Sent by a friend with guns
 

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 10:09:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 7/1/2015 10:05 AM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 09:35:58 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 7/1/2015 8:15 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 7:41:55 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/1/2015 7:19 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:56:32 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:


If a gun is stolen from my house, I would share the responsibility if it
was not kept in a locked safe (as required by law).

Why? The gun was in your possession, inside of your home. A crime was committed (breaking and entering, burglary), and the gun was taken from you by a criminal. If your car is stolen from your garage and the perp kills a pedestrian with it, you aren't held responsible. Why would you be for a stolen gun?

See how twisted the laws have already become?



Believe it or not there are many states that (by law) require firearms
that are not being used to be stored in a safe or otherwise locked.
You may argue that the safe or the trigger lock is nothing but a minor
inconvenience to a burglar but you can be held responsible if it can be
proven that you did not properly store the firearm as required. MA is
one of those states.

You live in SC right? I'll betcha all the guns, rifles and shotguns
in your local police station that are not in current use are not just
laying around. They are locked up.

You misread my post. I completely understand that some states have this law. I was expressing why I believe the law is wrong. It was a step towards making the act of owning a gun so onerous that most would not want to.

Don't get me wrong... I'm in favor (and I practice) keeping guns in a safe location when not in use. Especially when there are children in the household. But in an adult only household where both can safely handle a gun, it should be *legal* to keep one or more within quick and easy access, without fear of being held liable in the case you become a *victim* of a robbery.

The police station argument doesn't really work. Their excess may be secured, but they're all walking around with one on their belt. :)



There is nothing in the home storage laws that prevents you from having
a gun out of the safe or without a trigger lock as long as you are in
control of it and who has access to it.


Again, go fix the behavior of those committing all the homicides. Once that's done,
come back and institute a bureaucracy to track paperwork.



I don't know how to cure criminal behavior. I'd just like to make it
more difficult for them to have guns.


Let's suppose I'm not one who gives a **** about the law or who owns guns. I decide
to sell my guns to some gangsta from downtown. The law says I have to complete
paperwork and have a background check run on the guy. But, I'm playing honey badger -
not giving a **** about the law, so I sell four or five guns I've legally obtained
and make a killing moneywise.

Knowing those guns could be used to commit crime, and that they could be traced back
to me, I call the cops. I tell the cops my house was broken into and my guns were
stolen. They ask if they were secured. I say, "Hell yes, the crooks took the whole
safe."

Now what???

Your paperwork bureaucracy has been foiled again.
--

Guns don't cause problems.
Gun owner behavior causes problems.

Sent by a friend with guns
 

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 6/30/2015 7:57 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:29:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

One might think we should focus on the *behavior* of the folks committing the
homicides rather than attempting to build a bureaucracy around gun paperwork.



How do you focus on the "behavior" of people committing homicides with
guns if you don't know who has the guns in the first place?

===

Almost all of those guns are illegally owned. It is totally naive to
think that a new law or two will change that.


How many of those illegally owned guns started out as "legally" owned guns?

It's a start. All it involves is a requirement for a background check
and registration of the firearm to establish a chain of custody.

No big deal and no infringement of anyone's "rights".

You can not stop car thefts, boat thefts, home burglary, etc. how can all
gun thefts can be prevented?

Sent by a friend with guns
 

On 7/1/2015 11:44 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 9:35:54 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/1/2015 8:15 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 7:41:55 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/1/2015 7:19 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:56:32 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:


If a gun is stolen from my house, I would share the responsibility if it
was not kept in a locked safe (as required by law).

Why? The gun was in your possession, inside of your home. A crime was committed (breaking and entering, burglary), and the gun was taken from you by a criminal. If your car is stolen from your garage and the perp kills a pedestrian with it, you aren't held responsible. Why would you be for a stolen gun?

See how twisted the laws have already become?



Believe it or not there are many states that (by law) require firearms
that are not being used to be stored in a safe or otherwise locked.
You may argue that the safe or the trigger lock is nothing but a minor
inconvenience to a burglar but you can be held responsible if it can be
proven that you did not properly store the firearm as required. MA is
one of those states.

You live in SC right? I'll betcha all the guns, rifles and shotguns
in your local police station that are not in current use are not just
laying around. They are locked up.

You misread my post. I completely understand that some states have this law. I was expressing why I believe the law is wrong. It was a step towards making the act of owning a gun so onerous that most would not want to.

Don't get me wrong... I'm in favor (and I practice) keeping guns in a safe location when not in use. Especially when there are children in the household. But in an adult only household where both can safely handle a gun, it should be *legal* to keep one or more within quick and easy access, without fear of being held liable in the case you become a *victim* of a robbery.

The police station argument doesn't really work. Their excess may be secured, but they're all walking around with one on their belt. :)


There is nothing in the home storage laws that prevents you from having
a gun out of the safe or without a trigger lock as long as you are in
control of it and who has access to it.

So I can have one stashed out of sight, loaded and ready, and I don't have to retrieve it and place it in the safe when I go to the store for a gallon of milk? And if my home is burglarized while I'm gone I won't be held liable if it's stolen? That's great!

Oh, but that's not what you mean. From my understanding, in your state you would be held responsible for a criminal's actions if you did what I described above. That is unreasonable in my opinion. I believe that when my weapon is in my locked home, on my property, it is under my control whether I am physically present or not. My home is my "safe", and no one has access to it's contents without breaking the law. Your state's laws concerning that issue and firearms are onerous, IMO.



If onerous, 27 other states have similar law so MA is not alone in it's
onerousness. 28 states have safe storage laws ... primarily to protect
children. South Carolina is not one of them .... yet.

Sent by a friend with guns
 

On 7/1/2015 3:29 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 6/30/2015 7:57 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:29:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

One might think we should focus on the *behavior* of the folks committing the
homicides rather than attempting to build a bureaucracy around gun paperwork.



How do you focus on the "behavior" of people committing homicides with
guns if you don't know who has the guns in the first place?

===

Almost all of those guns are illegally owned. It is totally naive to
think that a new law or two will change that.


How many of those illegally owned guns started out as "legally" owned guns?

It's a start. All it involves is a requirement for a background check
and registration of the firearm to establish a chain of custody.

No big deal and no infringement of anyone's "rights".

You can not stop car thefts, boat thefts, home burglary, etc. how can all
gun thefts can be prevented?



Never said "all". I am realistic about that.

We all agree that guns in the hands of nutcases or those of criminal
intent is a danger in our society. Yet, whenever a suggestion or
proposal is made to try to limit their availability (with absolutely no
affect on responsible gun ownership), the answers range from "it won't
work" to the slippery slope argument. So, nothing changes ... in fact
the problem only becomes worse. Eventually it will become a problem
that simply cannot be ignored with corrective measures far more severe
than a background check and gun registration.

In other words, if it cannot be managed ... eventually they will be
banned. When that happens those who refuse to try to fix it now will
wish they had.

Sent by a friend with guns
 

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:08:54 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/1/2015 3:29 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 6/30/2015 7:57 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:29:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

One might think we should focus on the *behavior* of the folks committing the
homicides rather than attempting to build a bureaucracy around gun paperwork.



How do you focus on the "behavior" of people committing homicides with
guns if you don't know who has the guns in the first place?

===

Almost all of those guns are illegally owned. It is totally naive to
think that a new law or two will change that.


How many of those illegally owned guns started out as "legally" owned guns?

It's a start. All it involves is a requirement for a background check
and registration of the firearm to establish a chain of custody.

No big deal and no infringement of anyone's "rights".

You can not stop car thefts, boat thefts, home burglary, etc. how can all
gun thefts can be prevented?



Never said "all". I am realistic about that.

We all agree that guns in the hands of nutcases or those of criminal
intent is a danger in our society. Yet, whenever a suggestion or
proposal is made to try to limit their availability (with absolutely no
affect on responsible gun ownership), the answers range from "it won't
work" to the slippery slope argument. So, nothing changes ... in fact
the problem only becomes worse. Eventually it will become a problem
that simply cannot be ignored with corrective measures far more severe
than a background check and gun registration.

In other words, if it cannot be managed ... eventually they will be
banned. When that happens those who refuse to try to fix it now will
wish they had.

Hopefully some smart people will realize that the cities with the highest crime rates have the most onerous gun laws and realize how stupid more gun laws really are.

Sent by a friend with guns
 

On 7/1/2015 4:25 PM, John H wrote:
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:08:54 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/1/2015 3:29 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 6/30/2015 7:57 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:29:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

One might think we should focus on the *behavior* of the folks committing the
homicides rather than attempting to build a bureaucracy around gun paperwork.



How do you focus on the "behavior" of people committing homicides with
guns if you don't know who has the guns in the first place?

===

Almost all of those guns are illegally owned. It is totally naive to
think that a new law or two will change that.


How many of those illegally owned guns started out as "legally" owned guns?

It's a start. All it involves is a requirement for a background check
and registration of the firearm to establish a chain of custody.

No big deal and no infringement of anyone's "rights".

You can not stop car thefts, boat thefts, home burglary, etc. how can all
gun thefts can be prevented?



Never said "all". I am realistic about that.

We all agree that guns in the hands of nutcases or those of criminal
intent is a danger in our society. Yet, whenever a suggestion or
proposal is made to try to limit their availability (with absolutely no
affect on responsible gun ownership), the answers range from "it won't
work" to the slippery slope argument. So, nothing changes ... in fact
the problem only becomes worse. Eventually it will become a problem
that simply cannot be ignored with corrective measures far more severe
than a background check and gun registration.

In other words, if it cannot be managed ... eventually they will be
banned. When that happens those who refuse to try to fix it now will
wish they had.

Hopefully some smart people will realize that the cities with the highest crime rates have the most onerous gun laws and realize how stupid more gun laws really are.



You're right. There's no hope. Just ban guns period. That way
*anyone* with one is a criminal.

Sent by a friend with guns
 

John H.
- show quoted text -
"I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I
aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What
do you suggest be done about them? "



Maybe you and your Moppetts could round them all up and ship them somewhere else.

Sent by a friend with guns
 

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 16:35:22 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 7/1/2015 4:25 PM, John H wrote:
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:08:54 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/1/2015 3:29 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 6/30/2015 7:57 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:29:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

One might think we should focus on the *behavior* of the folks committing the
homicides rather than attempting to build a bureaucracy around gun paperwork.



How do you focus on the "behavior" of people committing homicides with
guns if you don't know who has the guns in the first place?

===

Almost all of those guns are illegally owned. It is totally naive to
think that a new law or two will change that.


How many of those illegally owned guns started out as "legally" owned guns?

It's a start. All it involves is a requirement for a background check
and registration of the firearm to establish a chain of custody.

No big deal and no infringement of anyone's "rights".

You can not stop car thefts, boat thefts, home burglary, etc. how can all
gun thefts can be prevented?



Never said "all". I am realistic about that.

We all agree that guns in the hands of nutcases or those of criminal
intent is a danger in our society. Yet, whenever a suggestion or
proposal is made to try to limit their availability (with absolutely no
affect on responsible gun ownership), the answers range from "it won't
work" to the slippery slope argument. So, nothing changes ... in fact
the problem only becomes worse. Eventually it will become a problem
that simply cannot be ignored with corrective measures far more severe
than a background check and gun registration.

In other words, if it cannot be managed ... eventually they will be
banned. When that happens those who refuse to try to fix it now will
wish they had.

Hopefully some smart people will realize that the cities with the highest crime rates have the most onerous gun laws and realize how stupid more gun laws really are.



You're right. There's no hope. Just ban guns period. That way
*anyone* with one is a criminal.


Well, it's for damn sure the criminals *will* have theirs.
--

Guns don't cause problems.
Gun owner behavior causes problems.

Sent by a friend with guns
 

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I
aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What
do you suggest be done about them?



For one thing we can try to make their access to firearms more difficult.

===

Then they'll kill each other with knives and baseball bats.

We have a major culture problem on our hands which leads to the drugs,
gangs and violence. If we don't address that nothing else will
matter.

Sent by a friend with guns
 

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I
aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What
do you suggest be done about them?



For one thing we can try to make their access to firearms more difficult.

===

Here's a modest proposal. Since we all agree that people are killing
each other over drugs and drug money, why not decriminalize all drug
use and drug possession. Then take it a step further by supplying
registered drug users with all the drugs they want. Some European
countries have adopted a similar model and they don't have the
problems that we do. Sure, a certain number of people will OD or
otherwise become unproductive but most of them are already
unproductive. Education and good parenting should be sufficient to
keep proliferation under control.