Lanza mother was petitioning court to get son locked up
- Thread starter NoDrama
- Start date
ink the world
Well-Known Member
Better yet, how about we make a law preventing the invasion and occupation of foreign nations justified by bad intelligence and plain stupidity
won't work. 50% of the gullible american public have less than average intelligence. Fact.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
demonstrably false. a good gun safe would have prevented the oregon mall shooter and probably lanza.
a good gun safe is not a government solution, although a law holding irresponsible gun owners accountable wouldn't be a bad idea.
you're a joke.
How do you trace untraceable guns back to the owner?
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
Bottom line: Do you feel that there should be ANY restrictions to gun ownership in this country? Or, do you feel that any person, at any time, should be able to buy any weapon, and any amount of ammo they so desire, and there should be no onus on the gun owner to store the weapon in a certain manner?
IOW, do what ever you please ......?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
there's always going to be those types of cases, my interest is in a reduction or mitigation of massacres, not full on banning of all weapons (despite the breathless protestations of gun nuts on slippery slopes filled with strawmen to the contrary).
ink the world
Well-Known Member
Strawmen go so well with farm subsidies though don't they?
echelon1k1
New Member
Carefull what you wish for... When AU introduced highly restrictive gun laws new legistlation for storage also came into effect.
If you own a gun in Australia you MUST store it in the following manner taking all reasonable precautions to ensure "its safe keeping, and that it is not stolen or lost and that it does not come into the possession of a person who is not authorised to possess the firearm."
- When any firearm is not actually being used or carried, it must be stored in a locked receptacle of a type approved by the Commissioner of Police and that is constructed of hard wood
or steel and not easily penetrable.
- If the receptacle weighs less than 150 kilograms when empty, it must be fixed in order to prevent its easy removal.
- The locks of such a receptacle must be of solid metal and be of a type approved by the Commissioner.
- Any ammunition for the firearm must be stored in a locked container of a type approved by the Commissioner.
- Ammunition may be kept in the receptacle with the firearms, but must be kept in a separate locked container within the receptacle.
Do you think under the above conditions, with intruder/intruders breaking into you house, you could, unlock the safe, access your weapon, unlock a second safe, access the ammunition, load the weapon, chamber a round, then proceed to protect your home & family? (keeping in ming with adrenalin pumping & your heart racing over 145 bpm your fine motor skills are decreased considerably)
The above conditions are only for private use of firearms and only applies to storage in your private residence.
Total Head
Well-Known Member
i have a semi-solution to problems like these that some people won't like.
step 1. stop pretending mental health isn't a serious pressing issue
step 2. start understanding/using testing methods with tangible results like PET scans, EEGs, blood tests, etc. more routinely. (this will be very expensive and will never happen)
step 3. interpret the results of said tests to understand not just a single patient, but other patients with similar results/anomalies.
step 4. (this is the big one) fix the goddamn law so that if there is a reasonable belief that someone is at risk for predatory/explosive behavior we don't have to wait for them to do something heinous.
i am not in favor of changing any laws with our current understanding of mental health. there is too much potential for abuse there. anyone who doesn't "fit in" would be subject to obscene violations of their rights. this is why steps 1-3 are imperative. TANGIBLE results, not psychobabble and theories and "we're not sure how this drug works but we THINK ___". you don't fix a law based on fairy tales and speculation. we need to get serious about this field of study.
step 1. stop pretending mental health isn't a serious pressing issue
step 2. start understanding/using testing methods with tangible results like PET scans, EEGs, blood tests, etc. more routinely. (this will be very expensive and will never happen)
step 3. interpret the results of said tests to understand not just a single patient, but other patients with similar results/anomalies.
step 4. (this is the big one) fix the goddamn law so that if there is a reasonable belief that someone is at risk for predatory/explosive behavior we don't have to wait for them to do something heinous.
i am not in favor of changing any laws with our current understanding of mental health. there is too much potential for abuse there. anyone who doesn't "fit in" would be subject to obscene violations of their rights. this is why steps 1-3 are imperative. TANGIBLE results, not psychobabble and theories and "we're not sure how this drug works but we THINK ___". you don't fix a law based on fairy tales and speculation. we need to get serious about this field of study.
ink the world
Well-Known Member
Hey Buck I tried to PM you with a chicken question, but your PM is disabled.
We have a 7 month old and she's eggbound now, started laying in September and she was fine. Now she hasn't passed an intact egg in over a week. She has egg white and yolk on her ass. Tried to help her w/ yogurt, oyster shell, a warm bath; nothing is helping.
Should we just cull here?
We have a 7 month old and she's eggbound now, started laying in September and she was fine. Now she hasn't passed an intact egg in over a week. She has egg white and yolk on her ass. Tried to help her w/ yogurt, oyster shell, a warm bath; nothing is helping.
Should we just cull here?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
I'm no chicken expert, and you've tried everything I would have. my wife is asking if the chicken is acting drowsy and sick or normal.
eggbound chickens normally die within days, is she broody? a vet might be able to give her a calcium gluconate shot.
best of luck.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Possibly my mistake. However i am getting the vibe that you are defining responsibility etc. by results. Can a gun owner be responsible and still have his gun taken? If you answer "yes", what is your argument? If you answer "no", I see it as a zero-tolerance position, a no-winner. Please tell me which ... or if neither, my logical error. cn
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
If I agree to eliminating gun show sales, online sales (I haven't ever seen one such as I live in CA. How do I do this!!?), a mental evaluation from the MD of my choice, why on Earth would you need to restrict the number of guns I can buy over a period of time? Also why a waiting period? That need has been addressed by the eval.
I will also need assurance that the eval is one time only. cn
londonfog
Well-Known Member
If you have a child in your home that you feel you now have to seek help and have him/her institutionalize, then the first thing you should do is remove your firearms. Having weapons like a Bushmaster .223, Glock 10 mm, Sig Sauer 9 mm, Henry repeating rifle, Enfield rifle and a shotgun in the home of a child that you are seeking to get institutionalize is crazy. If it was at that level the guns should have been moved to a secure location until that problem was corrected...anything less may get you shot in the face
You were aware that the federal government does not trace guns sold today? Guns are not registered in the USA, so it wouldn't be "those types of case" it would be every and all cases. Only a handful of states register weapons.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Agreed. While I am a champion of gun ownership and carry, I just as fervently believe in the right to not own a gun.
In this instance, the gun owner would be completely disregarding the higher standard of care that applies not only to carry but to possession.
The secure location in this instance (pref. off-site in trust, until the dangerous person has been moved) I consider a moral duty even if it isn't legally codified. cn
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
You bring up a very valid point. Honestly, I don't have the answer for that. On one hand I DO feel that there should be an onus on gun owners to take proper precautionary measures to make sure their guns are safe/secured. On the other hand, I do understand that those measures may make it difficult for someone to effectively defend their family in the case of an intruder.
Maybe a biometric fingerprint safe is the answer?? It could be fastened to the ground, provide an impenetrable exterior, and offer the gun owner relatively quick access to the gun/ammo.
If not, then there could be some money to be made for an entrepreneur that comes up with a good solution to this.
Its called the " Never told them about my other 5 guns, so they don't even know about the .999 super magnum with 80 round magazine that can shoot through brick factories that is laying between the bed mattress and box." solution.