Lanza mother was petitioning court to get son locked up

cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
st0wandgrow said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you've ever worked with affordable biometrics, you would not want to trust your life to one in a rapidly-evolving situation.

The answer is not making guns harder to get (at). It is to more consistently punish their abusers. Prevention can only go so far before it seamlessly shifts to proscription. For a gun to be at all useful in its primary mission ... protect the possessor, fast access under difficult circumstances is essential. Every apparently goodwilled safety proposal I have seen eats away at that, making me question the real motive.

Wanna get more gun safety? begin by reversing the demonization of the gun. All jmo. cncn
 
st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
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
Click to expand...
My answer is yes. You can be a responsible gun owner, take *reasonable* precautionary measures, and still have your gun stolen. I could envision dozens of scenarios. If you had your gun locked in a safe, and someone broke in and stole the safe, then I feel you took reasonable steps to secure your weapon. Or if you were walking down the street with your gun on your hip, and someone came from behind, held a gun to your head and stole your wallet and weapon, I would see no reasonable way of preventing that from happening.

BUT, if you lived with a mentally troubled person and left the combo to your safe scribbled on a napkin beside the safe, and that person used your gun to kill someone, then no, I don't think you took the proper steps.

I see your point, and I am somewhat splitting hairs with this, but I do not take a zero-tolerance stance on this. I'm asking that a reasonable effort be made.

I do understand that my view of "reasonable" will vary from others.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
st0wandgrow said:
My answer is yes. You can be a responsible gun owner, take *reasonable* precautionary measures, and still have your gun stolen. I could envision dozens of scenarios. If you had your gun locked in a safe, and someone broke in and stole the safe, then I feel you took reasonable steps to secure your weapon. Or if you were walking down the street with your gun on your hip, and someone came from behind, held a gun to your head and stole your wallet and weapon, I would see no reasonable way of preventing that from happening.

BUT, if you lived with a mentally troubled person and left the combo to your safe scribbled on a napkin beside the safe, and that person used your gun to kill someone, then no, I don't think you took the proper steps.

I see your point, and I am somewhat splitting hairs with this, but I do not take a zero-tolerance stance on this. I'm asking that a reasonable effort be made.

I do understand that my view of "reasonable" will vary from others.
Click to expand...
Now you are starting to make sense, but HOW do you enforce a law that requires people to be more responsible? It isn't possible, so now we end up right back where we started where Government is going to be responsible for us by making us all get rid of our guns.

What constitutes Mentally Troubled? What would the definition be?
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Last resort of the hardcore 2nd amendment folks: conspiracy theory!

http://blogdogcicle.blogspot.ca/2012/12/ct-school-shooter-killer-link-to-libor.html?m=1
Click to expand...
ANyone can see its BS, why even bring it up? of course unless you think that what one person says who defends the 2nd means that everyone who defends the 2nd must also be like the guy who thinks a LIBOR conspiracy is happening.

I suppose if I find some Freak ass weirdo who has the same view on anything as you do, means I can discredit anything you say by comparing you to him.

No one here is that dumb to fall for it.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
st0wandgrow said:
My answer is yes. You can be a responsible gun owner, take *reasonable* precautionary measures, and still have your gun stolen. I could envision dozens of scenarios. If you had your gun locked in a safe, and someone broke in and stole the safe, then I feel you took reasonable steps to secure your weapon. Or if you were walking down the street with your gun on your hip, and someone came from behind, held a gun to your head and stole your wallet and weapon, I would see no reasonable way of preventing that from happening.

BUT, if you lived with a mentally troubled person and left the combo to your safe scribbled on a napkin beside the safe, and that person used your gun to kill someone, then no, I don't think you took the proper steps.

I see your point, and I am somewhat splitting hairs with this, but I do not take a zero-tolerance stance on this. I'm asking that a reasonable effort be made.

I do understand that my view of "reasonable" will vary from others.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your frank response. Your acceptance that "manure occurs" situations will happen places you ahead of most folks expressing a less-guns! sentiment.

I agree that the scenario you described is negligent.

I am of course keenly interested in a way to have guns be at the best intersection of safety and utility. Imo the point to apply the pressure is not in making guns less accessible, but their misuse more frowned upon ... but while still countenancing their proper use. Too often this becomes a baby/bathwater sort of argument. cn
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
silasraven said:
am i the only one seeing this ^^^^^^^^^^??????????? bogus
Click to expand...
Do you scream BS when you see a US Journalist report on something in another country?
We are a fairly tight nit world now, you can be most anywhere in the planet in 24 hours. Lots of UK journalists are stateside.
I was hoping for actual evidence that it was bogus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top