Meaningful talk of gun control

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
we, gun owners, have made concessions every decade (except 2) of the entire 20th century without ANY productive results, why should we concede any further ?


I agree, but I'll take it a step further and say that not only are these laws ineffective, but the other side doesn't negotiate in good faith, anyway. They have absolutely no intention of stopping at whatever they propose in a few weeks. No, the end game for them is a full gun ban. This is all about taking incremental steps in that direction.

Nah, I wouldn't concede. Hell, I'd argue that the antis in Congress are already running up the white flag by pushing it off to the next Congressional session when they had initially wanted to push for something by the end of last week.
edit on 25-12-2012 by vor78 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


NO, I don't think a curious kid needs to die because he was snooping. I think if the weapons were locked properly, there will be no way to have access to them.


You mean like how a bank stores the money properly yet thieves still manage to rob them?



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Here is one for $350. It holds 12 rifles. A combination lock is enough to protect your weapons. Sure you could use a torch or grinder to get in, but all of those options take time and planning. Most criminals would rather take the easy route and just find stuff that is out in the open.

I seriously don't comprehend why people are opposed to being responsible. What world do your folks live in?



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by yourmaker
 


no, actually, I mean like how a kid could break into a locked closet with a butter knife, but could not break into a combination locked safe without the combination.

Clear enough?



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by yourmaker
 


no, actually, I mean like how a kid could break into a locked closet with a butter knife, but could not break into a combination locked safe without the combination.

Clear enough?


A circular saw could cut through the front door of most safes on the market and pry bar will peel that cut wide open.

Safes are very far from secure. Especially the way so many people keep them in their garages right next to the power tools.

True enough that some junkie looking for quick crap to pawn probably wont bother.

A lot of burglaries are done by acquaintances or people who know you have something specific that they want.

I have several safes and I'm under no illusion that my collection is somehow protected from thieves. I have the safes primarily for protection from fire damage. There are a lot of heirlooms in them.

If loose lips or casing eyes turn some thieves onto what I have no safe is going to keep them out.

They may offer some fire protection, keep nosey kids out and maybe even cover your ass in liability claims but they wont keep thieves out.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Here in CT, you are required to attend the 2-day firearms safety course before you can buy a license. You must have a CT license as a CT resident before you can purchase a firearm.

"well regulated" in 18th century speak means "well trained", not merely controlled by a govt entity over who gets a firearm or not. It implies every able bodied male is required to have a firearm and be well trained in its use. It's the colonial days equivalent of the modern day draft-in-standby mode, only every male must attend bootcamp and be nearly a reservist.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by yourmaker
 


no, actually, I mean like how a kid could break into a locked closet with a butter knife, but could not break into a combination locked safe without the combination.

Clear enough?

Nor does it matter if you break down the guns into 2 components and lock the two components in different places, using different keys or combinations for each locking place. Ammo is very dangerous for young males wanting to see what happens when they take it outside and smash it with a rock to make it blow up.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Honor93
 


Here is one for $350. It holds 12 rifles. A combination lock is enough to protect your weapons. Sure you could use a torch or grinder to get in, but all of those options take time and planning. Most criminals would rather take the easy route and just find stuff that is out in the open.

I seriously don't comprehend why people are opposed to being responsible. What world do your folks live in?

why ??
like i asked before, is the stock declining or what ?

you, nor the government, nor any piece of legislation can FORCE me to buy anything.
good luck with that one.

and no, i won't be 'buying' health insurance either.
do you really think the entire safe couldn't be removed by a willful thief or a group of them ?

dude, i've seen ATM machines pulled out of a cement block wall in minutes ... sorry, but it is your fantasy that i'm not buying.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Well then, good luck to you. No health insurance? That's like gambling with your entire future. I hope you win. I truly do.

I just proposed a few ideas that might make a difference and wouldn't erode the 2nd amendment.

If you think Joe Dumbass with no training should be able to purchase a weapon, and leave it on his dining room table while he goes to work, then I guess you have different standards than I do. I just hope you don't live anywhere near NC.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

They may offer some fire protection, keep nosey kids out and maybe even cover your ass in liability claims but they wont keep thieves out.


And isn't that all we can really ask for?

I am only suggesting common sense things. Lock up the weapons in a safe place where kids cannot get to them. Sure a determined criminal will always get what he is after eventually.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by tkwasny
 


Not exactly true.

The permit is required for handguns and is a way to get around the two week wait required when purchasing long guns but it is not required to purchase long guns.

As far as the pointless two-day class goes I wouldnt parade around using terms like "well-regulated" just because you sat through a few hours of "this is a gun" tripe.

Im an NRA instructor and when I lived in that god forsaken cesspool of a state I taught that pointless class.

Here's the outline: NRA Basic Pistol Outline PDF

The best part about these absurd requirements imposed by an ignorant bureaucracy is that I could have hundreds of hours of force on force and other tactical training under my belt but because I didnt get a certificate from some price gouging drunk that says I know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of I wouldnt qualify for the state permit.

I say price gouging because these thieves would charge people $150-$250 for this idiotic course a monkey could pass. When I taught it I didnt charge anything and the other instructors in the state hated me for it.

A lot of these people who want to carry live in poor neighborhoods ruled by crime. They cant afford to drop half a weeks pay and take 16 hours off of work. A gun for protection shouldnt be some class exclusive luxury.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 

didn't say i had none but i'm not buying what the govt is selling.
nor can i be forced to, however, apparently someone else is being forced to pay for it ...
thank you ?

yes it does erode the right to ownership, possession, exercise of said right.
not even couting the inevitable delays that invite extreme danger unto the same ppl guns were designed to protect and that which the 2nd explicitly forbids.

if you don't believe that is 'infringement', perhaps you need to brush up on your definition of the word.

i was when i first shopped for one.
i learned, i rented, i learned more, then i bought.
caveat emptor, remember?

do you teach kids how to ride a horse before they mount one ?
some do, some don't ... what makes guns so different ?

most gun buyers, have some experience before they even begin to shop.
except when prompted as an emergent need such as lately.

besides, who are you to say who is or is not Joe Dumbass ?
we already have rules like you suggested in place, clearly, they DON'T WORK as intended,

so, you're suggestion is to make more of the same that we already know doesn't work
... why


we used to keep our rifles on the wall, in the pickup truck, in the garage under a bench, on the boat and wherever else one was needed ... gators don't show many preferences in their prey.

close enough but thankfully where freedom still reigns and over a million ppl are licensed to carry their weapons every day ... and one may ask, where's the excess violence ?
in gun free zones.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
do you teach kids how to ride a horse before they mount one ?
some do, some don't ... what makes guns so different ?



You can fall off a horse and live, being shot tends to not be so forgiving.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude

You can fall off a horse and live, being shot tends to not be so forgiving.


It's not some magic instant death either. Not by a long shot.


#6. Getting Shot Is Only Fatal 5 Percent of the Time (If You Get to a Doctor)

Read more: www.cracked.com...

As long as your heart is still beating once they wheel you into the hospital, there is a 95 percent chance of survival.




posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 
These ideas you have are not what I call "meaningfull talk". All of these measures could well be used to subvert the right to keep as well as other areas of the constitution. Consider that Mr School Shooter was well trained in weapons use. As well for all we know at this point he may have shot his mother to gain control of the weapons.....say by taking the key to the safe. It also indicates that he knew it was wrong for him to take the guns and he knew his mother would try to stop him.

The only measure I would support would be for mental health people to be sure and inform the guardians of the mental of the dangers of having gun around the home. Show some documentaion of instruction to the guardian of to the person in question.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Honor93
 


Here is one for $350. It holds 12 rifles. A combination lock is enough to protect your weapons. Sure you could use a torch or grinder to get in, but all of those options take time and planning. Most criminals would rather take the easy route and just find stuff that is out in the open.

I seriously don't comprehend why people are opposed to being responsible. What world do your folks live in?


Actually that one has a UL rating of "security container." It isn't really a safe. It is a two piece construction design that can be "peeled" in less than three minutes. A pair of burglars with crow bars could pry it loose from the floor and be gone in no time. It really isn't very safe at all.

I remember watching a Discovery show called "It Takes A Thief" where the burglars did just that. The gun "safe" was inside of a locked closet. They broke in to the closet, ripped the safe loose, and took the whole cabinet out of the house. The "safe" actually made it easier to carry all of the guns out.

Nobody is saying "don't lock up your stuff." We are saying that what you are suggesting adds unnecessary cost. It is prohibitive and chills the ability of the lower income individual to exercise their second amendment rights. We are also saying that gun owners are already effectively doing this without buying in to expensive equipment that doesn't truly add substantial security.

If it took you six months to buy your first gun, how long did it take you to buy the safe? Did you buy it and then wait to buy the gun, or did you buy the gun first?

You just seem to be completely unwilling to understand the other side. I don't have a $400 "safe." You would be hard pressed to find my guns and if you do they are also behind a lock. The total cost was less than $60. A thrift store and a bit of ingenuity go a long way.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81

I remember watching a Discovery show called "It Takes A Thief" where the burglars did just that. The gun "safe" was inside of a locked closet. They broke in to the closet, ripped the safe loose, and took the whole cabinet out of the house. The "safe" actually made it easier to carry all of the guns out.




Score 1 for simply keeping your mouth shut. Those thieves in that show knew what they were after.

Another huge reason why that paper publishing all the gun owners names and addresses screwed up royally.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


Actually the survival is 70% - 90% depending on which sources you believe. Having worked around a hospital emergency room in the past I would hazard a guess that 90% is a very likely number. Guns aren't instant death rays.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


My first and in fact, all handguns came with a cable lock. Which is still an acceptable locking method.
I bought a fireproof file cabinet for about $60 to store my ammo in. If you are smart, you can get deals, but for the rich lazy folks, you can just go buy a big ass safe.

Don't worry, nobody is going to do anything about my suggestions, they will either do nothing, or flat out ban "assault" weapons. Your guns are still safe in the sock drawer.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


NO, I don't think a curious kid needs to die because he was snooping. I think if the weapons were locked properly, there will be no way to have access to them.


So you would hold a law abiding citizen responsible for the actions of a criminal and thief but not enable him to enact any and all security measures to prevent said theft? How about this: crucify the criminals. (Not necessarily literally, but that would not be a bad idea either.) Steal a firearm? Life in prison with hard labor perhaps? The problem with our society is that we do not put the onus where it belongs: the criminal. That nut who shot the two firemen recently? Paroled early after being conviceted for murdering his own grandmother. That is the real problem.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join