Blue Lives Matter · Page 2 · CigarBid Forums

Free Fall
Auctions

Specials
Auctions

QuickBuy
Auctions

Newly Added
Auctions

Ending Soon
Auctions

Welcome Guest

Forum Terms & Conditions | My Topics

Mr. Jones
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#21

Only truely HONEST LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS LIVES MATTER...

DIRTY FELON MURDERING FBI-SSG DIVISION OFFICERS SHOULD ALL BE IN JAIL.

Abrignac
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#22

Let's focus on both. It is the responsibility of a gun owner to properly secure their gun. Anything else is BS. And our criminal justice system needs to impose the proper penalty on criminals

Z, Anthony, it is BS that you think unsecured guns in the house are acceptable. If your unsecured gun is stolen and used criminally that is on you. With gun ownership comes responsibility. There are no mulligans.

Speyside wrote:

Alan do your research before making a dumb statement.

In 2014 the Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy group, published a study of automobile related deaths vs firearms related deaths.

http://www.vpc.org/regulating-the-gun-industry/gun-deaths-compared-to-motor-vehicle-deaths/

Check it out

You'll find that since 1999 the divide between the two has closed considerably. In 2014 there were about 34,000 automobile related deaths vs. about 36,000 firearms related deaths. So you're saying you do not want to hold automobile owners criminally responsible if someone else uses their auto and kills someone, yet we should hold firearms owners responsible? In other words, it seems you are much less concerned about one group of lost souls than another.

Seems disingenuous to me.

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

8 years ago

#23

The car gun analogy just isn't accurate. Killing is not a primary purpose of a car. That makes as much sense as talking about tactical personal nuclear weapons. Just because a gun is in your house does that mean as a gun owner you have no responsibility to safely secure it? I really would like you to answer that specific question, since that was my specific point.

Speyside wrote:

I hate that "primary purpose" bullchit.

OK. So a car isn't made to kill people.
But neither is a hunting rifle. It's made to kill animals.
Primary purpose?
How about poison then? Poison is manufactured for ONE purpose: to kill things.
So if someone steals that bottle of rodent killer and slips his Ex a mickey who is to blame?

Blame the murderer.
Blame nothing else.

Why is that so fu*King difficult?

deadeyedick
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#24

In every conflict there always seems to be some who would blame anyone or anything possible for the acts of those truly responsible. I don't understand it but there it is.

Speyside
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#25

So a gun is similar to a car? Do you think it is reasonable to leave a gun unsecured? I don't. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? The constitution and it's amendments do not guarantee and individual the right to be a dumb azz.

Abrignac
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#26

So a gun is similar to a car? Do you think it is reasonable to leave a gun unsecured?

So locking one's home is not considered secure, yet locking their car doors is?

I don't. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? The constitution and it's amendments do not guarantee and individual the right to be a dumb azz.

Does that include speech and written words?

Speyside wrote:

Gene363
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#27

I'm sure his mom says he dindu nuffin

danmdevries wrote:

He's college material too.

The escape pod: https://cigarbid.freeforums.net

Speyside
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#28

I do not consider a loose gun in a locked house secure. You do ?

RMAN4443
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#29

Speyside wrote:

House is locked, and guns are out of sight......how secure is secure enough? If it's in a gun safe......smaller gun safes can be easily stolen too......it's not like I lock my house and leave my guns out on kitchen table.....my long guns all have trigger locks, but I have one handgun set aside in a special place just in case it's needed in the middle of the night, I work nights and live in an isolated area, and I like to leave the wife a little more protection than the dog alone would afford.....actually the dog is only an early warning system, because she's to playful and dumb to be any kind of real protection......

Abrignac
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#30

I do not consider a loose gun in a locked house secure. You do ?

Speyside wrote:

I do. What would you consider secure?

Speyside
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#31

So I am fine with what you do. As I am with anyone who takes a reasonable measure to secure their guns. Others don't. Them I am not so fine with.

Speyside
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#32

Anthony, certain things the constitution secures your right to be a dumb azz. Other things not at all.

Abrignac
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#33

So I am fine with what you do. As I am with anyone who takes a reasonable measure to secure their guns. Others don't. Them I am not so fine with.

Speyside wrote:

So a locked house is now fine with you?

RMAN4443
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#34

I do not consider a loose gun in a locked house secure. You do ?

