Locked door? Locked container? Locked WTF?!

[TReischl]

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.

Oh good, let's see if I got this right?

Someone does not secure their gun.
Child gets it. Child being someone between the ages of 0-18.
Child shoots somone or myself dead or cripples someone or myself for life.

and someone or myself being shot is supposed to be punishment enough? WTF kind of thinking is THAT!

- - - Updated - - -

Oh good, let's see if I got this right?

Someone does not secure their gun.
Child gets it. Child being someone between the ages of 0-18.
Child shoots somone or myself dead or cripples someone or myself for life.

and someone or myself being shot is supposed to be punishment enough? WTF kind of thinking is THAT!

Replace "Child" in the above with "criminal" and explain how it all works while you are it.

 

[EC1]

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.

Hope this isn't your point of view.

 

[EC1]

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.

Regard to the highlighted, I also did not always do what my parents told me to do. However, when/if I got hurt because I didn't follow their instructions, it was my fault and they let me know about it in no uncertain terms.

 

[TReischl]

Hope this isn't your point of view.

Oh? What do YOU think guns are made for?

 

[EC1]

Oh? What do YOU think guns are made for?

End of discussion. No further need.

 

[TReischl]

Regard to the highlighted, I also did not always do what my parents told me to do. However, when/if I got hurt because I didn't follow their instructions, it was my fault and they let me know about it in no uncertain terms.

And rightly so, EC1. However, there are some here, who want to use the argument that THEY should be able to do whatever they want because parents should teach their children not to trespass, touch others property, etc. That is what I referring to. Great concept, but it does not work in the real world, children and everyone else for that matter, have free will and do all sorts of things they are not supposed to do. As you and I both admit to.

 

[TReischl]

End of discussion. No further need.

I may have been a bit hasty with my first answer, there are a few guns that are not built to kill. What comes to mind are target guns, purpose built guns for competition. However, even those guns are entirely capable of killing.

 

[jasons]

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

The Brady group called. They want their propaganda back.

Go troll somewhere else.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The real question is not "should an adult be responsible if a child gets access to their gun and hurts himself/herself/someone else?", but "should that responsibility be any different from that for the situation when a child gets access to any dangerous object (Rx drugs, edged tools, power tools, cleaning chemicals, etc) and caused harm?". Singling guns out as somehow "different" from any other small child inappropriate, dangerous, item is part of the demonization of firearms.

 

[JAYNOSE79]

well someone outed themselves something fierce!

 

[MisterHappy]

You never answered my question: What do YOU consider reasoanable. You've stated "if a child 0-18", and "handgun", speciffically. What is the specific minimum that would satisfy you.

 

[MisterHappy]

I may have been a bit hasty with my first answer, there are a few guns that are not built to kill. What comes to mind are target guns, purpose built guns for competition. However, even those guns are entirely capable of killing.

Hasty answers are the most honest.

 

[HTRN]

The real question is not "should an adult be responsible if a child gets access to their gun and hurts himself/herself/someone else?", but "should that responsibility be any different from that for the situation when a child gets access to any dangerous object (Rx drugs, edged tools, power tools, cleaning chemicals, etc) and caused harm?". Singling guns out as somehow "different" from any other small child inappropriate, dangerous, item is part of the demonization of firearms.

Thanks Rob,
This was my point exactly earlier in the thread. Also that the responsibility falls on the parent of the child to understand all potentially hazardous items in our world and how to handle them responsibly. We cannot guarantee that a child will behave exactly as we want them to if they are not with us, but we have to be responsible to teach our own children and arm them with the knowledge that they need to make appropriate choices through life.

 

[TReischl]

Originally Posted by TReischlPeople think guns are different for good reason, they are built for exactly one purpose: to kill

The Brady group called. They want their propaganda back.

Go troll somewhere else.

Not trolling, someone wrote that people viewed guns as being "different" from other hazardous things. I was explaining why they view them as being different from gasoline, chainsaws, etc. Guns are purpose built, yup, some are purpose built to target shoot, trap shoot, etc. But by and large they are built to do one thing and do it very well, kill. I do not have a problem with that, if I am going hunting, I want a rifle or shotgun that kills cleanly, if I am defending my life, l really want something that WORKS.

