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.

victor809 wrote:

Dave... i dont disagree that there are shades here.
And again.. I'm on the side of zero firearm restrictions whatsoever. Let the nuthouse have grenade launchers... let the worst, most irresponsible, most psychotic people you can think of have weaponized smallpox canisters...

However... if you're going to restrict anything... then the people who you allow to have said restricted item have to show some level of care in the ownership of said item otherwise your restrictions are absolutely meaningless... (ie... the "laws" everyone says are already in place and that we don't need any more)...

But again... shades of grey. If you set your gun down on the bar so you can get in a fist fight with some dude... and his friend picks it up and shoots someone? Yeah... you're at least somewhat culpable.

If you sell your felon friend a handgun because he can't buy one... then report it stolen... if that gun ends up used in a crime wouldn't you think you're somewhat culpable? How does the law best differentiate between actual theft and the above example?...

victor809 wrote:

Who said anything specific such as a safe?
Sh1t... I'd like to just start with the basics like "don't leave it in the bathroom"... or "don't carry while drunk".... if you really want to get ambitious then say it must be behind at least 1 lock .... (ie lock your damn doors)

But again... that's only if you want to continue keeping American citizens from their right to own weapons. If everyone can have any gun they want cheaply and without registration... then there's no need to secure the ones you own.

victor809 wrote:

Anthony, I am sure any lock can be broken. But I would like to see a trigger lock, or a locked room with no windows used as a minimum for a deterrent for gun owners non self/family protection guns. I think a gun owner bears a responsibility to make his/her guns less accessible to criminal types. If you think none of the above is reasonable then what is? Is having your house locked but no other security measures for your guns good enough? If so, why?

Speyside wrote:

It seems like you think any deterrent is worthless. Locked house doors are easily opened as well. As is often is the case we will continue to disagree on this.

Speyside wrote:

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

Speyside wrote:

Not have any... 😟

DrafterX wrote: