Agree or disagree with the following statement:

[JohnLocke]

Poll question: Agree or disagree with the following statement:

"Those who own guns are, for the most part, responsible owners."

ON EDIT: I am voting for the third option.

[iconoclastic cat]

1. I am officially a heretic.

My dirtly little secret!

[PopeyeII]

17. Damn right I'm a responsible multiple gun owner.

I believe in EDUCATION not legislation. When are people and POLITICIANS going to wake up and try that approach?

[iconoclastic cat]

18. I guess a lot of other people are heretics, too!

Wow, I thought I'd be in the minority.

[CalebHayes]

2. <i>for the most part</i>

a big "for the most part."

http://NRAblacklist.com

[FeebMaster]

3. The vast majority of guns are never misused

and going along with that, the vast majority of gun owners are quite responsible.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

30. just because they are not misused

Doesn't mean they're responsible... lucky maybe.

Most people wearing seatbelts have not been in accidents either, right?

[FeebMaster]

31. That's an awful lot of lucky people.

Tens of millions if the majority are irresponsible.

Most people wearing seatbelts have not been in accidents either, right?

Right. But that assumes that not wearing a seatbelt is irresponsible.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

33. Now calm down....

I wasn't flaming at all!

WE ALL ARE fortunate that our own inactions don't CAUSE things.. but then again inaction isn't being responsible is it?

Responsibility takes action.

That's all I was saying!

[FeebMaster]

36. I'm calm.

"Responsibility takes action."

Not necessarily. Grabbing a sword and waving it around in public would be irresponsible. Jumping off the Sears tower with a parachute would be irresponsible. Both require action. The responsible course of action in both cases would be inaction.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

38. I think we're on the same page...

.. and since I'm not one of those who MUST have the 'last word' on something, I'll just wrap it up and say thanks for the chat.

[Catch22Dem]

4. for the most part (n/t)

[DebJ]

5. not if it's a semi=automatic!

[OpSomBlood]

9. The mechanical operation of the firearm determines how safe the owner is?

???

[Wcross]

16. Another victim of the Anti's propaganda.... N/t

[Doctor Smith]

6. This has to be true,

considering how many gun owners there are.

The same applies to knife owners, automobile owners, pesticide owners, etc...

[Fovea]

7. There are many responsible gun owners...

are they the majority? Sadly, I think not.

[FeebMaster]

8. What are all of these

tens of millions of irresponsible people with guns doing to show how irresponsible they are?

[DoNotRefill]

10. that would depend on how you define "responsible".

If you mean "responsible" as in "doesn't break the law", gun owners are HIGHLY responsible.

If you mean "responsible" as in they still vote for every Democrat even after that Democrat tell them they're too irresponsible to be trusted with guns, well, then the majority isn't responsible. As the saying goes: "Don't piss down my back then tell me it's raining, Senator..."

There are 80-100 MILLION gun owners in the US. How many gun owners commit crimes with guns?

[Fovea]

11. I mean

Knows the safe and proper operation of their gun,
and stores it in a safe and secure manner.

I do not believe this is true of the majority of gun owners.

[Doctor Smith]

12. Most of the people I know are gun owners,

and I'm not aware of any of them that store their guns in an unsafe or insecure manner, and I don't know anyone who has ever had a gun accident.

What is the basis of your belief?

[Fovea]

15. The basis of my belief is experience and the knowlege

of other gun owners. I own guns. Most people I know own guns. But they are too frequently unsecured. One of my best friends lost thousands of dollars of guns, stolen from his house a few years back. None of them were well locked up, they were on wall racks and in display cases.

I can't count the number of rifles on racks I see locked in cheep racks in unsupervised pickup trucks, particularly in deer season. Those are easy to steal in many cases. Ask the guy who stole my old marlin 30-30 out of the back of my late lamented S10 pickup.

I grew up in the country, and now live in the city. City people own guns too.

Families in the inner city frequently keep a gun in the nightstand beside the bed, loaded, without a trigger lock. They have calculated the relative danger, and decided accordingly. Generally, these are not experienced shooters, merely possessors of firearms for personal protection and that 2nd amendment thing.

Many years ago I had an aquaintance, a friend of a friend, who lived in an armory. He implemented the three step rule, and lived by it, I assume he is still living. But you dared not sit on his couch without checking under the cushion, for fear of sitting on a glock. You got used to the idea that the umbrella stand had a sawed off New England arms 12ga., or you didn't. I tried not to spend much time at his place. I think he might be in the WPA now.

My close neighbors are mostly LEO's of one flavor or another. They seem to assume that everyone they stop or walk up to is packing.
But then, nearly everyone in my neighborhood is armed, including a fair number of octogenarians.

Yeah, I know guys with safes, and folks who use trigger locks. But for every one of those, I know three people who have a piece in the glove box or nightstand loaded and chambered.

[DoNotRefill]

13. Again, it depends on your definitions.

Currently, I store loaded guns around the house. Anybody in the house can pick one up and shoot somebody. Of course, there are only two people and three cats in the house, and we're all trained in safe firearms handling techniques, even the cats (who practice avoidance, since they got squirted with water every time they got near a gun as kittens). The guns are out for EXACTLY that purpose....so if it's necessary, we can pick one up and shoot somebody, no muss, no fuss, no wasted time, just grab it, point, click, and get the carpet cleanser before the blood sets.

For me, that's safe storage. The house is never unlocked, and it's rare that other people are allowed in the house, much less in the house unescorted.

To me, that's safe and secure. They're either on my person or locked in the house. If you've got teenaged kids and their friends in the house, that's not secure.

Now if you want to put a universal definition on "safe and secure", I'll particpate in that discussion.

[iverglas]

19. yup

For me, that's safe storage. The house is never unlocked, and it's rare that other people are allowed in the house, much less in the house unescorted.

To me, that's safe and secure. They're either on my person or locked in the house. If you've got teenaged kids and their friends in the house, that's not secure.


And no one ever, ever breaks into a locked house and steals firearms and uses them to commit crimes / cause harm.

And heavens to betsy, no one should ever suggest that someone who leaves firearms unsecured around the house where they can be stolen by such persons is irresponsible.


http://www.torontopoliceboard.on.ca/minutes/2004/040122pmm.pdf

... It is this number, one hundred and eighty-three (183) crime guns, that presents the only opportunity for analysis to determine how many smuggled firearms are actually used in Toronto crime. The Gang and Gun Task Force have determined that one hundred and thirty-nine (139) of these crime guns fall into the following categories:

<the remainder have been or are expected to be traced to the US>

- 26 long barrelled firearms
- 11 firearms registered in Canada
- 5 reported as stolen
- 4 firearms were never issued a serial number by manufacturer
- 16 were too old to be traced for ownership
- 32 had their serial numbers obliterated
- 45 are still under investigation

Investigative experience of the Gun and Gang Task Force and the Firearms Enforcement Unit has established that long barrelled firearms are primarily of Canadian origin. Long barrelled weapons are historically stolen from private citizens and converted for use in criminal acts. ...

Missing/Stolen Firearms

All stolen or missing firearms in Canada are required by law to be reported to the police. The police are required to report this information to the Canadian Police Information System (CPIC). Many of these firearms end up in the hands of the street criminal to commit crimes, provide protection, demonstrate status and intimidate or inflict violence on their peers, law enforcement, the community and innocent victims. According to the RCMP Annual Firearms Report to the Solicitor General of Canada, since 1978 over 97,000 firearms have been recorded on CPIC as stolen or missing, a large portion remain unrecovered, with more than 50% of this total being restricted firearms such as handguns. While annual reported incidents have slowly declined since 1997, these incidents still account for 2000-3000 firearms per year potentially entering the illicit market.

... Domestic Firearms Enforcement Initiatives

The issue of domestic firearms being used as crime guns is an emerging trend. The successful investigations to date have greatly assisted in identifying opportunities for law enforcement to work collaboratively with other stakeholders to address this issue. The following initiatives are underway at this time:
...
- Giving a higher priority to break & enters where firearms have been stolen. ...

[MrBenchley]

21. An interesting statistic from Australia...

"Gun lobby representatives often speak about 'Law Abiding Shooters' as though 99.9% of gun owners could be placed in that category. Police checks in several of Melbourne's Eastern suburbs have recently shown that about half the number of gun owners do not store their guns legally. "

http://www.guncontrol.org.au/index.php?article=66

One wonders what the number is here....

[DoNotRefill]

24. Bench, please quote the Federal gun storage law.

and provide a link.

[MrBenchley]

25. Refill, the second what you want is of any interest

to me, I promise to let you know....

[DoNotRefill]

29. Typical...

all hat, no cattle. Reminds me of somebody else...

[MrBenchley]

35. Yup...RKBA horseshit....

Really, what else does your side EVER have?

[iverglas]

40. ... about what people say

Bench, please quote the Federal gun storage law.

The article quoted referred to how many firearms owners store their weapons ILLEGALLY in Australia.

"Illegally" is very plainly a proxy for "unsafely" IN AUSTRALIA, where the law imposes requirements that plainly relate to safety.

You have chosen to represent what Benchley said as wondering how many people store their firearms illegally in the US, according to some non-existent federal safe storage law. (Are there no state laws? If so, why would they not be relevant?)

I'm sure there's a pretty picture for this one ...



The issue under discussion in this thread is responsible possession of firearms. A measurement of the level of responsibility of firearms owners in Australia, in terms of safe possession of firearms, can be approximated by measuring the level of compliance with the relevant legislation. The issue, and the thing being measured, is still the responsibility/safety practised by the firearms owners.

Doncha ever get bored pretending that people meant things other than what they plainly meant?

And do feel free to call me on it, next time you see me doing it.

Me, I just follow slackmaster's advice, and don't talk to people on discussion boards in ways I wouldn't talk to them around the dining table. In neither instance would I consider it civil to pretend that some shorthand way of expressing an idea was actually something other than what it plainly was, or that some error or slip of the tongue on a matter entirely irrelevant to the subject under discussion somehow invalidated what the speaker was saying about that subject.

[MrBenchley]

44. Speaking of the dining table

In another thread one of our enthusiasts actually asks: "Why is it wrong to eat a cat, but not wrong to eat chicken? Snake and gator are okay, and so is beef, but I suppose dog is bad too?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x63367

If that sort of cuisine were brought by someone to my dining table, I know I certainly would speak out plainly...so, I reserve my harsh language for the times I encounter people who deserve it.

[DoNotRefill]

46. actually, my comment is directly on point....

since Mr.Benchley said "One wonders what the number is here...." regarding the illegal storage of guns. Since MrBenchley's avatar is New Jersey, which is part of the US, wondering what AMERICAN storage law MrBenchley is talking about with his "One wonders what the number is here...." comment is appropriate, and not a red herring.

If he'd stuck with the Australian bit, the state of American law would not matter. Since he didn't, and brought American law into it, the state of American law DOES matter.

[iverglas]

47. keep it up

wondering what AMERICAN storage law MrBenchley is talking about ... the state of American law would not matter ... Since he ... brought American law into it ...

And not a word about anything *I* said, or response to my assertion that it was disingenuous to say that Benchley intended to refer to the rate of compliance with laws in the US rather than the rate of safe practices in relation to the possession of firearms.

To "understand" what Benchley said as referring to rate of compliance with non-existent laws is to claim to believe that Benchley doesn't know that the laws in question are non-existent.

And that's just too disingenuous a herring for me to swallow.

The subject of the thread was not the legality of firearms owners' behaviour, it was the responsible-ness of firearms owners' behaviour. Australian firearms owners' responsible-ness -- compliance with safe firearms-possession practices -- can be measured relatively accurately by measuring their compliance with legislation. That was the datum proved by Benchley's source, and the reason for which it was offered: the rate of compliance with safe firearms-possession practices, NOT the rate of compliance with legislation.

To rely on a malconstructed parallel, which looked like a comparison between rates of compliance with legislation when no such comparison is possible and the writer knew it was not possible and the reader knew that the writer knew it was not possible, to make a point (and damned if I can even figure out what that point might be ...) is, well, I don't want to repeat myself endlessly.

[DoNotRefill]

48. I'm sorry, Iverglas, but now I have to smack you (figuratively)

"That was the datum proved by Benchley's source, "

Proved? Is citing a (by definition partisan) gun control website now considered PROOF? I know you're familiar with the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." This would mean that approximately HALF of the gun owners in Australia would have to have been CONVICTED of improper storage of guns, which I'm almost positive isn't the case. The article quotes one person saying that half were stored inappropriately. That's not proof. That's opinion.

If you look at Bench's post, you'll see that he states ""Police checks in several of Melbourne's Eastern suburbs have recently shown that about half the number of gun owners do not store their guns legally. "
http://www.guncontrol.org.au/index.php?article=66
One wonders what the number is here...."

Notice there's nothing there in the quote or statement questioning the overall rate of general law-abidingness in the US. The quote is talking about the rate of legal firearms storage, and Bench wonders what the number is here. Not what the numbers of a different category are, but what the numbers "of gun owners who do not store their guns legally" is.

[MrBenchley]

49. You can squirm until you're blue in the face...

but Iverglas nailed you.

"The quote is talking about the rate of legal firearms storage"
No, the piece is talking about storing and operating firearms safely...and about the FACT that the Australian gun lobby, just like our own rotten bunch, routinely oppose all such laws.

"The Federal government was to introduce a better safety training regime two years ago but the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia obtained the help of some pro-gun parliamentarians and managed to stop it. This Australian gun club has connections with the America's, National Rifle Association (NRA). The Sporting Shooters Association likens itself to the NRA, has received financial grants form the American group and is involved with the NRA in the international gun lobbying group, the ' World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities '. "

"Bench wonders what the number is here."
Hell, Bench wonders all sorts of things about our "pro-gun democrats"...and it's amazing how often his speculation is proved right.

[iverglas]

50. and now we have

That was the datum proved by Benchley's source, ...
Proved? Is citing a (by definition partisan) gun control website now considered PROOF?

And here I thought we were discussing what Benchley meant by what he said.

Now you want to discuss whether what he said was true??

Make up your mind, eh?

Me, I can't imagine why an organization with a reputation to worry about (among its intended audience, which isn't likely you and I) would MAKE UP something and attribute it to "police evidence". The organization in question plainly addresses its words to readers in Australia, whom one might expect to be in a good position to know whether what it is saying is true or not. I might even venture to guess that the "police evidence" referred to had recently been in the news and was fresh in readers' minds.

I know you're familiar with the concept of "innocent until proven guilty."

Yes ... and I'd really hope that YOU know what it means.

Was anyone talking about convicting/punishing anyone for anything? I don't thiiiink so. That, of course, is the only context in which "innocent until proved guilty" means anything at all: a person cannot be CONVICTED of or PUNISHED for an offence unless and until it has been proved to the requisite standard that s/he did it.

You are of course aware that whether or not someone did something is in no way dependent on whether or not proof of what s/he did can be obtained or offered. C'mon; was OJ Simpson innocent? Or could he just not be proved guilty, and accordingly not be convicted or punished?

Goodness, by your apparent reasoning, I'm not 5'6". 5'2" until proved 5'6".

This would mean that approximately HALF of the gun owners in Australia would have to have been CONVICTED of improper storage of guns, which I'm almost positive isn't the case.

Of course it means no such bleeding thing. Reality is reality, regardless of who knows it or doesn't know it, or believes it or doesn't believe it, for that matter. I am 5'6", whether I can prove it to your satisfaction or not.

Whether certain firearms owners were not storing their firearms in accordance with Australian law is a matter of FACT, whether those facts have ever been proved to the satisfaction of a court, or you, or anyone else, or not. Just as whether I stole a loaf of bread when I was shopping last week is a matter of fact, regardless of whether anyone saw me do it, let alone of whether I was convicted of it. And if I had been seen, and prosecuted, and the trial were not held until next January, would I indeed not have stolen a loaf of bread in June 2004 until January 2005?

This sounds like a job for the time police, to me.

The quote is talking about the rate of legal firearms storage, and Bench wonders what the number is here. Not what the numbers of a different category are, but what the numbers "of gun owners who do not store their guns legally" is.

Indeed. And anyone really hell-bent on avoiding the issue would find it very wise to stick to that point.

If DoNotRefill spoke in a forest and there was nobody there to hear him, would he still be engaging in



?

[DoNotRefill]

51. ROTFLMAO!!!!

Iverglas, I love you.

:loveya:

[iverglas]

54. yeah, but

I'm really only 5' 5 3/4".

I just seem taller.

[MrBenchley]

55. A giant compared to some on this board....

[Zynx]

52. No laws in the US...

Regarding storing guns "legally."

Worthless argument.

[DoNotRefill]

23. So, if I store them in a safe....

and somebody breaks into the safe, I'm irresponsible? That seems to be what you're saying.

You are suggesting that if they're locked up and somebody breaks in and steals them, then the person who had them locked up was storing them irresponsibly. So how can guns be stored responsibly? According to your argument, they can't be, since "responsible storage" depends on the actions of a third party.

People shouldn't break into other people's houses.

[iverglas]

28. do I really???

So, if I store them in a safe....
and somebody breaks into the safe, I'm irresponsible? That seems to be what you're saying.

You mean I seem to you to be saying that? Have you suddenly lost a couple of dozen IQ points??

Here's what you said, that I was responding to:

Currently, I store loaded guns around the house ... ....so if it's necessary, we can pick one up and shoot somebody, no muss, no fuss, no wasted time, just grab it, point, click, and get the carpet cleanser before the blood sets.

For me, that's safe storage. The house is never unlocked, and it's rare that other people are allowed in the house, much less in the house unescorted.

To me, that's safe and secure. They're either on my person or locked in the house.

I just didn't see anything there about you storing your firearms in a safe. How odd that I should have responded to what you actually said, and not to what you didn't say! How even odder that you would have thought it seemed as if I were responding to something you didn't say, when I was so clearly responding to what you did say.

Do you store your firearms in a safe when you're absent? Might my opinion of your conduct be different if I knew that you did? Enough to consider your conduct "responsible" if you still had firearms lying around willy-nilly while you're asleep, say?

You are suggesting that if they're locked up and somebody breaks in and steals them, then the person who had them locked up was storing them irresponsibly.

I really don't think I was suggesting that at all.

I was perhaps suggesting that not taking all reasonable steps to prevent firearms from falling into the hands of persons who would probably use them to commit crimes / cause harm was irresponsible. In fact, I might even have been interpreted and represented as having actually said that.

So how can guns be stored responsibly?

Well, that's a good question.

To my mind, the question isn't specifically how guns can be stored responsibly, it's how they can be possessed responsibly.

It may well be that in some circumstances it is simply impossible to possess firearms responsibly -- that no matter what measures one takes to prevent them from falling into the hands of persons who would probably use them to commit crimes / cause harm (be such persons burglars or one's pre-school children), those measures are sufficiently unlikely to be successful, or the harm that there is a risk will occur is so serious, that it isn't possible to possess firearms responsibly.

Possession of firearms in such circumstances would be irresponsible.

According to your argument, they can't be, since "responsible storage" depends on the actions of a third party.

Yes; isn't that amazing? Just like "responsible storage of pesticides". Or "responsible digging of holes in one's lawn". Or "responsible keeping of dangerous animals in one's back yard". It is not "responsible" to do any of those things in a way that might result in harm to other people, even where those other people do things they oughtn't to do.

If you dug a 20-foot hole in your lawn and your neighbour's toddler toddled trespassingly over and fell in, you'd be responsible, all right -- for the death of the toddler. At least in part. Ditto if someone trespassingly cut holes in your backyard fence and loosed the tiger prowling there to eat said toddler on said toddler's own front lawn. Or if said toddler's older sibling walked trespassingly into your garage and took some pesticide and fed it to said toddler.

People shouldn't break into other people's houses.

But the thing is -- amazing and unbelievable as you may find it -- people do. And it's beyond me why you would not be responsible for the harm caused by someone using a firearm unlawfully plucked from your coffee table and yet be responsible for the harm caused by the tiger loosed from your backyard.

The harm is reasonably foreseeable, and the responsible person takes reasonable steps to prevent it occurring. Isn't that kind of the definition of "responsible" in our context? What else could it possibly mean? And how would leaving firearms lying around a house fit the definition?

[DoNotRefill]

32. When I'm going away for long periods of time....

and the house will be empty, I'll put guns in the safe. When I'm going out for a few minutes or a couple of hours, I'll leave them out.

You say "I was perhaps suggesting that not taking all reasonable steps to prevent firearms from falling into the hands of persons who would probably use them to commit crimes / cause harm was irresponsible."

What reasonable steps should a person take besides seeing to it that the guns are locked up?

"And it's beyond me why you would not be responsible for the harm caused by someone using a firearm unlawfully plucked from your coffee table and yet be responsible for the harm caused by the tiger loosed from your backyard."

A tiger is not a gun. A gun is an inanimate object, while a tiger has a will of it's own. With a tiger, you can't really control what it's going to do. With a gun, you can. Guns don't escape on their own. They don't maul children on their own. Owning a tiger is an ultrahazardous activity which involves assumption of liability. Owning a gun isn't.

"The harm is reasonably foreseeable, and the responsible person takes reasonable steps to prevent it occurring."

Here we get into the difference in what we see as "reasonable". To me, locking something up where somebody can't get at it without breaking in is "reasonable" precaution to prevent unauthorized access. That's obviously not the case with you.

[iverglas]

39. sez who?

Owning a tiger is an ultrahazardous activity which involves assumption of liability. Owning a gun isn't.

This would be your opinion?

A tiger is not a gun. A gun is an inanimate object, while a tiger has a will of it's own. With a tiger, you can't really control what it's going to do. With a gun, you can.

Hmm. "You", the owner of the gun, can control what it's going to "do" once -- like the tiger -- it's removed from your custody and control? What magic powers do you have??

With a gun, you can. Guns don't escape on their own.

Nope. And neither could that tiger, unless someone took wire-cutters to its fence.

To me, locking something up where somebody can't get at it without breaking in is "reasonable" precaution to prevent unauthorized access. That's obviously not the case with you.

You got it.

To me, all that amounts to is setting the stage for some finger-pointing & blaming. It has nothing at all to do with doing what is reasonably possible to prevent reasonably foreseeable harm from occurring.

I just don't see you as someone who would keep a caged tiger and feel no shame if some unauthorized person cut the tiger's fence and it ate the neighbour's kid. Perhaps if your home is broken into some day by a couple of scofflaw teenagers, and they use the firearm they found on the coffee table to kill another kid in a drive-by the next day, you'll feel the shame you could have avoided by taking reasonable precautions to prevent the theft.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees/jula/evidence/140_95-05-16/jula140_blk101.html

The cost of the lack of suitable gun controls on the families of victims in the community is absolutely appalling. To hear Kim Forbes, a young mother from Sudbury, describe the body of her son Matthew, after he was killed, is absolutely sickening. This was after a young offender had pointed and pulled the trigger of a shotgun at him at close range. The shotgun and other weapons were only locked together with a dog chain in a bedroom.

... The residents of Ottawa were shocked and grieved when Nicholas Battersby was gunned down in a random drive-by shooting. The alleged killers had no problem buying ammunition despite being under age. They would have had a harder time buying cigarettes at the local corner store. <the now convicted killers used a firearm stolen from a residence they broke into, where it was not secured against theft>

Me, I just would not want to be the person whose firearm was used in an incident like those. I find it hard to believe that you would.

[DoNotRefill]

45. Nope...

"This would be your opinion?"

There's caselaw saying that owning dangerous animals is an ultrahazardous activity. All of the caselaw I've seen, however, only applies that to if the animal escapes on it's own, NOT if the actions of a third party frees the animal. For example, if you've got a fence, and your pitbull digs under it, you're liable for the actions of the pitbull. Also, if you've got a pitbull, and somebody climbs over the fence and is mauled, you're liable. I've never seen a case where, for example, somebody had an animal locked securely in a robust cage, a group like PETA came in and cut the cage apart to DELIBERATELY allow the animal to escape, and then the owner was held liable. I've never seen a case where simply possessing a firearm was ruled to be an ultrahazardous activity. Think of the possible liability to the State if that was the case, since State Agents often carry guns on the State's behalf.

"Nope. And neither could that tiger, unless someone took wire-cutters to its fence."

Sure it could. It could dig under or climb over the fence. That's the whole POINT....that it has a will of it's own, and can find a way to cause mayhem all by itself, without interference from somebody else.

As for the breaking in bit, my house HAS been broken into, while I and my wife were home. When the guy came in, I told him to get the hell out. He didn't listen until I pointed a gun at his head and got ready to kill him. When he saw that I was really serious about him leaving or his dying right then, he left. That's why I keep loaded guns around. Having a loaded gun has literally saved my ass more than once.

[MrBenchley]

22. If you mean "responsible" as in they still vote for every Democrat

"well, then the majority isn't responsible."
Is anybody else surprised to see one of our "pro-gun democrats" posting crap like this? Me neither.

[iverglas]

41. you say "responsible", I say ...

If you mean "responsible" as in "doesn't break the law",
gun owners are HIGHLY responsible.

If you mean "responsible" as in they still vote for every
Democrat even after that Democrat tell them they're
too irresponsible to be trusted with guns, well, then
the majority isn't responsible.

Click:


There are 80-100 MILLION gun owners in the US.
How many gun owners commit crimes with guns?



(I quote this in all jocularity, of course, faute de mieux -- it being the best thing at hand, despite its flaws, intended to inspire general merriment and not to disparage any person in particular.)

[mosin]

14. Of course

Yes, most gun owners are responsible.

[CO Liberal]

20. It's The Others We're Worried About

:scared:

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

26. Define responsible?

Taken safety classes?

Keeps it safely stored?

Promotes gun safety to family & friends?

Keeps all firearms in safe working order?

Diligent?

All of the above?

1 or 2 of the above?

etc. . . .

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

37. That's EXACTLY what you said, refill....

"DoNotRefill
10. that would depend on how you define "responsible".
If you mean "responsible" as in they still vote for every Democrat even after that Democrat tell them they're too irresponsible to be trusted with guns, well, then the majority isn't responsible. "

"it had something to do with "intellectual and moral bankruptcy"...
Intellectual and moral bankruptcy sums up the bullets for brains bunch perfectly well....

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

43. Who ARE you trying to kid?

[mosin]

53. "Responsible"

Taken safety classes?

Keeps it safely stored?

Promotes gun safety to family & friends?

Keeps all firearms in safe working order?

Diligent?

All of the above?

1 or 2 of the above?

Good questions.

In my case, all of the above. I take advanced firearms training courses every year. I keep my firearms on my person or locked in a safe. I became a firearms instructor to promote the safe use of firearms. I clean all my firearms regularly and maintain them in safe working order. I'm diligent about using and carrying my firearms safely.