Just because I say gun owners have a duty to be responsible for their guns doesn't make me part of the Brady bunch. Some of the irresponsible gun owners have helped create the crazy laws in this state, some of THEM ought to think about THAT for a change.

 

[TReischl]

The real question is not "should an adult be responsible if a child gets access to their gun and hurts himself/herself/someone else?", but "should that responsibility be any different from that for the situation when a child gets access to any dangerous object (Rx drugs, edged tools, power tools, cleaning chemicals, etc) and caused harm?". Singling guns out as somehow "different" from any other small child inappropriate, dangerous, item is part of the demonization of firearms.

Rob, it is a bit difficult for a child to kill an adult with Rx drug, edged tools, cleaning chemicals, etc. Yea, it CAN be done, but nowhere as easily as it can be done as with a gun. That is why guns are put in a different category. When was the last time you heard of someone being killed by a child with a bottle of bleach or a hedge trimmer?

 

[HTRN]

Some of the irresponsible gun owners have helped create the crazy laws in this state, some of THEM ought to think about THAT for a change.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Some tragic incidents, most likely stemming from criminal intent and/or ignorance were likely used as EXCUSES to push totally BS laws in this state. But saying that "irresponsible gun owners have helped" is quite a far stretch.

Just because we live in a part of the country that historically has blamed inanimate objects for our woes (we in MA have come from a puritanical colony) doesn't mean that it is in any way reasonable.

Just look at our new ATV laws from two years ago. One sad accident, and our legislature goes full retard.

- - - Updated - - -

Rob, it is a bit difficult for a child to kill an adult with Rx drug, edged tools, cleaning chemicals, etc. Yea, it CAN be done, but nowhere as easily as it can be done as with a gun. That is why guns are put in a different category. When was the last time you heard of someone being killed by a child killing someone with a bottle of bleach or a hedge trimmer?

Your argument fails. A child that is playing in a car, or goes for a joy ride. This can be equally lethal.

 

[TReischl]

You never answered my question: What do YOU consider reasoanable. You've stated "if a child 0-18", and "handgun", speciffically. What is the specific minimum that would satisfy you.

I will address "handgun" first. I just typed that, since I type fairly fast, just read "gun".

As I stated, I think the laws in this state are not reasonable. Criminalizing someone is NOT the answer. All states have laws that will hold a person civilly liable for their actions if it results in the death or injury of another person. So, a PRUDENT person in another state, locks their guns up so they do not find themselves standing in a CIVIL courtroom being sued. Just like they do not leave their keys in their car in the driveway.

So there you have my minimums, the criminal laws about locking up your guns in this state should go away. Hope that answers your question.

BTW, just because there are criminal laws in this state, does not mean you will not be sued civilly if someone gets ahold of your guns and harms another person.

 

[TReischl]

Stupid is as stupid does.

Some tragic incidents, most likely stemming from criminal intent and/or ignorance were likely used as EXCUSES to push totally BS laws in this state. But saying that "irresponsible gun owners have helped" is quite a far stretch.

Just because we live in a part of the country that historically has blamed inanimate objects for our woes (we in MA have come from a puritanical colony) doesn't mean that it is in any way reasonable.

Just look at our new ATV laws from two years ago. One sad accident, and our legislature goes full retard.

- - - Updated - - -



Your argument fails. A child that is playing in a car, or goes for a joy ride. This can be equally lethal.

No, my argument does not fail, you leave your keys in a car with a child and it turns out to be fatal, and you will face criminal charges, just like with a gun.

I don't know anything about the ATV laws, so I have no idea what you are writing about. Looks like you are unhappy about them though.

 

[jasons]

No, my argument does not fail, you leave your keys in a car with a child and it turns out to be fatal, and you will face criminal charges, just like with a gun.

No, not just like a gun. We don't have car key storage laws.

In MA if you call the cops in to report a stolen whatever and they happen to see a rifle on your mantle without a trigger lock you go to jail. If they see your car keys hanging on a hook by the door nothing happens. It's the object (the gun) that's is demonized in MA, mostly because of people like you who perpetuate the "all guns are for killing" bullshit.

We have the concept of criminal negligence here, just like everywhere else. We also have gun storage laws just in case someone isn't actually negligent, but the state still wants to screw them. Behavior that's perfectly legal in about 45 other states is illegal in MA because the sheep (like you) think that "all guns are for killing."

Seriously, go troll somewhere else. Your skills are weak.

 

[HTRN]

No, my argument does not fail, you leave your keys in a car with a child and it turns out to be fatal, and you will face criminal charges, just like with a gun.

I don't know anything about the ATV laws, so I have no idea what you are writing about. Looks like you are unhappy about them though.

Is your first name Elmer by any chance?

 

[M1911]

Oh? What do YOU think guns are made for?

Many of my guns were specifically designed to make pretty little holes in paper.

 

[Racenet]

Not trolling, someone wrote that people viewed guns as being "different" from other hazardous things. I was explaining why they view them as being different from gasoline, chainsaws, etc. Guns are purpose built, yup, some are purpose built to target shoot, trap shoot, etc. But by and large they are built to do one thing and do it very well, kill. I do not have a problem with that, if I am going hunting, I want a rifle or shotgun that kills cleanly, if I am defending my life, l really want something that WORKS.

Just because I say gun owners have a duty to be responsible for their guns doesn't make me part of the Brady bunch. Some of the irresponsible gun owners have helped create the crazy laws in this state, some of THEM ought to think about THAT for a change.

 

[MisterHappy]

I will address "handgun" first. I just typed that, since I type fairly fast, just read "gun".

As I stated, I think the laws in this state are not reasonable. Criminalizing someone is NOT the answer. All states have laws that will hold a person civilly liable for their actions if it results in the death or injury of another person. So, a PRUDENT person in another state, locks their guns up so they do not find themselves standing in a CIVIL courtroom being sued. Just like they do not leave their keys in their car in the driveway.

So there you have my minimums, the criminal laws about locking up your guns in this state should go away. Hope that answers your question.

BTW, just because there are criminal laws in this state, does not mean you will not be sued civilly if someone gets ahold of your guns and harms another person.

You have no stated minumums, just the fallback of a "PRUDENT" person....whomever that may be.

Here's a pick list for you....tell us what is acceptable to you:

Doors to house unlocked, gun left unattended on a table, mag in, round in chamber
Doors to house locked, gun left unattended on a table, mag in, round in chamber
Doors to house locked, gun left unattended on a table, mag out, action open, mag on the table
Doors to house locked, gun left unattended on a table, mag out, action open, mag on the table, trigger lock engaged
Doors to house locked, gun left in an unlocked cabinet, mag in, round in chamber
Doors to house locked, gun left in an unlocked kitchen cabinet, mag in, round in chamber, trigger lock
Doors to house locked, gun left in an unlocked kitchencabinet, unloaded, trigger lock
Doors to house locked, gun left in an unlocked cabinet, mag in, round in chamber
.
.
.
.
Unloaded in a safe, with a trigger lock engaged.


OK. I'm tired of typing. You tell us what you consider to be "prudent". Not in compliannce with Mass "safe storage" laws, but "prudent."

As for a civil suit....if the gun was at the bottom of a well, filled with concrete, I'm sure that a lawyer can still be found to file suit....so let's not muddy the waters with that liability.

 

[xtry51]

Oh good, let's see if I got this right?

Someone does not secure their gun.
Child gets it. Child being someone between the ages of 0-18.
Child shoots somone or myself dead or cripples someone or myself for life.

and someone or myself being shot is supposed to be punishment enough? WTF kind of thinking is THAT!

- - - Updated - - -



Replace "Child" in the above with "criminal" and explain how it all works while you are it.

First my situation was based around a family incident, not around a separate party. Secondly I never said if a secondary party was injured there shouldn't be consequences. What I did say was the storage of the gun should not be what you are being punished for.

As stated above your POV is the same as criminalizing unsafe storage of car keys. You're blaming the object rather than the people causing the situation.

 

[MisterHappy]

First my situation was based around a family incident, not around a separate party. Secondly I never said if a secondary party was injured there shouldn't be consequences. What I did say was the storage of the gun should not be what you are being punished for.

As stated above your POV is the same as criminalizing unsafe storage of car keys. You're blaming the object rather than the people causing the situation.

No he's blaming the owner of the object for not preventing unauthorized use. The gun did not cause the ND, the owner that did not "prudently" store the gun so that it could not be used by unauthorized person(s) caused it. Or the car accident. Or whatever. Since he stated in a previous post that a "child" was 0-18 years old, a 17-year old that steals your car, or takes your gun, was not at fault - YOU should have taken better care.

 

[xtry51]

I define adult as when you are capable of creating children. If you're at the age you can bring life into the world you damn well should be responsible enough at that point to act like an adult. I'm not saying you should be living life without making mistakes, but you should damn well be smart enough not to shoot someone with a gun left lying around. We have a 13 year old and we don't talk to her like she's a being unable to fend for herself or not responsible for her own actions.

 

[TReischl]

You have no stated minumums, just the fallback of a "PRUDENT" person....whomever that may be.

Here's a pick list for you....tell us what is acceptable to you:

Doors to house unlocked, gun left unattended on a table, mag in, round in chamber
Doors to house locked, gun left unattended on a table, mag in, round in chamber
Doors to house locked, gun left unattended on a table, mag out, action open, mag on the table
Doors to house locked, gun left unattended on a table, mag out, action open, mag on the table, trigger lock engaged
Doors to house locked, gun left in an unlocked cabinet, mag in, round in chamber
Doors to house locked, gun left in an unlocked kitchen cabinet, mag in, round in chamber, trigger lock
Doors to house locked, gun left in an unlocked kitchencabinet, unloaded, trigger lock
Doors to house locked, gun left in an unlocked cabinet, mag in, round in chamber
.
.
.
.
Unloaded in a safe, with a trigger lock engaged.


OK. I'm tired of typing. You tell us what you consider to be "prudent". Not in compliannce with Mass "safe storage" laws, but "prudent."

As for a civil suit....if the gun was at the bottom of a well, filled with concrete, I'm sure that a lawyer can still be found to file suit....so let's not muddy the waters with that liability.

Nah, I am tired of typing, how about you stepping up to the plate and tell me what is acceptable behavior for a responsible adult?

 

[TReischl]

I define adult as when you are capable of creating children. If you're at the age you can bring life into the world you damn well should be responsible enough at that point to act like an adult. I'm not saying you should be living life without making mistakes, but you should damn well be smart enough not to shoot someone with a gun left lying around. We have a 13 year old and we don't talk to her like she's a being unable to fend for herself or not responsible for her own actions.

What YOU define as being an adult does not count. "Should be" does not matter either, they just aren't, no matter how much you wish they were.

but you should damn well be smart enough not to shoot someone with a gun left lying around

I am smart enough. The question is whether a CHILD is smart enough? Evidently most people do not agree with you (most people includes those who do not participate in these forums). Furthermore, it seems that a lot of people in this state think that folks who own guns in this state need to be told not to leave their guns lying around. Maybe that is not true, if it isn't, then you should get the law changed. We have not seen an uprising of residents marching on the State Assembly in a huge protest, have we? (I am sure someone will tell me that is because we live in a Nazi state and all the protesters would be sent off to the concentration camps in western Mass that are blanked out on Google Earth maps).

 

[jasons]

...what is acceptable behavior for a responsible adult?

It sure as hell isn't blindly following authority, but I guess that makes me an anarchist.

 

[TReischl]

Many of my guns were specifically designed to make pretty little holes in paper.

That's nice, none of my guns were made to make pretty little holes in paper. They will, but they were not designed to do that.

As you well know having read a few gun magazines, there are FAR more guns sold for self defense and hunting than are sold for "making pretty little holes in paper".

And, your "paper hole makers" will do a very nice job of putting holes in living things too, won't they? very accurately and precisely.

So let's not dance, huh?