Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kanluwen wrote:

People that are careless enough to leave guns out where kids can get them are not going to care enough to follow said law because its unenforceable.

Right, because the ATF is pretty toothless as an organization. Their powers as an enforcement branch are pretty much a joke.

No, because the government will have no right to come into our homes to check to see if our firearms are in a safe.

God help us if they ever do.

 djones520 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

People that are careless enough to leave guns out where kids can get them are not going to care enough to follow said law because its unenforceable.

Right, because the ATF is pretty toothless as an organization. Their powers as an enforcement branch are pretty much a joke.

No, because the government will have no right to come into our homes to check to see if our firearms are in a safe.

God help us if they ever do.

Yet it's acceptable for people to have to give up the right of doctor/patient confidentiality--but not the opportunity for a simple search with limited scope?

It speaks volumes of what is considered 'acceptable'.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:
This really comes down to parenting IMO.


I have an 8 year old son, he has NEVER played a Grand Theft Auto game in his life. Ever. When I had it I wouldnt even let him watch me play it, because its definitely not meant for a child to see, specially at that age.
I have firearms in my home, locked up and no chance for either of my children to get to them.

On another take of that, a family friend of mine regularly plays Halo with his boys, about the same age as KCs. The thing is, he is playing WITH them, not saying, "here's halo, have fun", he is actively engaged in what they are doing. Each person has their own way of raising their kids, and so long as they dont end up like the OP, and end up a "contributing member of society" then, I think you have succeeded as a parent.

When my boy was 8 he played Super Smash Bros. When he moved out to college at 18 he took Super Smash Bros with him. I like the giant killer monkey!

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

People that are careless enough to leave guns out where kids can get them are not going to care enough to follow said law because its unenforceable.

Right, because the ATF is pretty toothless as an organization. Their powers as an enforcement branch are pretty much a joke.

No, because the government will have no right to come into our homes to check to see if our firearms are in a safe.

God help us if they ever do.

Yet it's acceptable for people to have to give up the right of doctor/patient confidentiality--but not the opportunity for a simple search with limited scope?

It speaks volumes of what is considered 'acceptable'.

Who says it's acceptable?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

People that are careless enough to leave guns out where kids can get them are not going to care enough to follow said law because its unenforceable.

Right, because the ATF is pretty toothless as an organization. Their powers as an enforcement branch are pretty much a joke.

No, because the government will have no right to come into our homes to check to see if our firearms are in a safe.

God help us if they ever do.

Yet it's acceptable for people to have to give up the right of doctor/patient confidentiality--but not the opportunity for a simple search with limited scope?

It speaks volumes of what is considered 'acceptable'.

So you want warrantless searches of houses now? Why how Stazi like of you. I'll go ahead and cancel that ACLU membership.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

People that are careless enough to leave guns out where kids can get them are not going to care enough to follow said law because its unenforceable.

Right, because the ATF is pretty toothless as an organization. Their powers as an enforcement branch are pretty much a joke.

No, because the government will have no right to come into our homes to check to see if our firearms are in a safe.

God help us if they ever do.

Yet it's acceptable for people to have to give up the right of doctor/patient confidentiality--but not the opportunity for a simple search with limited scope?

It speaks volumes of what is considered 'acceptable'.

So you want warrantless searches of houses now? Why how Stazi like of you. I'll go ahead and cancel that ACLU membership.

Sure, equate what I've suggested (the opportunity for random supervised by the homeowner/residents inspections of firearms safes) with the GDR's police force.

That's totally a valid comparison.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
So what would going through all this fix again? How many deaths can be contributed to an unsecured firearm, and is that number high enough to warrant a nationwide change?

You also have a little added protection against older children, other family members etc taking your guns, as well as securing them generally from anyone else who might be in the market for weapons. Legislating and promoting on the safe storage of guns can also (eventually) lead to people making sure they store guns unloaded, reducing accidental shootings etc...

Why do that when it's not a significant problem?

The link that djones posted begs to differ on the idea that it is "not a significant problem".