Speyside wrote:

If someone breaks into my house and breaks open my gun safe and commits suicide in my living room, is that death my fault because obviously my guns weren't secure enough?

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#35

There is precedent for this concept....
If a company is given a license to handle particularly dangerous material and they are found to have mishandled it, leading to someone getting it and causing harm... they could be in trouble.

Imagine if someone got their hands on weaponized smallpox from a government facility and killed a bunch of americans?... first thing we do is punish the criminal. Second thing we do is investigate how he got his hands on it and punish anyone who may have failed to follow proper protocols.

This isn't rocket science. And it isn't black and white. If a dude stealing your guns had to disable alarm systems, kill a mechanized guard dog and drill through 10" steel plate.... it probably isn't your fault. But if the thief stole the gun because you left it on the front porch because you were too drunk to remember to bring it inside....

.... hell how many gun "thefts" are actually sales that couldn't be performed through legal means?

The personal responsibility crowd is really uninterested in personal responsibility on this one...

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#36

In every conflict there always seems to be some who would blame anyone or anything possible for the acts of those truly responsible. I don't understand it but there it is.

deadeyedick wrote:

but I'm truly trying to find a balance between the truly responsible and the careless.

Victor's example in #55 of an extreme effort to steal weapons is clearly not something that should be blamed on the original owner, who clearly went above and beyond in his efforts...vis a vis (is that the time to use that?) the Parkland teacher...

I'm inviting responsible gun owners to explain what would not be enough precaution to leave one open to being charged with a reckless crime...cuz I don't own guns, so I don't know what is the least we should expect.
Looking for some standard.

ZRX1200
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#37

The constitution and the ammendments are to affirm our rights and limit the government. I suppose you think the commerce clause hasn't been raped and mutated for centralized powers too......guess what....every gun law is to restrict legal owners or make them unlawful owners. They are to made to make more people unable to own them. Period. What lock did the mother ****** break to get in my house? But they can't overcome a trigger lock? How is a poor person supposed to afford what ever it is YOU consider an ADEQUATE locking mechanism that is undefeatable......AND how much time does it take to get it out of said locking mechanism? You know what the cops in my area care about? Fines, tickets, and keeping drugs away from their neighborhood. P.S. I have a cop across the street.....our public employees make 3 times the median average of our state. They don't give 2 💩 about my house and the supreme Court decided that they have no obligation to do so. So I will use my inherent rights and do what's best for my family.

Imposing your views with force. Modern politics in a nutshell.

Speyside
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#38

I was speaking about what Rick does, sorry if that was not clear.

Mrs. dpnewell
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#39

There has to be a balance in all of this. A gun for defense is useless if locked away in a safe with a trigger lock. There is also a big difference between someone having their gun behind locked doors, and "leaving it on the front porch because they where too drunk to bring it in". If you are drinking to excess, you shouldn't even have a gun near you.

All my firearms, except my self defense ones, are locked away in secure safes. My self defense guns are either on my person, or in "instant access" safes. Those safes are meant to keep guns out of the hands of honest folk or curious children. Anyone with determination and a large crowbar can defeat them. Heck, even a $5,000, 2,000 lb. gun safe can be defeated with the proper tools and time. But again, there must be a balance between securing your firearms, and having instant access to them when needed.

If I have my gun legally on my person, and attackers break down my locked door, overpower me, and remove the gun from my person, should I be liable for what those attackers then do with that gun? I would say no, but others seem to disagree.

A couple years ago, NJ tried to pass a law that would make a gun owner responsible for any criminal use of his stolen firearms. It didn't matter if the thieves defeated the highest tech home security system and the most robust gun safe. The owner was liable no matter what precautions where taken. This type of legislation is nothing more then an end run around the 2nd Amendment. Can't outlaw private ownership of firearms? Then make the risks so great and so expensive, that ownership is no longer worth the risk or the expense.

Just my $.02.

David (dpnewell)

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#40

This entire thing could be resolved by making sure every single american... sane... insane... law abiding... felons... had free access to every level of military hardware.

As long as it's freely available to everyone, then the people who have one don't have any responsibility whatsoever in securing theirs.

But once you have something which is illegal for some percentage of Americans to own, for whatever reason, then you automatically bear some responsibility in securing it from them as well.

Users browsing this topic

Important Information: