Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 20:45:32
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
d-usa wrote:It's simply a issue with the 4th, and the reason why government can't just inspect your gun storage is the same reason they can't just come into your garage to see if your tag is expired and if the turn signals are working on your car even though car inspections are mandatory.
But, as I pointed out earlier, the government can inspect your plane at any time to make sure that your registration is current and all of your mandatory equipment is working. The FAA inspector can literally walk up to you at the airport, say "inspection time", and you have to immediately hand over the keys and let them do the inspection. So this idea that mandatory searches to verify compliance with certain laws are automatically unconstitutional has no support in the real world. The truth is that, while the government requires probable cause to make a general search of your house/car/whatever, they are permitted to require limited-scope searches to verify compliance.
According to the FAA precedent the government could stop you on the road, demand access to your car to check your paperwork, run a quick emissions test, etc. And you'd be laughed out of court if you tried to claim a 4th amendment defense, just like if you tried to do it with the FAA. The reason nobody does that with cars likely has more to do with the efficiency of centralized inspection locations rather than any constitutional issues.
And as for the "too much work" issue, of course it's too much work in the current political environment because nobody cares enough about safe gun storage to spend the money required. But the idea that every gun has to be inspected frequently is kind of a straw man. You just need to have enough inspections that people have a credible belief that they could be inspected, and a harsh enough punishment for failing the inspection that few people are tempted to try their luck by ignoring the storage laws. It's the same principle behind FAA ramp checks: sure, you're unlikely to be checked on any given trip (I've never even seen an FAA inspector AFAIK), but I bet the vast majority of pilots keep their paperwork in order because the slight convenience of not having to update your registration papers isn't enough to justify the risk of failing an inspection.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/06 20:45:48
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 20:51:49
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
If however the plane was parked in your garage at your domicile you could rightly tell the FAA to F off.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 20:51:51
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
Seattle
|
If we believe that parents are responsible for the actions of their children then, no, I don't believe the parents of this child are guilty of negligence.
I believe they are guilty of murder in the first degree.
|
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 20:53:30
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Psienesis wrote:If we believe that parents are responsible for the actions of their children then, no, I don't believe the parents of this child are guilty of negligence. I believe they are guilty of murder in the first degree. Then you are what the law calls ignorant. Its like people make pronouncements about criminal law like the bill of Rights, stare decisis, and 200 years of legal procedure just are smoke in the wind.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/06 20:53:55
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 21:02:14
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
Seattle
|
The boy walked from the site of the interaction with the girl with the intent to collect the weapon. He collected the weapon from the house. Walked back to the yard where the girl was sitting. Then chose to shoot her.
There have been many cases where Murder-1 was proven because someone walked downstairs to get a knife, returned, and then killed someone with it. The argument being, the plan to acquire and use a weapon was formulated in the walk down and back up, and then put into action.
What makes this scenario any different?
|
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 21:03:13
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
cincydooley wrote: Kanluwen wrote:
Yeah, because our current laws protect the morons who think they have the right to own a frigging arsenal and obscene amounts of ammunition but have no willingness to accept responsibility if their child or family members uses those firearms for the purpose that firearms were designed for.
So are you saying there should be a limit to the number of firearms and ammunition one can own?
Why?
I'm absolutely saying that. And why?
How many firearms does anyone, realistically, need? How much ammunition does anyone, realistically, need in their home?
And to humor that notion, where would you set these limits?
A pistol and a shotgun or rifle per adult in the house, and enough ammunition to reasonably defend ones' home from an intruder or for the purposes of hunting during a season.
Additionally? Have the Commission of Better Business Bureaus enlisted to start helping crack down on price gouging for ammunition at shooting ranges(the only place, IMO, that should be selling ammunition readily) to offset the inevitable argument of "But what if I like to go target shooting? I go through a lot of ammo that way!". Automatically Appended Next Post: Psienesis wrote:The boy walked from the site of the interaction with the girl with the intent to collect the weapon. He collected the weapon from the house. Walked back to the yard where the girl was sitting. Then chose to shoot her.
There have been many cases where Murder-1 was proven because someone walked downstairs to get a knife, returned, and then killed someone with it. The argument being, the plan to acquire and use a weapon was formulated in the walk down and back up, and then put into action.
