-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Locked door? Locked container? Locked WTF?!
- Thread starter lord1234
- Start date
MisterHappy
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,462
- Likes
- 17,678
No. Don't duck the question.
You're the one that posted:
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.
I want to know what you define "secure" as.
It's simple.
I may even agree with you.
Oh....as for "responsible adult"....I'd say it's one that lets others do as they wish, unless it harms another. Not unless it has the potential to harm another.
Last edited:
Ok, fair enough. I do carry quite often. I do not leave my carry lying around the house. If it isn't with me, it gets locked up in a secure room along with my other weapons (you will see why later). The keys for that room are not hidden somewhere in the house or our property. The last thing I want to have happen is to come home and find out that a thief has found our "hidden" key and we are now looking at one of our weapons. Ammunition is not stored with weapons, for the same reason listed previously. We live in a pretty safe area, not a lot of crime. We are not worried about children gaining access to our guns because all our relatives live hundreds of miles away and we go to see them. We do not keep our weapons here when we leave for extended periods of time. That is because we do not want to lose them.
Our home was easy to set up to provide that "secure room" when we built it a few years ago. If we had not been able to do it, we would have purchased a safe. We may add a safe in the near future just to add another level of protection.
If you think about "security" a bit, there are some things you must do, and some things that are optional:
1. As a responsible adult, you must store your guns so that a child cannot easily gain access and use them. Even with no laws in place, if children were coming in and out of my home, I would at the very least install trigger lock on all my guns and make sure the ammunition was locked up in steel boxes in a separate place. That is only common sense.
2. I would at least lock up all my guns in some kind of box to try to prevent their theft. Law or no law. I do not need a bunch of guns around the house unsecured for "self defense". I only need one, others may disagree, but whatever you do not need, should be locked up. If you think you need several, just remember, those "extras" could become a liability at some point.
3. If you really value your guns, as I do, then you REALLY lock up your guns, you move them when you are going to go away for extended periods of time, etc.
That is "secure" for me. I have done what is reasonable and responsible. No one can just walk in here, or break in here and access a gun. But we can still defend ourselves. We have not set ourselves up to be shot with our own weapons.
Well, that is an interesting thought, but that is not the way a lot of people think about things that have the potential to harm others, here is how the thought process works.
Joe I Have No Money leaves his gun lying around. Jim T Dope dealer steals it and shoots Billy Nice Guy in a robbery.
People strangely feel that if Joe I Have No Money would have locked up his gun, ol' J.T Dope would not have been able to steal it so easily and shoot Billy Nice Guy. B.N.'s family want some payback for the loss of Billy. B.N.'s family is angry at everyone. They call a lawyer cause they want to sue Joe I Have No Money for being stupid and leaving his gun lying out where J.T. Dope could steal it. Lawyer tells them, forget it, Joe doesn't have any money. That is why Joe does whatever the heck he feels like, he never has anything to lose! So no payback for Joe being stupid.
So, now with potential criminal charges for leaving a gun unsecured, folks like Joe have a horse in the race. Or at least that is how the legislature thinks about it.
Hey, don't argue with me about it, I am not saying this is right or wrong, just how the thinking goes on stuff like this. Automobiles get treated this way too, at some point a person can have criminal charges levelled at them for various offenses.
MisterHappy
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,462
- Likes
- 17,678
An excellent, articulate answer.
Thank you.
All of your points are well reasoned, and buttressed by examples.
Some here will call "overkill" on some details, but that's cool. Your house, your rules.
As for your take on the stolen gun beinng used, and the potential fallout....no arguments. It may not be right, but it is reality.
Thank you.
All of your points are well reasoned, and buttressed by examples.
Some here will call "overkill" on some details, but that's cool. Your house, your rules.
As for your take on the stolen gun beinng used, and the potential fallout....no arguments. It may not be right, but it is reality.
Thanks MisterHappy.
I try to deal in reality, rather than in wishful thinking. I am not very happy with the way the 2nd ammendment has been trampled on in this state, or the whole country for that matter. When we moved here, I took a good look at the laws, said, OK, I do not have any choice, no point whining like a little snot nosed brat and went about getting what I needed so I could go about shooting and defending myself. I make sure I follow all the laws, I don't dance on the edge.
Meanwhile, I do spend time thinking about how to work on changing things for the better. I have come to some conclusions:
1. Screaming at liberal, dyed in the wool, anti gun politicians that you are being treated unfairly is a waste of time and oxygen.
2. Talking about "defending 2nd ammendments rights with guns" only makes gun owners look like gun toting lunatics. No one is going to surround the State House and demand that the laws be changed at gun point. It is just so much blather. The anti gun NUTS love it.
