Locked door? Locked container? Locked WTF?!

[TReischl]

Oh boy! Fresh meat!

Have you really followed this case? Do you understand how fracked up the laws are in this state? How unnecessary?

The only thing he did wrong was try to comply in a Nazi city in a retarded state.

I read the facts of the case, did you? And yes, I completely understand how "fracked up" the laws in this state are, considering I come from a state that is not "fracked up". However, the laws are the laws until they are changed. Because someone disagrees with a law does not give them the right to violate that law. We have the all sorts of rights within our form of government to work to change any laws we do not like.

It is also obvious that you know very little about Nazis, or you would not be so quick to label an entire city "Nazi". Do you think calling a city government "Nazi" is going to help improve the image of gun owners? Do you think gun owners are the only people who read this forum?

BTW, Ol' Parzick could not even bother to buy a few trigger locks so that he was in compliance with the law.

Section 131L.
(a) It shall be unlawful to store or keep any firearm, rifle or shotgun including, but not limited to, large capacity weapons, or machine gun in any place unless such weapon is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user. For purposes of this section, such weapon shall not be deemed stored or kept if carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user

Parzick also did not notify the Police of the theft of his guns, the boy's Mother had to do it. What was with that? By law he was supposed to report the theft.

I am only guessing here, but something tells me ol' Parzick is not a squeeky clean type of citizen. But hey, it is more fun to just read to highlights of how the Police stormed in with their hobnailed boots and kicked poor little Parzick around, and then took him to the kangaroo court and did him dirt, right?

 

[jasons]

Given what's going on in the Lowell case, it's not hard to understand why someone would be reluctant to report a stolen gun.

And you don't nessecsrily need trigger locks to be compliant with the letter of the law.

 

[M1911]

Given what's going on in the Lowell case, it's not hard to understand why someone would be reluctant to report a stolen gun.

Yup.

And you don't nessecsrily need trigger locks to be compliant with the letter of the law.

No trigger locks on the guns in my safe.

 

[TReischl]

So, if there was nobody who actually violated property rights and stole his guns, what harm did he do to another?

That is like "A tree falls in the woods and no one is around, does it actually make a sound?"

If I leave my keys in my truck, does it become my fault if some criminal steals my truck and drives it through a house?

Yup, you will find yourself standing in a courtroom. Worse, you will discover that your insurance will not cover you either. That is the case in every state that I am aware of in the country. You have an obligation to reasonably secure your vehicles against unauthorized use.It is not "your fault" per se, but you will find yourself responsible in part for damages the criminal caused. The concept being that you "enabled" the theft. You may not like it, you may think it is crazy, but you will pay anyhow because the vast majority of people in this country think you should lock your vehicle up when you are not in it.

Does the criminal that stole and the proceeded to use the vehicle for violent purposes hold any blame?

Yup. He does not even have to have "violent purposes", just a good old joy ride that ends in a crash. Your neighbors kid, for example. But you can bet that when they sue for damages, they are going to go for whoever has the deepest pockets.

You say you are not "anti-gun" (whatever that means) but are you anti-reason? Or if the state legislates that 2+2=5 and the courts agree, do you step in line and convince yourself that its so?

Not being "anti-gun" means that I am for citizens being able to own and carry guns for lawful purposes. Those purposes being sporting, defense, etc. Local or state governments should not be overriding the Federal laws concerning gun ownership or writing legislation that limits our rights under the second ammendment.

Are you anti-reason? A reasonable person would understand that in the case of Parzik, there was a lot more going on than a simple case of a City trampling on someone's rights. You keep missing the fact he never received his FID and never followed up on it, yet he knew he was supposed to have one. Knowing he was supposed to have a FID means he knew about the laws in this state, he never bothered to secure his weapons to be in compliance. When they were stolen, HE did not report them stolen, the boy's MOTHER did.

So how about you adding up 1+1=2 and figuring out that Parzik was not the innocent victim?

Yanno, some of this reminds of raising teenagers. "I don't like your rules!, they are STUPID!" Sometimes, the kid is right, they are stupid. But, when they are in your house, they have to follow your rules, like it or not. Unless they can figure out a way to get you to change them.

What is law, is rarely what is true.

Huh? What is law, is law. Exactly which laws are not "true"? Laws against murder? robbery? rape? speeding? running red lights? driving without a license?

 

[xtry51]

Please define tamper resistant for me.

OK, now tell me if you think any trigger or cable lock that's sold with a gun is actually tamper resistant.

Point is when police and prosecutors want to make your life hell they will. You need only look at the guy who had a vault room robbed and then had the rest of his guns seized.

Nazis is a spot on definition. Only instead of Jews we now have gun owners, i.e. "Domestic Terrorists". Hitler could only have dreamed of such a broad definition to round people up.

 

[xtry51]

baaaa baaaa baaaaaa

I helped you shorten up that argument there.

It's clear from your argument you're not actually for gun ownership at all. What you appear to support is blind following of the law. There's a lot of Germans who thought that way too 70 years ago. Keep up the good work.

 

[HTRN]

That is like "A tree falls in the woods and no one is around, does it actually make a sound?"



Yup, you will find yourself standing in a courtroom. Worse, you will discover that your insurance will not cover you either. That is the case in every state that I am aware of in the country. You have an obligation to reasonably secure your vehicles against unauthorized use.It is not "your fault" per se, but you will find yourself responsible in part for damages the criminal caused. The concept being that you "enabled" the theft. You may not like it, you may think it is crazy, but you will pay anyhow because the vast majority of people in this country think you should lock your vehicle up when you are not in it.



Yup. He does not even have to have "violent purposes", just a good old joy ride that ends in a crash. Your neighbors kid, for example. But you can bet that when they sue for damages, they are going to go for whoever has the deepest pockets.




Not being "anti-gun" means that I am for citizens being able to own and carry guns for lawful purposes. Those purposes being sporting, defense, etc. Local or state governments should not be overriding the Federal laws concerning gun ownership or writing legislation that limits our rights under the second ammendment.

Are you anti-reason? A reasonable person would understand that in the case of Parzik, there was a lot more going on than a simple case of a City trampling on someone's rights. You keep missing the fact he never received his FID and never followed up on it, yet he knew he was supposed to have one. Knowing he was supposed to have a FID means he knew about the laws in this state, he never bothered to secure his weapons to be in compliance. When they were stolen, HE did not report them stolen, the boy's MOTHER did.

So how about you adding up 1+1=2 and figuring out that Parzik was not the innocent victim?

Yanno, some of this reminds of raising teenagers. "I don't like your rules!, they are STUPID!" Sometimes, the kid is right, they are stupid. But, when they are in your house, they have to follow your rules, like it or not. Unless they can figure out a way to get you to change them.



Huh? What is law, is law. Exactly which laws are not "true"? Laws against murder? robbery? rape? speeding? running red lights? driving without a license?

The wrongdoing is not that someone didn't get proper "permission" from the state to exercise a natural right, but that someone trespassed against this guy, and he had his property rights violated.

Blaming the victim is a very easy method for statists to further the control of the state, outside of reason.

The state grants no rights for this guy to own firearms, that exists from his very humanity. The state is currently unreasonably restricting everyone's natural rights by requiring any background checks, or licensing of any sort.

If I were in this jury, I would nullify.

As for the teenage kids, if I ever used such an unreasoned argument such as "my house, my rules" I would expect a total loss of respect from my kids. If I can't show them how I'm helping them maintain their rights, or protecting them from harm, I would expect my argument to be disregarded.

Now, by using first principles and logic (reason is the combination of the two) and never trying to pass off a contradiction as true, I have earned the utmost respect from my children.

They also see the state as the fallacy that it is.


For your example if a fallacy in law:

First principle: Stealing is wrong and a violation of the property rights of another (exists absent any state)
Law: With the power of law, and the violent enforcement thereof, the state may directly steal a portion of wages of every individual as is arbitrarily determined to be "appropriate."

The key here is that theft is universally a civil right violation (wrong), and is still a violation even when the state does it. But the "law" deems it to be good.

 

[JAYNOSE79]

- - - Updated - - -

This thread could possibly cheer me up today.

 

[TReischl]

The wrongdoing is not that someone didn't get proper "permission" from the state to exercise a natural right, but that someone trespassed against this guy, and he had his property rights violated.

Blaming the victim is a very easy method for statists to further the control of the state, outside of reason.

The state grants no rights for this guy to own firearms, that exists from his very humanity. The state is currently unreasonably restricting everyone's natural rights by requiring any background checks, or licensing of any sort.

If I were in this jury, I would nullify.

As for the teenage kids, if I ever used such an unreasoned argument such as "my house, my rules" I would expect a total loss of respect from my kids. If I can't show them how I'm helping them maintain their rights, or protecting them from harm, I would expect my argument to be disregarded.

Now, by using first principles and logic (reason is the combination of the two) and never trying to pass off a contradiction as true, I have earned the utmost respect from my children.

They also see the state as the fallacy that it is.


For your example if a fallacy in law:

First principle: Stealing is wrong and a violation of the property rights of another (exists absent any state)
Law: With the power of law, and the violent enforcement thereof, the state may directly steal a portion of wages of every individual as is arbitrarily determined to be "appropriate."

The key here is that theft is universally a civil right violation (wrong), and is still a violation even when the state does it. But the "law" deems it to be good.

WOW! Nowhere in this fabulous rebuttal do I see one mention of anyone have any "responsibility" for what they do, just a lot of "rights". Your argument also assumes that everyone listens to "principles and logic" and responds accordingly (fortunately for you, your kids do, congratulations on raising a fine family, sincerely). However, not everyone is so lucky and their offspring do not respect the property rights of others so willingly.

With your "logic" we should all be able to leave our homes wide open, never lock our vehicles up, leave guns laying around fully loaded, catch a bus down to Cambridge, join hands and all start singing "Kumbaya". All we have to do is follow your advice! Raise our kids right and get rid of these bothersome States who are "stealing" a portion of our wages.

 

[xtry51]

WOW! Nowhere in this fabulous rebuttal do I see one mention of anyone have any "responsibility" for what they do, just a lot of "rights". Your argument also assumes that everyone listens to "principles and logic" and responds accordingly (fortunately for you, your kids do, congratulations on raising a fine family, sincerely). However, not everyone is so lucky and their offspring do not respect the property rights of others so willingly.

With your "logic" we should all be able to leave our homes wide open, never lock our vehicles up, leave guns laying around fully loaded, catch a bus down to Cambridge, join hands and all start singing "Kumbaya". All we have to do is follow your advice! Raise our kids right and get rid of these bothersome States who are "stealing" a portion of our wages.

I'm confused. Are you saying we shouldn't be able to leave our doors unlocked? Apparently you've been missing out on a large portion of the country where people own guns and never lock the door.

 

[TReischl]

I helped you shorten up that argument there.

It's clear from your argument you're not actually for gun ownership at all. What you appear to support is blind following of the law. There's a lot of Germans who thought that way too 70 years ago. Keep up the good work.

Well, if I was not for gun ownership, would you care to explain what the LTC-A is doing in my wallet? The vault with weapons in it is doing in my home? The 4-5 days I go to the range? And the trap shooting I do every week? Yup, by all that is Holy, I must be against gun ownership! No one else should have any guns except me. Oh, and my wife, she likes to shoot, too. And the guys down at the range, too. What the heck, everyone should be able to have guns, as long as they meet the requirements spelled out by the Feds, but wait, didn't I say that in the post you responded to? I did, guess you don't read too well, huh?

Or maybe you are one of those GUN NUTS that thinks ANYONE should be able to have a gun NO MATTER WHAT. Why shouldn't a felon have a gun? Hey, the parole board said they were ok to let back into society, right? Who the heck is the government to so no to anyone? Ooops, the government is all of us. Are you one of those GUN NUTS that just blindly thinks anytime anyone has a run in with the law over guns the law must somehow be wrong? No wonder the Anti Gun Nuts think we are all Nuts.

See, I really don't need your help shortening up my arguments. By the way, it was not 70 years ago that the problem started in Germany. 2012-70= 1942. The problem started in the late 20's and early 30's, way before 1942, I know, my Grandparents fled Germany in 1935, and they were not even Jewish.

 

[JAYNOSE79]

WOW! Nowhere in this fabulous rebuttal do I see one mention of anyone have any "responsibility" for what they do, just a lot of "rights". Your argument also assumes that everyone listens to "principles and logic" and responds accordingly (fortunately for you, your kids do, congratulations on raising a fine family, sincerely). However, not everyone is so lucky and their offspring do not respect the property rights of others so willingly.

With your "logic" we should all be able to leave our homes wide open, never lock our vehicles up, leave guns laying around fully loaded, catch a bus down to Cambridge, join hands and all start singing "Kumbaya". All we have to do is follow your advice! Raise our kids right and get rid of these bothersome States who are "stealing" a portion of our wages.