What makes this scenario any different?
In Frazzled's eyes, the fact that a gun was involved and that you want to put the parents on trial for first degree murder.
IMO, this case likely won't be FDM but most likely SDM. It's not reading like it was premeditated or planned in advance, and that's the key factor differentiating the two(in some of the cases you are referring to it comes down to proof that the weapon was placed in a spot where they could acquire it--which constitutes planning/premeditation) but still exists a malicious intent.
The parents? Charge them with involuntary manslaughter as soon as negligence can be proven. Even if the son is convicted on murder charges or gets plead out for insanity or any other number of potential scenarios where the son is punished.
Their negligence led to a death. People on here LOVE to point out that drunk driving is, at best, involuntary manslaughter? Let's start seeing some friggin' convictions for not storing your firearms properly.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/06 21:07:53
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 21:08:06
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
Keeper of the Holy Orb of Antioch
avoiding the lorax on Crion
|
If your not using guns, lock them up in a valid gun safe, strong room or such safe location. Is anything complex about this?
People secure things like medicine and house hold products from kids with locks etc, why the hell not deadly firearms?
|
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 21:08:57
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Kanluwen wrote:I'm absolutely saying that. And why?
How many firearms does anyone, realistically, need? How much ammunition does anyone, realistically, need in their home?
Why does it matter? Given that most people only have two hands there's a pretty obvious limit on how many guns a person can use at once, so who cares how many other guns they have sitting in their gun safe? If you're willing to allow one gun then owning a hundred more is a negligible increase in risk, assuming those guns are all stored securely. Similarly, after the first few reloads worth of ammunition you've already got more than you can plausibly use at once. Going from a hundred rounds to a million rounds only matters in that it might be a fire hazard to store that much. The "how many guns do you need" argument is nothing more than a cheap shot at stereotypical "gun nuts", not a practical policy argument.
A pistol and a shotgun or rifle per adult in the house, and enough ammunition to reasonably defend ones' home from an intruder or for the purposes of hunting during a season.
Similarly, the first amendment should only cover a book and a newspaper per adult in the house, and enough ink to write a single political letter per week for purposes of lobbying one's representatives.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/10/06 21:11:09
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 21:11:26
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Psienesis wrote:The boy walked from the site of the interaction with the girl with the intent to collect the weapon. He collected the weapon from the house. Walked back to the yard where the girl was sitting. Then chose to shoot her. There have been many cases where Murder-1 was proven because someone walked downstairs to get a knife, returned, and then killed someone with it. The argument being, the plan to acquire and use a weapon was formulated in the walk down and back up, and then put into action. What makes this scenario any different? You said the parents were guilty. Bring that to a court of law and the bailiff will wrap you in saran wrap and roll you down the nearest hill* *Except for Oklahoma, because Oklahoma is really flat. Automatically Appended Next Post: jhe90 wrote:If your not using guns, lock them up in a valid gun safe, strong room or such safe location. Is anything complex about this?
People secure things like medicine and house hold products from kids with locks etc, why the hell not deadly firearms?
This is good judgement.
PS. I always wanted a strong room. Automatically Appended Next Post: Similarly, the first amendment should only cover a book and a newspaper per adult in the house, and enough ink to write a single political letter per week for purposes of lobbying one's representatives.
Exactly. the argument is stupid, its designed to interfere with legal users of that right, and it has absolutely no freaking impact on what the supposed intent of the regulation is supposed to be.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/10/06 21:14:34
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 21:14:53
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
Frazzled wrote: Psienesis wrote:The boy walked from the site of the interaction with the girl with the intent to collect the weapon. He collected the weapon from the house. Walked back to the yard where the girl was sitting. Then chose to shoot her.
There have been many cases where Murder-1 was proven because someone walked downstairs to get a knife, returned, and then killed someone with it. The argument being, the plan to acquire and use a weapon was formulated in the walk down and back up, and then put into action.
What makes this scenario any different?
You said the parents were guilty. Bring that to a court of law and the bailiff will wrap you in saran wrap and roll you down the nearest hill*
*Except for Oklahoma, because Oklahoma is really flat.
He said that the parents were guilty of negligence. Don't pretend to not understand semantics, Frazzled.
jhe90 wrote:If your not using guns, lock them up in a valid gun safe, strong room or such safe location. Is anything complex about this?
People secure things like medicine and house hold products from kids with locks etc, why the hell not deadly firearms?
Because in some peoples' minds, they're only seconds away from being brutally murdered by the <insert minority here> they saw wandering around their neighborhood that day.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 21:16:18
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
|
"The Omnissiah is my Moderati" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 21:16:44
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
Peregrine wrote: Kanluwen wrote:I'm absolutely saying that. And why?
How many firearms does anyone, realistically, need? How much ammunition does anyone, realistically, need in their home?
Why does it matter? Given that most people only have two hands there's a pretty obvious limit on how many guns a person can use at once, so who cares how many other guns they have sitting in their gun safe? If you're willing to allow one gun then owning a hundred more is a negligible increase in risk, assuming those guns are all stored securely. Similarly, after the first few reloads worth of ammunition you've already got more than you can plausibly use at once. Going from a hundred rounds to a million rounds only matters in that it might be a fire hazard to store that much. The "how many guns do you need" argument is nothing more than a cheap shot at stereotypical "gun nuts", not a practical policy argument.
No, a cheap shot at stereotypical "gun nuts" would be that nobody be allowed to own anything that remotely looks like it could be used to conduct an insurgency against the FEMA camps that Obama is preparing. Or any kind of ammunition which has the word "zombie" in promotional material.
A pistol and a shotgun or rifle per adult in the house, and enough ammunition to reasonably defend ones' home from an intruder or for the purposes of hunting during a season.
Similarly, the first amendment should only cover a book and a newspaper per adult in the house, and enough ink to write a single political letter per week for purposes of lobbying one's representatives.
When books and newspapers, in the hands of children or the mentally ill result in homicides you might have a point.
Or when writing political letters actually affect the scum that make up ones' representatives.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/06 21:17:28
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 21:16:51
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Kanluwen wrote: Frazzled wrote: Psienesis wrote:The boy walked from the site of the interaction with the girl with the intent to collect the weapon. He collected the weapon from the house. Walked back to the yard where the girl was sitting. Then chose to shoot her. There have been many cases where Murder-1 was proven because someone walked downstairs to get a knife, returned, and then killed someone with it. The argument being, the plan to acquire and use a weapon was formulated in the walk down and back up, and then put into action. What makes this scenario any different? You said the parents were guilty. Bring that to a court of law and the bailiff will wrap you in saran wrap and roll you down the nearest hill* *Except for Oklahoma, because Oklahoma is really flat.
He said that the parents were guilty of negligence. Don't pretend to not understand semantics, Frazzled. Read words more gooder. Here's his exact post-my bold: If we believe that parents are responsible for the actions of their children then, no, I don't believe the parents of this child are guilty of negligence. I believe they are guilty of murder in the first degree. When books and newspapers, in the hands of children, result in deaths? I'll support that.
So the Bill of Rights is a malleable guideline on how much freedom the government may allocate to you, more than a Right under the Constitution. Well you do support the police in all things so, at least you are consistent. Pick up that can, Citizen.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/06 21:19:22
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 21:17:21
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
Seattle
|
This is why gun reform won't happen. People don't want to be responsible for what happens with the firearms they own, and the consequences of their choices.
The parents of this child failed to secure their weapon, failed to teach their child proper weapon safety, and failed to teach their child that bullying is wrong. As a result, an 8 year old girl is dead because she wouldn't let a bully pet her puppy.
Do we then place the blame squarely on the 11 year old who shot her? If so, what do we charge him with? What sentence can we pass on him to see that justice is served? In what way can we use the courts of law to help ensure that others don't commit the same crimes in the future?
|
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 21:19:13
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta
|
we need to charge the parents as accomplices. If parents knew they'd be charged with their kids for any crimes committed, they might make more effort into keep their guns away from their kids.
also get CPS to take any other kids they have away from them, they are clearly more unfit to be parents than people who give their kids funny names.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 21:19:29
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
Frazzled wrote: Kanluwen wrote: Frazzled wrote: Psienesis wrote:The boy walked from the site of the interaction with the girl with the intent to collect the weapon. He collected the weapon from the house. Walked back to the yard where the girl was sitting. Then chose to shoot her.
There have been many cases where Murder-1 was proven because someone walked downstairs to get a knife, returned, and then killed someone with it. The argument being, the plan to acquire and use a weapon was formulated in the walk down and back up, and then put into action.
What makes this scenario any different?
You said the parents were guilty. Bring that to a court of law and the bailiff will wrap you in saran wrap and roll you down the nearest hill*
*Except for Oklahoma, because Oklahoma is really flat.
He said that the parents were guilty of negligence. Don't pretend to not understand semantics, Frazzled.
Read words more gooder. Here's his exact post-my bold:
If we believe that parents are responsible for the actions of their children then, no, I don't believe the parents of this child are guilty of negligence.
I believe they are guilty of murder in the first degree.
Sorry, but it still does not change my point.
If you want to actually hold these people accountable, it isn't with some half-assed "negligence" charge for the firearms. It's actually charging them as a conspiring element in the crime.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 21:21:20
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
He wanted to charge them with MURDER. Thats substantially different.
My point stands. Bring it to a court of law and they will pelt you with lima beans for your stupidity, and if you come back they will taunt you a second time.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 21:22:58
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Kanluwen wrote:No, a cheap shot at stereotypical "gun nuts" would be that nobody be allowed to own anything that remotely looks like it could be used to conduct an insurgency against the FEMA camps that Obama is preparing. Or any kind of ammunition which has the word "zombie" in promotional material.
No, it's a cheap shot. You're trying to evoke the stereotype of a redneck gun nut sitting in their anti-Obama bunker on a giant pile of ammunition. There's no factual argument here, it's nothing more than an appeal to emotion and an attempt to say "look how horrible these people are".
When books and newspapers, in the hands of children or the mentally ill result in homicides you might have a point.
Or when writing political letters actually affect the scum that make up ones' representatives.
Additional guns and ammunition beyond your proposed limits have a negligible risk of homicide. If you can't kill someone with a pistol, a shotgun, and a few reloads worth of ammunition then having a dozen more shotguns and ten thousand rounds isn't going to make a difference. The only reason to ban the extra guns and ammunition is an emotional argument that "decent people shouldn't want that much", just like the argument that decent people shouldn't want to be able to write more than one political letter per week.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 21:22:58
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
Frazzled wrote:He wanted to charge them with MURDER. Thats substantially different.
Yeah. It's substantially different in that it's the right thing to do, and you of all people should bloody well know it.
My point stands. Bring it to a court of law and they will pelt you with lima beans for your stupidity, and if you come back they will taunt you a second time.
And?
Precedent gets set by actually being conducted. All it takes is one court actually hearing the case and handing down a judgement and the precedent is there. You know that though, right?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 21:25:45
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
Keeper of the Holy Orb of Antioch
avoiding the lorax on Crion
|
Finger print gun safe, weapons are safe, only the registered user can open, code locked key pads etc can all be opened quickly. How fast can you put in your smart phone pin?
Pistol plus separate magazine, skilled user with that weapon, a few seconds potentially, saftey off, a second at most, a gun can be live if if close enough to said safe in a pretty quick time....
|
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 21:26:32
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
Peregrine wrote: Kanluwen wrote:No, a cheap shot at stereotypical "gun nuts" would be that nobody be allowed to own anything that remotely looks like it could be used to conduct an insurgency against the FEMA camps that Obama is preparing. Or any kind of ammunition which has the word "zombie" in promotional material.
No, it's a cheap shot. You're trying to evoke the stereotype of a redneck gun nut sitting in their anti-Obama bunker on a giant pile of ammunition. There's no factual argument here, it's nothing more than an appeal to emotion and an attempt to say "look how horrible these people are".
Or the "stereotype" of the fat trash who think they're preparing for a zombie apocalypse, or any number of stereotypes that have nothing to do with politics.
When books and newspapers, in the hands of children or the mentally ill result in homicides you might have a point.
Or when writing political letters actually affect the scum that make up ones' representatives.
Additional guns and ammunition beyond your proposed limits have a negligible risk of homicide. If you can't kill someone with a pistol, a shotgun, and a few reloads worth of ammunition then having a dozen more shotguns and ten thousand rounds isn't going to make a difference. The only reason to ban the extra guns and ammunition is an emotional argument that "decent people shouldn't want that much", just like the argument that decent people shouldn't want to be able to write more than one political letter per week.
