligence

Neither is, in one Canadian case, a bank vault complete with alarm systems. One was stolen and the other got laughed out of an extradition hearing. That would have been jailing a theft victim. Neither one of them are negligent either. The first went above and beyond legal requirements, the second probably had security as good or better than Toronto's police armory.

Giving potential thieves a map on where to find them may be. Both cases do a better job than LAPD who lost several pistols and submachine guns because their SWAT team thought an abandoned building without an alarm system would make a good armory.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=97363
http://www.lohud.com/article/20121223/NEWS04/312230056/The-gun-owner-next-door-What-you-don-t-know-about-the-weapons-in-your-neighborhood

I agree with the guy in the video, that non security is irresponsible. If I left any weapon insecure around kids or prohibited people can have access to it, that would be irresponsible and negligent regardless of the action. Getting a safe ripped of or defeated by professionals is not.

The writer of the article has an NYC pistol permit. I think the TOS forbids giving the make, model, and caliber. At least he is following Ed Schultz's advice and buying American.

An indifference to, and a blatant violation of, a legal duty with respect to the rights of others.
Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degree of inattention, while both differ from willful and wanton conduct, which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury. This distinction is important, since contributory negligence—a lack of care by the plaintiff that combines with the defendant's conduct to cause the plaintiff's injury and completely bar his or her action—is not a defense to willful and wanton conduct but is a defense to gross negligence. In addition, a finding of willful and wanton misconduct usually supports a recovery of Punitive Damages, whereas gross negligence does not.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Gross+negligence

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:23 PM

17. I disagree.

If your guns are stolen, you should be held responsible to a degree. The more you own the greater the responsibility to keep them secure. Obviously a 500 pound safe is not always enough, especially when the safe itself is not secured.
Let's face it, if every legal gun were properly secured, there would be very few available to criminals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:44 PM

18. You love those backdoor defacto bans, don't you?

Taking a lesson from the anti-choice movement? Making regulations so onerous that owning guns becomes to expensive?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:14 PM

20. No, I like people to be responsible when they own objects designed to kill.

I am not advocating any bans. I also realize that legit collectors exist. If I were to accumulate a number of weapons, I would make sure that they were not stored in one place. At the very least I would break them down into unusable parts for storage in separate locations.
And please, keep the snark, it doesn't get us anywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:18 PM

21. People can't afford thousand dollar safes

that completely guarantee that the guns will not be stolen. But that is what you would require. You want to make gun ownership too expensive for many.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #21)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:27 PM

24. Gun ownership already is too expensive for many, including me.

You don't need a safe either. Just more consumer junk. Dismantle the gun and store the bits in different places. If you own many guns, you are not poor.
People buy guns to protect themselves against the poor. Why would poor people need guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:31 PM

26. Heller says dismantlement cannot be mandated

I have a constitutional right to have a handgun ready for use in self defense.

The poor prey on the poor. Why do you think violent crime is so geographically limited? Inner city neighborhoods are full of poor people. That is also where most of the killing takes place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #26)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:37 PM

29. I'm not talking about one gun that you may need.

I'm talking about arsenals/collections, small or large, left in house or pawnshops, unguarded, in useless safes that can be wheeled out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #29)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:38 PM

30. So one or two guns being stolen is ok? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #30)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:26 PM

34. Nope, but easier to keep an eye on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #29)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:58 PM

32. pawn shops have to comply

with any storage and security regulations as any FFL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #32)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:41 PM

36. Good, then they should never lose any guns.

If their security fails, they should be held responsible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #36)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:05 PM

38. not if they follow the law

the problem with Brady semi SLAPP suits, which as banned, was that they were meritless and winnable. They served only to harass and cost money and was not meant to go to trial. That is why I compare them to SLAPP suits. That is the only reason you don't see them applied to car dealers, bars, etc. Even ambulance chasers have some sense of ethics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:34 PM

28. no

people buy guns for a lot of reasons. Poor people do own guns. Mostly the rural poor, who the party needs to reach out to more. Gang members and drug dealers are not poor. Their parents might be, they they are not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:38 PM

31. Poor rural gun owners tend to secure their guns pretty well

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:15 PM

33. Maybe because poor people can still

be raped or be attacked for any reason including being the wrong race. Some people like to hurt other people for no reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #33)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:39 PM

35. Then one gun should suffice.

And as true as what you say may be, those kinds of attacks are few and far between.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #21)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:38 PM

40. Perhaps government subsidies for low income gun enthusiasts could help this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:19 PM

22. then you would have to specify that in the law

but I'm guessing that even if that was done, and the thieves managed to find some of the bolts, for example, you would still hold the gun owner below the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:33 PM

27. Each case should be judged on it's own merits.

Nobody is above the law. If someone takes reasonable steps to ensure the safe storage of weapons, then they should not be held responsible. But storing many weapons intact, in a portable safe is never responsible. If the guy in question had removed an essential part from each weapon, tossed them in a bag and taken those parts with him, he would've taken reasonable steps. Instead, he left them all intact, in an empty house at Thanksgiving. That, my friend, is beyond dumb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:50 PM

19. what you are advocating is having

a group of theft victims being below the law.
You seem to be operating under the delusion that any security system is fool proof. There is none. Even if it was bolted to the floor, and the criminals used a blow torch, you would still claim it was not properly secured.
The US case would not be neglect under the law because it was at least and more what the law required. The Canadian case, it would be ruled as unconstitutionally vague in the US. In Canada, safe storage charges are often nullified assuming it makes it to trial.
If you follow the law, you should not be held responsible. Both of those cases were properly secured above and beyond what the law requires. If someone steals your car, and uses it in an armed robbery, the theft victim should be held responsible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:22 PM

23. I'm not concerned with Canada or stealing cars. All deflections.

We're trying to fix a problem here, which is too many stolen/missing firearms. It's time for folk to step up and be responsible. If you can't keep them safe, then don't buy them in the first place. Period.
What is wrong with folk having to be responsible and accountable for their actions, or lack thereof. We see the results of irresponsibility every day.
Guns break down into component parts. Keep those parts separate and they don't function too well. Only keep those you need complete at any one time.
Going on vacation and leaving a gun collection in a safe in an empty house is not smart, sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:31 PM

25. not at all

the same theory could be applied if someone wanted to sue someone.
What is wrong with folk having to be responsible and accountable for their actions, or lack thereof. We see the results of irresponsibility every day.
You are picking a group of people and putting them below the law, everything is wrong with that.
Guns break down into component parts. Keep those parts separate and they don't function too well. Only keep those you need complete at any one time.
Then specify it in the law, that would negate the above.
Going on vacation and leaving a gun collection in a safe in an empty house is not smart, sorry.
Thinking of everything that could possibly go wrong could be paranoid also. Either way, it doesn't meet the definition of negligent. It certainly doesn't meet the definition of gross negligence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:03 AM

9. "A true AWB ban would ban all semi-automatics"

I agree with you, but I don't know there is anywhere near the will to do it. Some have suggested that the NFA rules for machineguns be applied to semiautos, but I doubt there is the will for that. A middle ground, of semiauto licensing, might be possible.

Training should be among the easier things to pitch, along with regulating all private sales, not just gun show loophole talk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:18 AM

10. More training for concealed carry as the law and use of force is often lacking from training

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:27 AM

41. I agree with all your points. ...

However I have bought firearms from fellow shooters that I knew well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread