(12-21-2014, 11:07 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]No I am not in favor of making laws/rules forcing people to secure their firearms.
Yes I do feel the parent/guardian should get charged if the child gets ahold of their firearm due to their neglect and causes a death .
Edited to add . . . I would have answered this question first had I seen it. However I did not see your edited post until after I made the above post.
Sorry for the slow edit, F.U. -- got a phone call while updating.
Anyway, thanks for answering the question directly.
It's tough. Some states have laws requiring secured storage of firearms in homes with children. That's not very enforceable unless a crime goes down in that home (gun-related or not) and the gun/homeowner can be charged with failure to properly store firearms.
IMO, however, the greater value is that such a law may prompt responsible gun owners to take the required measures to securely store their guns and create a more safety-oriented mindset (and living environment for their children). I wouldn't mind seeing such a national requirement/law mandating secured storage of firearms. Then, IMO, there would likely be fewer cases where it was appropriate to charge grieving parents for the irresponsible negligence which caused their children's injury/death/trauma.
So, why are you opposed to a safe store requirement? You still got a few loaded guns within reach, when you're awake and asleep, regardless of who's in the home, for your own perceived safety? How do you feel about safety locks on guns as opposed to locked storage safes and such?
(12-21-2014, 11:37 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ] (12-21-2014, 11:07 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]No I am not in favor of making laws/rules forcing people to secure their firearms.
Yes I do feel the parent/guardian should get charged if the child gets ahold of their firearm due to their neglect and causes a death .
Edited to add . . . I would have answered this question first had I seen it. However I did not see your edited post until after I made the above post.
Sorry for the slow edit, F.U. -- got a phone call while updating.
Anyway, thanks for answering the question directly.
It's tough. Some states have laws requiring secured storage of firearms in homes with children. That's not very enforceable unless a crime goes down in that home (gun-related or not) and the gun/homeowner can be charged with failure to properly store firearms.
IMO, however, the greater value is that such a law may prompt responsible gun owners to take the required measures to securely store their guns and create a more safety-oriented mindset (and living environment for their children). I wouldn't mind seeing such a national requirement/law mandating secured storage of firearms. Then, IMO, there would likely be fewer cases where it was appropriate to charge grieving parents for the irresponsible negligence which caused their children's injury/death/trauma.
So, why are you opposed to a safe store requirement? You still got a few loaded guns within reach, when you're awake and asleep, regardless of who's in the home, for your own perceived safety? How do you feel about safety locks on guns as opposed to locked storage safes and such?
I oppose safe storage laws because they are just another hoop a gun owner would need to jump through. Should a gun owner want to take part in safe storage great, but don't make another unenforceable law.
Instead of making a new law to force safe storage down our throats I think the subject should be approached from a different angle. Why not talk more about preventing the loss/theft of our firearms? That may raise more positive attention than forcing another law upon us. Plus have you seen the price of gun safes? Holy Moly ! Maybe do some sort of tax credit, or refund, or something like that to lower the price and in turn promote the sales of said safes .
But that's just me thinking out loud.
Just a quick post to show the average price of gun safes. Now keep in mind someone like me would need several of the largest safes to hold all their firearms.
http://www.cabelas.com/product/Shooting/...t104369580
This is just one example from that link.
Signature 64 880 lbs. 60.5" H x 42" W x 32"D 64 Long Guns
Regular Price: $2,369.99
(12-21-2014, 11:26 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]Actually that post was more of a sarcastic post, pointing out how everyone seams to point the finger at firearms and over look other items such as auto deaths.
I have seen no one pointing the finger back and forth between auto and gun deaths except for those attempting to deflect from rational gun control discussions, personally. Maybe it depends on the company you keep?
(12-21-2014, 11:26 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]Now as a side note, since you brought up a breathalyzer in a motor vehicle. Iowa has done this for years. You get a D.U.I. you have to have one installed in what ever you drive. You drive a pickup, it goes in that, drive a car it goes in that, a Motorcycle, it goes on that. Do you see a problem with that? I see a few.
One is the fact that they will put a PBT on a bike. How dangerous is that [especially when you hear how, when and where they work]?
Second is it goes into one vehicle and while you are told you can only drive that one vehicle no one follows that rule. They simply park it and drive something else until their time is up.
Thirdly if you have ever seen one of those contraptions you would realize just how dangerous these are. They are a box about the size of two packs of cigarettes, that is attached to a hose. That contraption randomly tells you when you must blow into it, as you are going down the road. You must put this contraption in front of your face and blow for 3-5 seconds.
I feel in a attempt to make people safer they are actually making things worse. But , I guess that is subject matter for another thread.
Minor inconveniences and systematic imperfections for a greater good, IMO.
The new ignition lock device is only the size of a cell phone. Breathe over the legal BAL limit, the vehicle becomes inoperable. That's gonna stop a lot of people from driving when they pose a significant threat to the safety and lives of themselves and others.
![[Image: InterlockNoLogo.gif]](http://www.madd.org/drunk-driving/ignition-interlocks/InterlockNoLogo.gif)
Those breathallizers are having a positive impact. I recently read some reports and stats on the subject. Here's one of the first articles I read pertaining to reduced repeat DUI offenses as a result of the breathalizer requirements, if you're interested:
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/47/2/1
Anyway, I think breathalizers will be a feature in all new cars in the next 20 years or less. I like having a glass of wine or a cocktail when I go out to dinner and feel it's fine for me to use my judgment in determining whether I can get behind the wheel safely afterwards. But, I can't really argue against breathalizers because I don't think a minor inconvenience to me is more important than measurably increased safety for myself and others on the road. I think some gun enthusiasts are unwilling to consider making any such personal trade-offs, no matter what.
Those PBT's used in Iowa are much larger than the ones in your pic. They also go off when going down the road, not just when you initially start the auto. Also, there are many other things that will set them off, certain mouthwashes, colognes and even a slice of pizza, just to mention a few. Then throw in the fact that they expect you to work them when you are running down the road, even on a motorcycle. To me this is just another case of big gov sticking their noses in where they are not needed.
OK, I will get back on topic now.
I want to comment on gun safes - I feel about that the same way I feel about people having pets, if you haven't got the resources to take care of them properly, don't get one.
I'd prefer people were stopped from getting guns right at the act of trying to purchase one. I want people to jump through hoops, there, I said it. I don't care if it's time consuming for anyone or if it's a pain in the ass to purchase a weapon. No fucks to give any more. If people can't wait a few days or longer to go through the NECESSARY procedures in order to get one, too fuckin' bad. I want backgrounds checked, I want to make sure no one is under a Dr's care and I want those things locked up. Enough is enough. People can't be trusted to do the right thing, we see/read evidence of that all the time, not just once in awhile, all. the. time. Not everyone is like those of you in here who are responsible gun owners and those are the people we have to protect ourselves from.
(12-21-2014, 11:56 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]Just a quick post to show the average price of gun safes. Now keep in mind someone like me would need several of the largest safes to hold all their firearms.
http://www.cabelas.com/product/Shooting/...t104369580
This is just one example from that link.
Signature 64 880 lbs. 60.5" H x 42" W x 32"D 64 Long Guns
Regular Price: $2,369.99
Many people have expensive hobbies. If your hobby happens to surround an object that can take innocent lives if it gets in the wrong hands, you're gonna have to invest in safety unless you're irresponsible. It shouldn't take a law to make that investment happen, but, obviously, it does for some.
Gun safety locks are given away free by many organizations devoted to child safety. I'd be willing to look into free or subsidized safes in cases where cost is really the barrier to safely storing guns outta reach of children.
Safety storeage laws are enforceable. It just might take the gun/homeowner getting in trouble before LE has an opportunity to enforce them.
Plus, as I said, I'd rather see an accidental child death prevented as a result of a responsible law-abiding gun-owner following the law and storing his/her guns safely than see that gun-owner rightfully charged for the child's preventable accidental death because the gun-owner wasn't legally required to store his/her firearms safely.
(12-21-2014, 12:13 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]A few hoops aren't bad Duch, but when it becomes a three ring circus it becomes to much. At this point I will throw out that moldy old deflection comment of . . . Shall not be infringed. That says it all IMO.
I have this debate in my own home. I stress to him and now to you that many people are not like the both of you. They just aren't. They don't do the right thing, they don't even care about right or wrong. It's going to be up to those of you who are responsible to do something about this because what we have now is not working.
Well, its time for us to begin the Christmas party's. I hope everyone has a wonderful day.
FU POSTED:
A few hoops aren't bad Duch, but when it becomes a three ring circus it becomes to much. At this point I will throw out that moldy old deflection comment of . . . Shall not be infringed. That says it all IMO.
-------------------------------------------------
I think I mighta accidentally deleted that ^ post when I was attempting to quote it. Sorry F.U.!
Anyway, it really says nothing. I don't even see a large tent, much less a three ring circus. Seriously.
But, have a good day and enjoy your parties.
P.s. I hope you're wearing that Christmas sweater from last year. It's classic.
Gun safety -- it's gone to the dogs (or not)
![[Image: Dog-Shoots-Man-animal-news-Steve-Dale.jpeg]](http://www.chicagonow.com/steve-dales-pet-world/files/2013/10/Dog-Shoots-Man-animal-news-Steve-Dale.jpeg)
The Johnson County Sheriff’s Office (Wyoming) has released its findings on the shooting of a man Monday on Murphy Gulch Road.
Richard Fipps, 46, told a dog in the front seat of the truck to get into the back seat. Among other personal items laying on the back seat was a .300 Winchester Magnum with the safety apparently turned off. The dog managed to discharge the weapon, which fired through the cab of the truck.
The round struck Fipps in the left arm, traveled past his back and clipped his right sleeve without touching his right arm. Employees working with him called 911.
Fipps was transported by ambulance to Sheridan Memorial Hospital. While the injury is not life threatening, Fipps may lose his arm. Due to the severity of the injury, he has been moved to a facility in Billings.
http://thesheridanpress.com/?p=29004#sth...HU6cR.dpuf
========================================
I'm glad Fipps wasn't shot in the head or the heart and that his injury isn't life threatening.
Gotta be pretty damned embarrassing to be shot by your dog.
(12-21-2014, 11:47 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ] (12-21-2014, 11:37 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ] (12-21-2014, 11:07 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]No I am not in favor of making laws/rules forcing people to secure their firearms.
Yes I do feel the parent/guardian should get charged if the child gets ahold of their firearm due to their neglect and causes a death .
Edited to add . . . I would have answered this question first had I seen it. However I did not see your edited post until after I made the above post.
Sorry for the slow edit, F.U. -- got a phone call while updating.
Anyway, thanks for answering the question directly.
It's tough. Some states have laws requiring secured storage of firearms in homes with children. That's not very enforceable unless a crime goes down in that home (gun-related or not) and the gun/homeowner can be charged with failure to properly store firearms.
IMO, however, the greater value is that such a law may prompt responsible gun owners to take the required measures to securely store their guns and create a more safety-oriented mindset (and living environment for their children). I wouldn't mind seeing such a national requirement/law mandating secured storage of firearms. Then, IMO, there would likely be fewer cases where it was appropriate to charge grieving parents for the irresponsible negligence which caused their children's injury/death/trauma.
So, why are you opposed to a safe store requirement? You still got a few loaded guns within reach, when you're awake and asleep, regardless of who's in the home, for your own perceived safety? How do you feel about safety locks on guns as opposed to locked storage safes and such?
I oppose safe storage laws because they are just another hoop a gun owner would need to jump through. Should a gun owner want to take part in safe storage great, but don't make another unenforceable law.
Instead of making a new law to force safe storage down our throats I think the subject should be approached from a different angle. Why not talk more about preventing the loss/theft of our firearms? That may raise more positive attention than forcing another law upon us. Plus have you seen the price of gun safes? Holy Moly ! Maybe do some sort of tax credit, or refund, or something like that to lower the price and in turn promote the sales of said safes .
But that's just me thinking out loud.
O.K. this is where I really get irate.....I know i will alienate some of you gun lovers, but i try to be true to myself. I don't care if everyone doesn't like me. My time remaining on this earth is limited and i care about what happens to my grandkids and their kids, etc.
Most of you who post re right to bear arms, etc.. really get tiresome. You should have to jump through a lot of hoops and this is where the problems emerge. You don't think you should be inconvenienced at all, not one little bit. If you want that right, then pay whatever it takes, to prevent "not so bright" people from harming themselves. I think there should be a lot of paperwork, etc. to own gun, and names placed on some type of universal list, names, serial number to the extent that every gun is registered in some universal data base. We lead the universe in gun related deaths because it is too easy to get a gun. It should not be easy process....I so disagree with the statement, that every citizen has right to bear arms, outdated, and dangerous....For just awhile, focus on this issue and don't compare it to automobiles, knives, axes, tire rods, fireplace tools, bricks, hammers, ropes, etc. as weapons.
In my post above, #1432, I should not have limited gun abuse to "not so bright" people. I should have included youngsters....from harming themselves. It is, after all young children who find these loaded guns and accidentally kill someone or themselves. Sorry, it is late and i just now got around to eating and I did have a couple glasses of wine. It is almost 11:00 P.M. here. Cheers!
(12-23-2014, 01:54 AM)blueberryhill Wrote: [ -> ]I should have included youngsters....from harming themselves. It is, after all young children who find these loaded guns and accidentally kill someone or themselves.
See, Sally, I told you..
No shit, that's why I've never had a gun in the house. If I got him a gun he'd be taking it to his shop where no kids are around.
BBH touched on the crux of this issue, at least for me.
The idea that this "right to bear arms" is some sort of God-given right, and how dare anybody say or do anything to contradict it.
Yes, the majority of gun-owners are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, and they should have the right to demonstrate that they can be trusted with a gun. This should be something that's earned, IMO.
When you tell a gun-lover "geez, I hope you or your loved one is never senselessly gunned down by a legally obtained gun", they really don't know what to say.
You see, it's more important that they have this "right" to have guns, than the lives of them or their loved ones (or anyone else's lives for that matter).
Don't worry though, gun folk, things will never change.
Your "right" is safe.
oK, so all you gun rights haters get pretty tiresome too, pain in the ass always whining because stupid people do stupid shit.
So here is a suggestion, How about doing something intelligent about the stupid shit.
Instead of trying to weasel a way into removing MY rights, how about coming up with a way to possibly educate the stupid fucks...
Maybe some public service announcements, ya know on the TV like when they talk about unprotected sex, drunk driving, sexting, texting while driving?? Those are all stupid things that kill more people than gun stupidity. So spend some of that money marked for other shit on this.
Take up a collection, start a fund, hell I'll donate.
^ typical response, Six.
Somebody ELSE take care of the dirty work just don't infringe on my God-Given right to own as many firearms as I want.
All of what you suggested is already being done, Six. Many citizens are making their voices heard and participating in changing the landscape.
I want Universal Background Checks -- it's a no-brainer and supported by the large majority of the population. I disagree with your previous posts contending that the bill didn't pass because of tag-ons. I've read it. Unfortunately, IMO, the NRA's power to influence politicians from doing what the voters want is still too strong to get that common sense measure passed through legislation. For now.
I also would like to see gun licenses required in each state, for all gun owners -- tracked centrally. That doesn't infringe on your rights or anybody else's to legally own guns. It would increase gun-owner accountability and help law enforcement, IMO. It should also be a law in every state that if a firearm is stolen, the owner is required to report it to law enforcement expediently.
And, you have kids and guns in your home? You're too much of a dipshit to keep loaded weapons outta reach of the little ones and they get a hold of one and fire it, regardless as to whether or not you've taught them gun safety? You're being prosecuted for child endangerment or neglect -- period. I'd also like to see that become a reality in all cases in all 50 states. There needs to be serious incentive to change mindsets and ensure repercussions for those "stupid" people to whom you referred.
Regarding open and concealed carry permits, specific gun-type and ammo bans, quantity restrictions, etc: I think those can be determined locally, as they are now.
There's some good progress being made in efforts to better balance qualified people's rights to bear arms if they so choose and every person's right to safety. It's not "us" against "them" for all of us, Six. I don't want your guns taken away, not any of them. But, I do want smart gun control is this country.
I'm encouraged as of late to see what I believe is the NRA losing some of its ability to apply political pressure. The NRA is being challenged and that's a good thing; long overdue.
Vivek Murthy’s victory to the post of US Surgeon General in December was the first loss for the NRA in the Senate since 2010.
Over the last two years, gun control activists haven't given up because common sense national legislation failed due to NRA political puppeteerig (IMO). They've instead gone directly to the states and businesses. Money-backing by heavy hitters such as Bloomberg and Bill and Melinda Gates has helped in those pursuits. Governors Dannel Malloy in Connecticut and John Hickenlooper in Colorado both passed comprehensive gun-safety measures following the Sandy Hook shooting. Both men were narrowly re-elected despite being among the NRA’s top targets for defeat.
And, prior to the shooting at Sandy Hook, only two states — California and Rhode Island — had laws on the books that required background checks on all gun sales. The number since has risen to seven to include Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, New York, and Washington. Several groups, including Moms Demand Action and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, continue to focus on expanding background checks.
Also, gun control activists have had success in going direct to national retailers and businesses. They continue to work on their most recent campaign, which asks that Kroger, the country’s largest supermarket chain, prohibits customers from carrying guns into locations across the country. Beginning with Starbucks last fall, the group has been victorious with influencing changes in open carry gun policies at other popular chains including Target, Sonic Drive-In, Brinker International (parent company of Chili’s Grill & Bar), Chipotle, Jack in the Box, Facebook, and Instagram.
Change doesn't happen overnight, but there's a momentum towards more balance between right to bear arms and right to personal safety and protection from the wrong people bearing arms. It's a good thing, IMO.
(12-23-2014, 12:50 AM)blueberryhill Wrote: [ -> ] (12-21-2014, 11:47 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ] (12-21-2014, 11:37 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ] (12-21-2014, 11:07 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]No I am not in favor of making laws/rules forcing people to secure their firearms.
Yes I do feel the parent/guardian should get charged if the child gets ahold of their firearm due to their neglect and causes a death .
Edited to add . . . I would have answered this question first had I seen it. However I did not see your edited post until after I made the above post.
Sorry for the slow edit, F.U. -- got a phone call while updating.
Anyway, thanks for answering the question directly.
It's tough. Some states have laws requiring secured storage of firearms in homes with children. That's not very enforceable unless a crime goes down in that home (gun-related or not) and the gun/homeowner can be charged with failure to properly store firearms.
IMO, however, the greater value is that such a law may prompt responsible gun owners to take the required measures to securely store their guns and create a more safety-oriented mindset (and living environment for their children). I wouldn't mind seeing such a national requirement/law mandating secured storage of firearms. Then, IMO, there would likely be fewer cases where it was appropriate to charge grieving parents for the irresponsible negligence which caused their children's injury/death/trauma.
So, why are you opposed to a safe store requirement? You still got a few loaded guns within reach, when you're awake and asleep, regardless of who's in the home, for your own perceived safety? How do you feel about safety locks on guns as opposed to locked storage safes and such?
I oppose safe storage laws because they are just another hoop a gun owner would need to jump through. Should a gun owner want to take part in safe storage great, but don't make another unenforceable law.
Instead of making a new law to force safe storage down our throats I think the subject should be approached from a different angle. Why not talk more about preventing the loss/theft of our firearms? That may raise more positive attention than forcing another law upon us. Plus have you seen the price of gun safes? Holy Moly ! Maybe do some sort of tax credit, or refund, or something like that to lower the price and in turn promote the sales of said safes .
But that's just me thinking out loud.
O.K. this is where I really get irate.....I know i will alienate some of you gun lovers, but i try to be true to myself. I don't care if everyone doesn't like me. My time remaining on this earth is limited and i care about what happens to my grandkids and their kids, etc.
Most of you who post re right to bear arms, etc.. really get tiresome. You should have to jump through a lot of hoops and this is where the problems emerge. You don't think you should be inconvenienced at all, not one little bit. If you want that right, then pay whatever it takes, to prevent "not so bright" people from harming themselves. I think there should be a lot of paperwork, etc. to own gun, and names placed on some type of universal list, names, serial number to the extent that every gun is registered in some universal data base. We lead the universe in gun related deaths because it is too easy to get a gun. It should not be easy process....I so disagree with the statement, that every citizen has right to bear arms, outdated, and dangerous....For just awhile, focus on this issue and don't compare it to automobiles, knives, axes, tire rods, fireplace tools, bricks, hammers, ropes, etc. as weapons.
Your opinion has no bearing on how I feel about you BBH. As wrong as I feel your opinion is it is still your right to express it. After all, it is the 5
th amendment to OUR constitution.