Sure, the numbers are not huge in the grand scheme of things but they are still unacceptable.

You're advocating intrusive warrantless searches for prosecutable offenses, and your saying it's ok because the homeowner can supervise it.

You do realize there is a 4th Amendment for a reason. This goes beyond 2nd Amendment issues here.

I'm frankly appalled you are arguing this.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:
This really comes down to parenting IMO.


I have an 8 year old son, he has NEVER played a Grand Theft Auto game in his life. Ever. When I had it I wouldnt even let him watch me play it, because its definitely not meant for a child to see, specially at that age.
I have firearms in my home, locked up and no chance for either of my children to get to them.

Recently My cousin and her kids where at my house. So im a loner so I tayed in my room with thee door open playing Farcry 3. The second oldest boyy kept coming in and trying to watch. Now I do not want them watching me play video games, for various reason, mainly violence. His mother comes in and says it it fine(This kid is in first grade) she doesnt care about violence. But I do. So i have to lie and tell her "It has sex in it" and she stops. For some reason violence doesn't upset us. We think of it as everyday stuff.

Quick thinking, and nicely averted! It is sad that our country says 'meh' to violence, but don't show dem boobies!!

 Alfndrate wrote:

Da krimson barun wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I don't remember getting points for capping grannies in GTA IV...

It was GTA 3.This was entirely the fault of whoever put the gun where it was,And whoever bought a game that you need to be 18 to play and gave it to a 8 year old.

It was GTA IV for the Playstation III (At least that's what the article says).

My mistake sorry.

And something that causes .004% of the annual deaths in our nation is not a "significant" problem to the country as a whole. Certainly not one that warrants trampling on 1/5th of our Bill of Rights like you are advocating.

 djones520 wrote:
You're advocating intrusive warrantless searches for prosecutable offenses, and your saying it's ok because the homeowner can supervise it.

You do realize there is a 4th Amendment for a reason. This goes beyond 2nd Amendment issues here.

The 4th Amendment is protection against unreasonable search and seizure and the requirement that a warrant be supported by "probable cause" and judicially sanctioned.

It is not a blanket protection against government intervention.

I'm frankly appalled you are arguing this.

And I am appalled at the protections that gun owners demand. You want a gun? You goddamned better be willing to be responsible for it.

 KingCracker wrote:

Quick thinking, and nicely averted! It is sad that our country says 'meh' to violence, but don't show dem boobies!!

Yeah, we should be indulging in both!

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
You're advocating intrusive warrantless searches for prosecutable offenses, and your saying it's ok because the homeowner can supervise it.

You do realize there is a 4th Amendment for a reason. This goes beyond 2nd Amendment issues here.

The 4th Amendment is protection against unreasonable search and seizure and the requirement that a warrant be supported by "probable cause" and judicially sanctioned.

It is not a blanket protection against government intervention.

I'm frankly appalled you are arguing this.

And I am appalled at the protections that gun owners demand. You want a gun? You goddamned better be willing to be responsible for it.

I AM RESPONSIBLE WITH MY GUNS!

So what gives you the right to say the gestapo feds can walk into my home whenever they want?

Sure, equate what I've suggested (the opportunity for random supervised by the homeowner/residents inspections of firearms safes) with the GDR's police force.

That's totally a valid comparison.

You're ok with warrantless house searches and wonder why that might be compared to the secret police? Seriously?

 djones520 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
You're advocating intrusive warrantless searches for prosecutable offenses, and your saying it's ok because the homeowner can supervise it.

You do realize there is a 4th Amendment for a reason. This goes beyond 2nd Amendment issues here.

The 4th Amendment is protection against unreasonable search and seizure and the requirement that a warrant be supported by "probable cause" and judicially sanctioned.

It is not a blanket protection against government intervention.

I'm frankly appalled you are arguing this.

And I am appalled at the protections that gun owners demand. You want a gun? You goddamned better be willing to be responsible for it.

I AM RESPONSIBLE WITH MY GUNS!

Not everyone is now are they?

So what gives you the right to say the gestapo feds can walk into my home whenever they want?

First of all, can the "gestapo" garbage if you want to have a productive discussion. Using right-wing rhetoric is not helpful.
Second, what would be the point of "safety inspections" if people had warning of them?

Social services are allowed to do unannounced visits for foster children to ensure that the children are safe, so why not allow for such a thing with firearms and children in the same household?

 djones520 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
You're advocating intrusive warrantless searches for prosecutable offenses, and your saying it's ok because the homeowner can supervise it.

You do realize there is a 4th Amendment for a reason. This goes beyond 2nd Amendment issues here.

The 4th Amendment is protection against unreasonable search and seizure and the requirement that a warrant be supported by "probable cause" and judicially sanctioned.

It is not a blanket protection against government intervention.

I'm frankly appalled you are arguing this.

And I am appalled at the protections that gun owners demand. You want a gun? You goddamned better be willing to be responsible for it.

I AM RESPONSIBLE WITH MY GUNS!

So what gives you the right to say the gestapo feds can walk into my home whenever they want?

He's with the government. He's here to help!

Actually the 4th amendment has already been vetted with a long history of insuring warrantless searches of homes ARE NOT PERMITTED absent very very few exigent circumstances, all pretty much involving a crime occurring AT THE POINT OF CONTACT. You know that or should know that.
Now pick up that can citizen.

 Frazzled wrote:

Sure, equate what I've suggested (the opportunity for random supervised by the homeowner/residents inspections of firearms safes) with the GDR's police force.

That's totally a valid comparison.

You're ok with warrantless house searches and wonder why that might be compared to the secret police? Seriously?

For someone who is supposed to be so intelligent, you have a poor grasp as to what exactly you are creating comparisons to.

The Stasi did not perform "warrantless house searches". They had informants everywhere, they would drill holes into apartments and run video recording equipment and other various ways of completely and utterly invading every scrap of privacy that an individual could ever expect to have.

You are comparing the ability for a law enforcement agency to--once a month or any other potential timeframe--come, unannounced, and request your cooperation to ensure that you are storing your firearms correctly and safely to the atmosphere of fear that the Stasi generated.

 Kanluwen wrote:


Social services are allowed to do unannounced visits for foster children to ensure that the children are safe, so why not allow for such a thing with firearms and children in the same household?

Because that is in violation of the 4th amendment (and other ones I'm sure).... The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Not, "the right to bear arms, unless you are an idiot, and don't know how to store weapons round minors"

And, in the case of foster parents, that is something that they sign on with. When I purchased my firearms, I did not sign anything that said, Please come into my house whenever you'd like to "inspect" my firearms at will.

I have my biological children, the government has absolutely no right whatsoever to dictate how they are raised, nor how my firearms are stored.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Sure, equate what I've suggested (the opportunity for random supervised by the homeowner/residents inspections of firearms safes) with the GDR's police force.

That's totally a valid comparison.

You're ok with warrantless house searches and wonder why that might be compared to the secret police? Seriously?

For someone who is supposed to be so intelligent, you have a poor grasp as to what exactly you are creating comparisons to.

The Stasi did not perform "warrantless house searches". They had informants everywhere, they would drill holes into apartments and run video recording equipment and other various ways of completely and utterly invading every scrap of privacy that an individual could ever expect to have.

You are comparing the ability for a law enforcement agency to--once a month or any other potential timeframe--come, unannounced, and request your cooperation to ensure that you are storing your firearms correctly and safely to the atmosphere of fear that the Stasi generated.

You advocating just walking right in, at any time. Come on admit it, you're just trolling right? Please tell me you're just trolling.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


Social services are allowed to do unannounced visits for foster children to ensure that the children are safe, so why not allow for such a thing with firearms and children in the same household?

Because that is in violation of the 4th amendment (and other ones I'm sure).... The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Not, "the right to bear arms, unless you are an idiot, and don't know how to store weapons round minors"

And, in the case of foster parents, that is something that they sign on with. When I purchased my firearms, I did not sign anything that said, Please come into my house whenever you'd like to "inspect" my firearms at will.