You sound like are you siding with someone who STOLE someones property, turning the victim into the criminal.

 

[M1911]

Why don't we all calm down and leave out the emotions, the name calling, and the overblown strawman arguments.

If some scumbag breaks into my house and steals my gun, whether it is "secured" or not, the guy who did something wrong is the scumbag, not me because my gun wasn't "secured" enough.

For example, suppose I put a combination trigger lock on my guns and put them in my closet. That is perfectly legal according to MA law. But any scumbag who breaks in and steals them can get that combination lock off within 15 minutes.

Now suppose that I put the guns in my closet without a trigger lock and a scumbag breaks in and steals them. What is the practical difference? In both situations the scumbag has stolen the guns and is able to use them. In both cases I would be the victim of a crime. The only difference is that in the first situation the state won't punish me but in the the second situation the state will punish me.

This is a classic malum prohibitum law -- the act (storing "unsecured" guns) is unlawful solely because of the law, not because the act violates some moral standards. There are only two people in my house -- my wife and I. We don't have any children and we don't have any relatives who bring children to visit. Both my wife and I have LTCs. So who would we be hurting by leaving a gun unsecured in our home? No one.

 

[TReischl]

Nope, not siding with the criminal who stole the guns. But as a gun owners, we do have a responsibility to see to it that our guns do not easily fall into the wrong hands.

Your "victim" was a victim, but the fact is, a person can be victim and be breaking the law at the same time. Example, you have heroin all over your dining room table, guy breaks in, steals your TV. You call the police. Are the police supposed to ignore the heroin all over your dining room table?

 

[TReischl]

M1911, gotta sympathize with ya completly, my wife and I are in EXACTLY the same boat. I think the law is RIDICULOUS. The farthest fetched justification I have heard for it is this. We somehow forget to lock our door, 6 year old neighborhood kid wanders in, finds gun, figures out how to load one of them, ....... What pure HOOOOOEY!!!!!!!!

 

[JAYNOSE79]

Nope, not siding with the criminal who stole the guns. But as a gun owners, we do have a responsibility to see to it that our guns do not easily fall into the wrong hands.

Your "victim" was a victim, but the fact is, a person can be victim and be breaking the law at the same time. Example, you have heroin all over your dining room table, guy breaks in, steals your TV. You call the police. Are the police supposed to ignore the heroin all over your dining room table?

That is a ridiculous argument. Really? That's the argument you used? WOW!

 

[xtry51]

Well, if I was not for gun ownership, would you care to explain what the LTC-A is doing in my wallet? The vault with weapons in it is doing in my home? The 4-5 days I go to the range? And the trap shooting I do every week? Yup, by all that is Holy, I must be against gun ownership! No one else should have any guns except me. Oh, and my wife, she likes to shoot, too. And the guys down at the range, too. What the heck, everyone should be able to have guns, as long as they meet the requirements spelled out by the Feds, but wait, didn't I say that in the post you responded to? I did, guess you don't read too well, huh?

Or maybe you are one of those GUN NUTS that thinks ANYONE should be able to have a gun NO MATTER WHAT. Why shouldn't a felon have a gun? Hey, the parole board said they were ok to let back into society, right? Who the heck is the government to so no to anyone? Ooops, the government is all of us. Are you one of those GUN NUTS that just blindly thinks anytime anyone has a run in with the law over guns the law must somehow be wrong? No wonder the Anti Gun Nuts think we are all Nuts.

See, I really don't need your help shortening up my arguments. By the way, it was not 70 years ago that the problem started in Germany. 2012-70= 1942. The problem started in the late 20's and early 30's, way before 1942, I know, my Grandparents fled Germany in 1935, and they were not even Jewish.

You're for gun ownership as long as it's not illegal. Based on your previous argument I'm fairly sure that if they passed a law banning your shotgun for trap you'd hand it over since "That's the law".

Owning guns does not make you a supporter of natural rights. It's clear from your statement you're much more concerned with obeying the state than you are with real freedom.

 

[TReischl]

I'm confused. Are you saying we shouldn't be able to leave our doors unlocked? Apparently you've been missing out on a large portion of the country where people own guns and never lock the door.

I grew up in a part of the country where you could leave your doors unlocked and go away for a week and everything would be there when you got back. In fact, a neighbor lady might leave you a pie if she knew when you were coming home. The times have changed, if you THINK that drugs and theft have not moved out into the back woods, you are delusional, they are everywhere, even in a town of 100 people.

Yea, it would be nice to be able to leave them unlocked, but that is just not the real world anymore.

 

[jasons]

Example, you have heroin all over your dining room table, guy breaks in, steals your TV. You call the police. Are the police supposed to ignore the heroin all over your dining room table?

Yes. Why should the government care about what substances I, or any other free person, put into my own body?

Or maybe you are one of those GUN NUTS that thinks ANYONE should be able to have a gun NO MATTER WHAT. Why shouldn't a felon have a gun? Hey, the parole board said they were ok to let back into society, right? Who the heck is the government to so no to anyone? Ooops, the government is all of us. Are you one of those GUN NUTS that just blindly thinks anytime anyone has a run in with the law over guns the law must somehow be wrong? No wonder the Anti Gun Nuts think we are all Nuts.

I am one of those "gun nuts" who thinks that "felons" should have the same rights as anyone else once they've paid their debt to society. If we can't trust them to be citizens, we shouldn't let them out of prison.

Of course a large percentage of "felons" earn the title because they don't comply with our government's misguided and out-of-bounds malum prohibitum laws in the first place, but that's another argument.

...my Grandparents fled Germany in 1935, and they were not even Jewish.

How very brave of them.

 

[TReischl]

You're for gun ownership as long as it's not illegal. Based on your previous argument I'm fairly sure that if they passed a law banning your shotgun for trap you'd hand it over since "That's the law".

Owning guns does not make you a supporter of natural rights. It's clear from your statement you're much more concerned with obeying the state than you are with real freedom.

I would not "hand over" my shotgun, I would get it out of this state.

From what I have read of your idea of "real freedom" and "natural rights", it appears to smack of anarchy, no thanks.

 

[xtry51]

I grew up in a part of the country where you could leave your doors unlocked and go away for a week and everything would be there when you got back. In fact, a neighbor lady might leave you a pie if she knew when you were coming home. The times have changed, if you THINK that drugs and theft have not moved out into the back woods, you are delusional, they are everywhere, even in a town of 100 people.

Yea, it would be nice to be able to leave them unlocked, but that is just not the real world anymore.

It would help if you had truthful facts to backup your arguments. I know plenty of people who have never locked their doors and probably wouldn't even have a clue where the keys were if they wanted to.

Nice try with the whole "war on drugs" though. I'm sure the police state loves you buying into the idea that we somehow had a raging drug problem in this country yet it still managed to survive 175 years without a single federal law on drugs. I mean it's amazing our Founding Fathers were able to do anything between all the cocaine and pot everyone was using on a daily basis

- - - Updated - - -

I would not "hand over" my shotgun, I would get it out of this state.

From what I have read of your idea of "real freedom" and "natural rights", it appears to smack of anarchy, no thanks.

Thank you for proving my argument for me. And what happens if that ban was Federal and not state based? Maybe they just add all shotguns to the ATF destructive device list.

 

[HTRN]

We somehow forget to lock our door, 6 year old neighborhood kid wanders in, finds gun, figures out how to load one of them, ....... What pure HOOOOOEY!!!!!!!!

Responsibility, where are those parents? Why is a six year old out without supervision? Why does he think trespassing is okay? At six, my kids certainly know and understand property rights, and would not trespass.

Is it necessary for me to lock up my propane? my chainsaw? my screwdrivers?

You speak of responsibility, but not once mention the responsibility that the individual has that is willfully violating someone's rights!

I should keep my shit locked up, because there are dishonest people in this world, and locks keep honest people honest. My insurance rates may be affected if I am a higher risk. But in no case should anyone be responsible for the actions of another even if they hack someone up with my axe that they stole.

Guns are not some mystical power! They are simple tools that achieve the work that the user intends. Just like a screwdriver, or a pick up truck.

We as gun owners need to fix this stupid image that Hollywood AND the NRA has perpetrated about guns.

I would not "hand over" my shotgun, I would get it out of this state.

From what I have read of your idea of "real freedom" and "natural rights", it appears to smack of anarchy, no thanks.

OH NO!!! How could we ever be trusted to interact appropriately with one another if there were no rulers!!

 

[xtry51]

Oh and BTW, my Great Gandparents were Polish and got out after Hilter invaded. So I've got plenty of first hand experience given to me directly from those who survived and knew that any law abridging your right to defend yourself along with blind allegiance to the "Law" was a direct advancement towards what Nazi Germany became.

 

[glide]

I would not "hand over" my shotgun, I would get it out of this state.

From what I have read of your idea of "real freedom" and "natural rights", it appears to smack of anarchy, no thanks.

That's not how it will work. You either use it, or you hand it over.

 

[MisterHappy]

Nope, not siding with the criminal who stole the guns. But as a gun owners, we do have a responsibility to see to it that our guns do not easily fall into the wrong hands.

Your "victim" was a victim, but the fact is, a person can be victim and be breaking the law at the same time. Example, you have heroin all over your dining room table, guy breaks in, steals your TV. You call the police. Are the police supposed to ignore the heroin all over your dining room table?

Re the part in red: Please give a definition of what you woudl consider to be adequate.

As to your example....do they still investigate the TV theft, or would you give them a pass, because of the H on the table?

 

[M1911]

Is it necessary for me to lock up my propane? my chainsaw? my screwdrivers?

Or my can of gasoline for the mower. My circular saw. Bleach. The dozen kitchen knives in the knife block on the counter.

There are many, many potentially hazardous tools in our homes that we see no reason to lock up. But for some reason, people think guns are different.

 

[MisterHappy]

It's because Guns are Icky (tm)

 

[TReischl]

Re the part in red: Please give a definition of what you woudl consider to be adequate.

As to your example....do they still investigate the TV theft, or would you give them a pass, because of the H on the table?

MisterHappy: People living in other states that do NOT have any requirement to lock their guns up buy safes to secure them from unauthorized use and/or theft. Others have a "secure" room. Depending on circumstances (where they live), all they feel is required is trigger locks to prevent a child from using them. Then, there are some, because no children ever enter their home, do not have any of the things I have mentioned.

My own viewpoint is that not locking them up at all is a bit foolish, even in the middle of nowhere, breakins do occur. Why make it easy for someone to make off with my guns? I do NOT agree with MASS gun laws on this issue. However, if a child does get injured using an unsecured handgun, I do agree with the owner getting the book thrown at them. I do NOT go along with the argument "Parents should teach their children, blah, blah, blah..." I was a kid once too, and I know for a FACT that I did not always do what my parents taught me. That argument is just to cover laziness on the part of an adult. If you want a gun around for self defense, then fine, it should be with you. If you leave it laying around somewhere else, it could be used against you.

The TV theft? Darn right they still go after the thief! A crime is a crime, period.

 

[TReischl]

Or my can of gasoline for the mower. My circular saw. Bleach. The dozen kitchen knives in the knife block on the counter.

There are many, many potentially hazardous tools in our homes that we see no reason to lock up. But for some reason, people think guns are different.

You might be surprised. You may not face criminal charges, but some of those things that you mention, if you are careless with them and they result in the injury of a child could cause you to wind up in courtroom in a civil case.

People think guns are different for good reason, they are built for exactly one purpose: to kill.

gasoline is not made to kill
circular saws are not made to kill
kitchen knives are not made to kill
bleach is not made to kill

They all CAN kill, but it is not their specific purpose.

 

[xtry51]

MisterHappy: People living in other states that do NOT have any requirement to lock their guns up buy safes to secure them from unauthorized use and/or theft. Others have a "secure" room. Depending on circumstances (where they live), all they feel is required is trigger locks to prevent a child from using them. Then, there are some, because no children ever enter their home, do not have any of the things I have mentioned.

My own viewpoint is that not locking them up at all is a bit foolish, even in the middle of nowhere, breakins do occur. Why make it easy for someone to make off with my guns? I do NOT agree with MASS gun laws on this issue. However, if a child does get injured using an unsecured handgun, I do agree with the owner getting the book thrown at them. I do NOT go along with the argument "Parents should teach their children, blah, blah, blah..." I was a kid once too, and I know for a FACT that I did not always do what my parents taught me. That argument is just to cover laziness on the part of an adult. If you want a gun around for self defense, then fine, it should be with you. If you leave it laying around somewhere else, it could be used against you.

The TV theft? Darn right they still go after the thief! A crime is a crime, period.

So it's your view that a child or bystander being shot by an unsecured gun is not punishment enough? Instead your recommendation is that we completely destroy the family by locking up the parents and making the children wards of the state?

Please explain to us all how that solution improves society.