NY Times wilfully ignorant

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: face23785

I didn't elaborate. Make it mandatory to report stolen firearms within a reasonable time. A timely report absolves the owner of any responsibility provided that the firearm was reasonably secured. Reasonably secured can mean that the gun was inside a locked house or concealed inside a locked vehicle.

There has been a rash of thefts of firearms from unlocked vehicles in my area. Those owners didn't take proper precautions to secure their guns. If those stolen guns are used to hurt someone, in my mind, the owners bear some reponsibility.

Problems come in when individuals assume that others share their morals. Just because I would never break into an unlocked car, steal a firearm, then use the firearm on someone else doesn't mean a criminal won't. Therefore, as a responsible gun owner, I don't leave guns in my cars, much less an unlocked car.

I don't think there's any excuse for not reporting your gun stolen. I can get on board with a penalty for that.

An unlocked car? Sorry I can't agree on that. I lock my 99.9% of the time, even when it's in my garage. Everyone forgets sometimes though. I'm still not down with an owner being punished because someone went into their car and stole their gun, whether it was locked or not. If it's on your property, and someone invades your property, whether it's your car or your house, it's the fault of the person who invaded your property. Once you start down that road, where does that end?

I leave my garage door open sometimes to let it air out. What if someone runs up and steals my chainsaw, or my edge trimmer that's essentially a giant knife, and they are used to hurt or injure someone? I'm not responsible for some scumbag burglarizing me.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: network dude


Where's Danny Vermin and his .88 magnum?

You shouldn't make jokes about Danny Vermin.
My brother made a joke about Danny Vermin once...

...Once.

a reply to: face23785

If it was a one time thing, in an area not known for the issue, I could excuse it. In my area, it is a known fact that criminals walk through neighborhoods pulling on door handles looking for unlocked cars to steal valuables and guns out of. This has been going on for years now, and the same neighborhoods and sometimes even vehicles have been hit repeatedly.

As a gun owner, you are responsible for securing that firearm. It is a tool and inanimate object, yes, but if misused, or even used properly by the wrong person, it can kill. The criminal is responsible for the theft, but a possible tragedy can be prevented if gun owners will just be responsible.

At the risk of sounding anti-gun like some on this forum, chainsaws and hedge trimmers have a primary function that's not related to killing. A determined person can use just about anything not originally intended to kill to do so. Guns were invented to kill more efficiently. Their main uses are warfare, self-defense, hunting, and varmint shooting. Target shooting is just practice to improve skills for the aforementioned uses.

As gun-owners, we must hold ourselves to a higher standard and make sure that we secure these tools that can be used to kill. I would be inconsolable if a child got one of my guns and hurt themselves or someone else. I would also not be able to forgive myself if I left a gun in an unlocked car and it was used to hurt or kill an innocent person. So I always take steps to assure that any guns I have out are secured properly.

Treat your firearms with the respect they deserve, always properly secure them, and don't give the anti-gunners any more ammo to use to attempt to infringe our rights.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

I agree that it's a great responsibility and we need to hold ourselves to a high standard. There was a thread here a week or two ago about a 9 year old boy that shot his sister in an argument over a video game. I was calling for those parents to face charges. There is no excuse at all to leave a gun in a place where your 9 year old can get it, in a state where it can possibly be fired. That includes keeping it unloaded but the ammo is in a drawer in another room and you're just telling yourself he doesn't know where the ammo is. That's not good enough to me. And while this is nowhere near as important as that child's life, it creates the additional problem of giving the gun grabbers ammunition, pun intended, to go after us. They don't care that such accidents are almost incalculably rare compared to the gun ownership rate in this country. When gun owners do something truly irresponsible, I am all for holding them accountable.

That said, I just think for gun theft, there needs to be a very high bar to hold the owner accountable. If you can demonstrate they have a history of something like you said, in a high crime neighborhood and they're leaving it in an unlocked car every night, I can agree that's irresponsible. But that's you and I. Even though I agree that's irresponsible, I'd rather not make it a law, and here's why. Who determines where that line is? It's hard to make a black and white law for such eventualities, and then you start getting into grey areas, which inevitably lead to slippery slope territory. And before you know it I'm getting charges because I live alone and left my shotgun in my closet in my locked house while I was at work but because I didn't have it inside a safe that's bolted down, someone who broke in was able to make off with it and under the law I was reckless. Then I get that gun conviction and I can't legally own a gun anymore. That may sound ridiculous to you and I, but it may not to some lawmakers. That's why I'd rather not even start down that path.

I really don't do the whole "guns were designed to kill" route either. That's true, but it's also a red herring. What something is designed for is irrelevant. Cars aren't designed to kill, but we're so insanely irresponsible with them we somehow manage to kill and injure more people every year with them than we do with the thing that actually is designed to kill. And almost all of those deaths are on accident. Are they supposed to be any less tragic because at least a car isn't designed to kill? Can you imagine people at a funeral for a car crash victim hugging each other going "At least he wasn't killed by a gun."? That's a much bigger problem with irresponsibility if you ask me. If we're concerned about saving lives, I'd like to see a national movement to do something about that. But that won't get you any votes or donations, so I won't hold my breath. To me, it's as nonsensical a point to make as when they say "but owning a gun increases risk". Of course it does, just like owning a car, owning a pool, owning any kind of recreational vehicle, power tool, etc etc. That doesn't mean anything in the context of the gun debate, it just sounds clever to people who haven't thought very hard about it.

That Flintlock or Percussion Rifles shoots. .50 .54 caliber rounds. take your pick . One shot from that will go through a few walls and then some. The NY Times really needs to understand how these 1800s' firearms work. Anyone whom has fired a Percussion Flintlock know what I'm talking about. Their is allot more to black powder rifles than people think. Percussion rifles are very very powerful weapons it's like shooting a mini-canon ball for 125- 150 yards. The size and weight of these rounds rarely drift off target and are still very accurate even in the wind. that's also why their still used today for hunting.

Civil war history books will explain why the first three, four or even five lines of soldiers flattered on the battlefield . That lead .54 caliber round did not stop at the first target it hit. The NY- Times photo of the AR15 below is like comparing apples to oranges. Their photo make no point whatsoever in their article.

if I ever had to face a shooter Id rather it be some one with a pistol or AR15 . Little chance if you and those standing behind you would survive from a .50 .54 caliber round. if so your going to missing body parts.

I hope the writer of the article does know what it really takes to repeal the 2nd amendment ; never going to happen.
I really think something like this would start a very serious constitutional crises that could light a fire across the entire United States of America. IT could also put this country very in vulnerable state of affairs on the world stage.

originally posted by: bender151

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

You may not realize this, but there is more about the M4/M16/AR-15 gun that deems it an assault rifle than JUST the fact it is semi-automatic.

PS: Heck that M4 that is depicted in the image is also known as a carbine because it is a short rifle that sacrifices maximum range for easier urban engagement than the old fashioned M16 does.

So is an AR-15 from Bob's guns an Assault Rifle? (yes or no is all you need here)

I guess so. It's pretty much the same gun as an M-16; it just can't be set to 3 round burst like the M16 can.

Please smack yourself in the forehead. "It's pretty much the same gun... except, derp, the one key feature it lacks that would distinguish it from every other semi automatic weapon." It's like saying your regular pencil is pretty much the same thing as a mechanical one except that it requires sharpening.

You can buy a semi auto M16. The only thing that makes a semi auto not fully auto is the firing pin. I don't even know what planet y'all live on.

originally posted by: SRPrime

originally posted by: bender151

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

You may not realize this, but there is more about the M4/M16/AR-15 gun that deems it an assault rifle than JUST the fact it is semi-automatic.

PS: Heck that M4 that is depicted in the image is also known as a carbine because it is a short rifle that sacrifices maximum range for easier urban engagement than the old fashioned M16 does.

So is an AR-15 from Bob's guns an Assault Rifle? (yes or no is all you need here)

I guess so. It's pretty much the same gun as an M-16; it just can't be set to 3 round burst like the M16 can.

Please smack yourself in the forehead. "It's pretty much the same gun... except, derp, the one key feature it lacks that would distinguish it from every other semi automatic weapon." It's like saying your regular pencil is pretty much the same thing as a mechanical one except that it requires sharpening.

You can buy a semi auto M16. The only thing that makes a semi auto not fully auto is the firing pin. I don't even know what planet y'all live on.

Yes, but it's illegal to modify a weapon, and if you are going to do that, you could with most any semi auto. But as I said, there are already laws against it. or do you think more laws would make people follow them better? (Murder is also illegal, even if you use a brick)