I have my biological children, the government has absolutely no right whatsoever to dictate how they are raised, nor how my firearms are stored.

Maybe it's time something changed then.

There are far too many accidental firearms injuries/deaths for what is supposed to be a "serious responsibility" that requires a "rigorous vetting process" to obtain a firearm.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


Social services are allowed to do unannounced visits for foster children to ensure that the children are safe, so why not allow for such a thing with firearms and children in the same household?

Because that is in violation of the 4th amendment (and other ones I'm sure).... The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Not, "the right to bear arms, unless you are an idiot, and don't know how to store weapons round minors"

And, in the case of foster parents, that is something that they sign on with. When I purchased my firearms, I did not sign anything that said, Please come into my house whenever you'd like to "inspect" my firearms at will.

I have my biological children, the government has absolutely no right whatsoever to dictate how they are raised, nor how my firearms are stored.

Maybe it's time something changed then.

There are far too many accidental firearms injuries/deaths for what is supposed to be a "serious responsibility" that requires a "rigorous vetting process" to obtain a firearm.

Cool. Get 2/3 of the states to approve it then we'll talk.
Of course we'll have to disarm the police first. There are after all too many accidental firearms injuries/deaths for what is supposed to be a serious responsibility from police related shootings and accidental discharges.

Heh. Germany actually HAS laws that allow for an inspection of the (lawfully required) gun safe of a homeowner by police officers. The LEOs need "reasonable and grounded doubts" to do this and have to write to the homeowner first with a formal enquiry about how his guns are secured. Following that, it is possible that they require homeowners to be given access to the gun storage to examine the safety features and determine whether they are working according to law.


I guess we are dern ferrener communists when it comes to guns, eh.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


Social services are allowed to do unannounced visits for foster children to ensure that the children are safe, so why not allow for such a thing with firearms and children in the same household?

Because that is in violation of the 4th amendment (and other ones I'm sure).... The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Not, "the right to bear arms, unless you are an idiot, and don't know how to store weapons round minors"

And, in the case of foster parents, that is something that they sign on with. When I purchased my firearms, I did not sign anything that said, Please come into my house whenever you'd like to "inspect" my firearms at will.

I have my biological children, the government has absolutely no right whatsoever to dictate how they are raised, nor how my firearms are stored.

Maybe it's time something changed then.

There are far too many accidental firearms injuries/deaths for what is supposed to be a "serious responsibility" that requires a "rigorous vetting process" to obtain a firearm.

Cool. Get 2/3 of the states to approve it then we'll talk.
Of course we'll have to disarm the police first. There are after all too many accidental firearms injuries/deaths for what is supposed to be a serious responsibility from police related shootings and accidental discharges.

I wouldn't agree with disarming the police, but I would agree with the fact that there is far too much irresponsibility when it comes to police and firearms.

Must be an isolated thing, since it doesn't happen with private citizens right?

 Kanluwen wrote:
There are far too many accidental firearms injuries/deaths for what is supposed to be a "serious responsibility" that requires a "rigorous vetting process" to obtain a firearm.

No there are not. There are a small number of accidental injuries/deaths. You're just getting caught up in it emotionally and not seeing that, while there are children being killed, it is still a very small number and not a large problem.

That number of deaths per year does not convince me that we need to tell every gun owner to purchase a gun safe, to allow police in to my home for no reason, and to charge me with a crime should I fail to lock my gun away despite having no children in my home.

While unfortunate, it is not a significant problem.

 Witzkatz wrote:
Heh. Germany actually HAS laws that allow for an inspection of the (lawfully required) gun safe of a homeowner by police officers. The LEOs need "reasonable and grounded doubts" to do this and have to write to the homeowner first with a formal enquiry about how his guns are secured. Following that, it is possible that they require homeowners to be given access to the gun storage to examine the safety features and determine whether they are working according to law.