Actually it could make a difference. The shooter in this most recent mass shooting in Oregon purportedly had additional ammunition and weapons stashed nearby for use.
So please. Keep pretending that it's an argument of "decent people shouldn't want that much". It's an argument of "Why does anyone realistically need this?".
In any regards, I've said my piece. Keep at being contrary.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 21:28:26
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle
|
Did this argument just come to we have parenting issues?
|
H.B.M.C.- The end hath come! From now on armies will only consist of Astorath, Land Speeder Storms and Soul Grinders!
War Kitten- Vanden, you just taunted the Dank Lord Ezra. Prepare for seven years of fighting reality...
koooaei- Emperor: I envy your nipplehorns. <Magnus goes red. Permanently>
Neronoxx- If our Dreadnought doesn't have sick scuplted abs, we riot.
Frazzled- I don't generally call anyone by a term other than "sir" "maam" "youn g lady" "young man" or " HEY bag!"
Ruin- It's official, we've ran out of things to talk about on Dakka. Close the site. We're done.
mrhappyface- "They're more what you'd call guidlines than actual rules" - Captain Roboute Barbosa
Steve steveson- To be clear, I'd sell you all out for a bottle of scotch and a mid priced hooker.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 21:28:39
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
Seattle
|
Frazzled wrote:My point stands. Bring it to a court of law and they will pelt you with lima beans for your stupidity, and if you come back they will taunt you a second time.
So you are then absolving people of responsibility for the actions of their minor children? You are absolving people of responsibility of what happens when the weapons kept in their homes are used in the commission of a crime?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/06 21:29:38
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 21:36:01
Subject: Re:Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
K, just following on from when I last entered this thread and seeing it went from there.
Can someone explain to me, without reference the 4th Amendment or the logistics of actually carrying the process (which as I already noted, works fine enough in other parts of the world, admittedly with fewer guns) why having a law that your guns should be safely stored when not in use?
Sorry I'm not getting my head around this other than people screaming about a police state. When I'm picturing people arguing that storing your guns safely I imagine that you have them sitting casually in umbrella stands or perhaps painted in festive colours as Christmas decorations. ...No, honestly, someone explain to me without having a stick up their ass about hurr durr Amendments and The Man wanting to put their boot down on you?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 21:40:51
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
I don't think you will find people arguing against safe storage of guns, or arguing that people shouldn't be held accountable for crimes that involve their unsecured weapons.
Just that in the current legal climate there really isn't a way to enforce compliance except with punishments after the weapon was used, and that in the current political climate these laws very likely won't change anytime soon.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 21:41:02
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Kanluwen wrote: Frazzled wrote:He wanted to charge them with MURDER. Thats substantially different.
Yeah. It's substantially different in that it's the right thing to do, and you of all people should bloody well know it.
My point stands. Bring it to a court of law and they will pelt you with lima beans for your stupidity, and if you come back they will taunt you a second time.
And?
Precedent gets set by actually being conducted. All it takes is one court actually hearing the case and handing down a judgement and the precedent is there. You know that though, right?
Ok, so to keep this polite, I'll just state: so we've established you do not understand the difference between negligence, conspiracy to commit ...something, and intentional murder. Automatically Appended Next Post: Psienesis wrote:Frazzled wrote:My point stands. Bring it to a court of law and they will pelt you with lima beans for your stupidity, and if you come back they will taunt you a second time.
So you are then absolving people of responsibility for the actions of their minor children? You are absolving people of responsibility of what happens when the weapons kept in their homes are used in the commission of a crime?
I'm saying charging them with murder reveals asinine ignorance of law and how things work.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/06 21:41:55
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 21:44:09
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
d-usa wrote:I don't think you will find people arguing against safe storage of guns, or arguing that people shouldn't be held accountable for crimes that involve their unsecured weapons.
Just that in the current legal climate there really isn't a way to enforce compliance except with punishments after the weapon was used, and that in the current political climate these laws very likely won't change anytime soon.
There's no way under our current judicial system to conduct random gun storage inspections based solely on the fact that somebody owns guns. The police can't just search people or homes just to see if there are any infractions being committed. Doesn't matter if it's gun storage laws or drug possession laws or child pornography laws or copyright infringement laws or whatever. That's simply not the way law enforcement are allowed to work in our system.
|
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 21:44:45
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Psienesis wrote:Frazzled wrote:My point stands. Bring it to a court of law and they will pelt you with lima beans for your stupidity, and if you come back they will taunt you a second time.
So you are then absolving people of responsibility for the actions of their minor children? You are absolving people of responsibility of what happens when the weapons kept in their homes are used in the commission of a crime?
Nobody is arguing that.
They are arguing that Murder 1 is never going to stick on a parent of a minor child who used the gun that you left laying around on your night stand to kill another kid.
The parents can, and IMO should, be charged with any number of other laws that may be appropriate though: criminal negligence, manslaughter, endangering a minor, and in states where such laws exist, letting a kid have access to an unsecured weapon as an additional charge to all the other ones.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 21:44:56
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
Seattle
|
Can someone explain to me, without reference the 4th Amendment or the logistics of actually carrying the process (which as I already noted, works fine enough in other parts of the world, admittedly with fewer guns) why having a law that your guns should be safely stored when not in use?
Generally speaking, safe weapon storage is in a locked container of some sort that does not permit easy access to random passers-by or children. Maybe it has a keyed lock, a code-entry, fingerprint scanner, something, but it's something that keeps the weapon, well, securely stored.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/06 21:46:01
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/10/06 21:49:55
Subject: Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Peregrine wrote: d-usa wrote:It's simply a issue with the 4th, and the reason why government can't just inspect your gun storage is the same reason they can't just come into your garage to see if your tag is expired and if the turn signals are working on your car even though car inspections are mandatory.
But, as I pointed out earlier, the government can inspect your plane at any time to make sure that your registration is current and all of your mandatory equipment is working. The FAA inspector can literally walk up to you at the airport, say "inspection time", and you have to immediately hand over the keys and let them do the inspection. So this idea that mandatory searches to verify compliance with certain laws are automatically unconstitutional has no support in the real world. The truth is that, while the government requires probable cause to make a general search of your house/car/whatever, they are permitted to require limited-scope searches to verify compliance.
According to the FAA precedent the government could stop you on the road, demand access to your car to check your paperwork, run a quick emissions test, etc. And you'd be laughed out of court if you tried to claim a 4th amendment defense, just like if you tried to do it with the FAA. The reason nobody does that with cars likely has more to do with the efficiency of centralized inspection locations rather than any constitutional issues.
And as for the "too much work" issue, of course it's too much work in the current political environment because nobody cares enough about safe gun storage to spend the money required. But the idea that every gun has to be inspected frequently is kind of a straw man. You just need to have enough inspections that people have a credible belief that they could be inspected, and a harsh enough punishment for failing the inspection that few people are tempted to try their luck by ignoring the storage laws. It's the same principle behind FAA ramp checks: sure, you're unlikely to be checked on any given trip (I've never even seen an FAA inspector AFAIK), but I bet the vast majority of pilots keep their paperwork in order because the slight convenience of not having to update your registration papers isn't enough to justify the risk of failing an inspection.
The reason the govt gets to inspect your plan is because the F in FAA stands for Federal. The Federal govt issues you a pilot's license and one of the conditions of that license is the inspection of your plan. Just like the F in FFL stands for Federal and one of the conditions of obtaining a Federal Firearms License is that the govt can send agents to inspect your store or private logbooks depending on the type of FFL you have. The Federal govt is issuing the license and gets to set the conditions pertaining to the maintaining that license.
Owning a firearm doesn't require any federal licenses. The Federal govt can't pass state or municipal laws and the Federal govt can't issue orders to state, county or municipal police. The only way to establish laws requiring random inspections of gun owner's homes to verify that guns are legally stored in the proper manner would be to pass new laws on the state and local level. Then those laws would have to withstand legal challenges regarding the 4th amendment.
It's not a violation for the ATF to come to my house and check the records I'm required to keep in order to maintain my 03 FFL because thats a condition I agreed to in order to obtain the FFL. Random police searches that are nothing more than a blind fishing expedition hoping to find illegal activity without having any evidence that illegal activities are taking place is not legal and has repeatedly been determined to be illegal by the courts.
|
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
|
|
 |
 |
|