I guess we are dern ferrener communists when it comes to guns, eh.

But you don't have a Constitutional right to own a gun. We do.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


Social services are allowed to do unannounced visits for foster children to ensure that the children are safe, so why not allow for such a thing with firearms and children in the same household?

Because that is in violation of the 4th amendment (and other ones I'm sure).... The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Not, "the right to bear arms, unless you are an idiot, and don't know how to store weapons round minors"

And, in the case of foster parents, that is something that they sign on with. When I purchased my firearms, I did not sign anything that said, Please come into my house whenever you'd like to "inspect" my firearms at will.

I have my biological children, the government has absolutely no right whatsoever to dictate how they are raised, nor how my firearms are stored.

Maybe it's time something changed then.

There are far too many accidental firearms injuries/deaths for what is supposed to be a "serious responsibility" that requires a "rigorous vetting process" to obtain a firearm.

Cool. Get 2/3 of the states to approve it then we'll talk.
Of course we'll have to disarm the police first. There are after all too many accidental firearms injuries/deaths for what is supposed to be a serious responsibility from police related shootings and accidental discharges.

I wouldn't agree with disarming the police, but I would agree with the fact that there is far too much irresponsibility when it comes to police and firearms.

Must be an isolated thing, since it doesn't happen with private citizens right?

police would have to be disarmed, following your logic. Its just irresponsible otherwise.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
There are far too many accidental firearms injuries/deaths for what is supposed to be a "serious responsibility" that requires a "rigorous vetting process" to obtain a firearm.

No there are not. There are a small number of accidental injuries/deaths. You're just getting caught up in it emotionally and not seeing that, while there are children being killed, it is still a very small number and not a large problem.

That number of deaths per year does not convince me that we need to tell every gun owner to purchase a gun safe, to allow police in to my home for no reason, and to charge me with a crime should I fail to lock my gun away despite having no children in my home.

While unfortunate, it is not a significant problem.

You can think I am emotional all you want. You would be wrong however.

The simple fact of the matter is that however you try to spin it, there are irresponsible individuals who have access to tools designed solely for the purpose of killing human beings (or animals) and do not safeguard those tools responsibly.
If they were the only ones to pay the price for that lack of responsibility? I would not see an issue.
But that is not the case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

police would have to be disarmed, following your logic. Its just irresponsible otherwise.

Actually my logic is to remove firearms from the hands of irresponsible gunowners and to prosecute them to hell and back again if another human being comes to harm because of their irresponsibility.

If that includes some police officers? So be it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
But you don't have a Constitutional right to own a gun. We do.

I don't recall anything in the constitution saying you have an unrestricted right to own a gun. I don't recall anything saying that you would be protected from checks before purchase of a gun, or periodic checks to ensure that your guns are kept/used/etc safely.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
There are far too many accidental firearms injuries/deaths for what is supposed to be a "serious responsibility" that requires a "rigorous vetting process" to obtain a firearm.

No there are not. There are a small number of accidental injuries/deaths. You're just getting caught up in it emotionally and not seeing that, while there are children being killed, it is still a very small number and not a large problem.

That number of deaths per year does not convince me that we need to tell every gun owner to purchase a gun safe, to allow police in to my home for no reason, and to charge me with a crime should I fail to lock my gun away despite having no children in my home.

While unfortunate, it is not a significant problem.

You can think I am emotional all you want. You would be wrong however.

The simple fact of the matter is that however you try to spin it, there are irresponsible individuals who have access to tools designed solely for the purpose of killing human beings (or animals) and do not safeguard those tools responsibly.
If they were the only ones to pay the price for that lack of responsibility? I would not see an issue.
But that is not the case.

How many deaths does it take before the police are allowed to come in to everybody's home in regards to that object? Like the unintentional pool drownings. Should everyone be required to lock their pool covers? Require everyone to build a fence around it?

Ok, sure. Make people that leave guns out where kids can get them responsible for any harm caused by their negligence. O'Wait, wouldn't this already fall under Criminal Negligence?