3. The way to work towards getting the laws changed is to work on the not so anti gun legislators who HAVE voted against pro gun legislation. The way to do that is by letting them that gun owners are responsible folks that want to make this state a safer place to live, that we want to help. An example is the famous storage container, "Mr/Ms Legislator, would you help us out by defining that container, we want to be responsible citizens, if a cloth bag or plastic box is not what you had in mind, just let us know! We would be more than happy to comply." The idea being to change the image of the gun owner from that of being a crazy nutjob to responsible citizen.
4. When you actually meet a politician, don't just dismiss them as someone you do not want to talk to. I had an opportunity last week at our gun club to talk to a democrat. We had a great conversation, I let him know that we work with the veterans, youth groups, etc. I gave him our basic demographic which is ordinary working people who happen to enjoy target shooting, trap shooting, etc. Not a bunch of "psychos" just dying to put a bullet in someone. We invited him to our social event that evening and he came to meet spouses, etc. He got his eyes open as to who the shooting public really is, VOTERS! I know, we shouldn't HAVE to sell ourselves, but remember, the antigun nuts are busily screaming everytime some whack job (who probably could not get an LTC) goes off the deep end.
5. Let the AntiGun NutJobs do the screaming and look like they are crazy. We need to be decent folks that people want to be friends with, not lunatics that run around talking about "its all a huge government conspiracy!" cause yanno what? it really isn't, and I say that, because the government by and large does very little right, what makes anyone think they could get a conspiracy this big right?
6. I just cringe everytime I read one of those articles in some magazine about which bullet is best for shooting a person. That sort of thing is what the AntiGunners use to say "See, they WANT to shoot someone and do the most damage they can!" Nevermind that the reason it is in the magazine is to help someone save their own life from a killer who is probably hopped up on some drug.
I have no problem thinking this way because all of the gun owners I have met actually are good people and are not going to attack the State House or anyone else for that matter. But if you DO want to launch an attack on the State House, you do it by writing to Reps and Senators, letting them know that you want them to vote for your rights, you let them know that you follow issues, that you will be happy to tell others to either vote for them, or against them and that you are not just sitting around complaining that you are outnumbered by liberals. Not all of those liberals are staunch antigunners, some have just been voting that way cause no one has told them not to. If they think a large number of folks want them to vote the other way, they will. Being a democrat does not mean someone is anti gun, duh.
I try to deal in reality, rather than in wishful thinking. I am not very happy with the way the 2nd ammendment has been trampled on in this state, or the whole country for that matter. When we moved here, I took a good look at the laws, said, OK, I do not have any choice, no point whining like a little snot nosed brat and went about getting what I needed so I could go about shooting and defending myself. I make sure I follow all the laws, I don't dance on the edge.
Meanwhile, I do spend time thinking about how to work on changing things for the better. I have come to some conclusions:
1. Screaming at liberal, dyed in the wool, anti gun politicians that you are being treated unfairly is a waste of time and oxygen.
2. Talking about "defending 2nd ammendments rights with guns" only makes gun owners look like gun toting lunatics. No one is going to surround the State House and demand that the laws be changed at gun point. It is just so much blather. The anti gun NUTS love it.
3. The way to work towards getting the laws changed is to work on the not so anti gun legislators who HAVE voted against pro gun legislation. The way to do that is by letting them that gun owners are responsible folks that want to make this state a safer place to live, that we want to help. An example is the famous storage container, "Mr/Ms Legislator, would you help us out by defining that container, we want to be responsible citizens, if a cloth bag or plastic box is not what you had in mind, just let us know! We would be more than happy to comply." The idea being to change the image of the gun owner from that of being a crazy nutjob to responsible citizen.
4. When you actually meet a politician, don't just dismiss them as someone you do not want to talk to. I had an opportunity last week at our gun club to talk to a democrat. We had a great conversation, I let him know that we work with the veterans, youth groups, etc. I gave him our basic demographic which is ordinary working people who happen to enjoy target shooting, trap shooting, etc. Not a bunch of "psychos" just dying to put a bullet in someone. We invited him to our social event that evening and he came to meet spouses, etc. He got his eyes open as to who the shooting public really is, VOTERS! I know, we shouldn't HAVE to sell ourselves, but remember, the antigun nuts are busily screaming everytime some whack job (who probably could not get an LTC) goes off the deep end.
5. Let the AntiGun NutJobs do the screaming and look like they are crazy. We need to be decent folks that people want to be friends with, not lunatics that run around talking about "its all a huge government conspiracy!" cause yanno what? it really isn't, and I say that, because the government by and large does very little right, what makes anyone think they could get a conspiracy this big right?
6. I just cringe everytime I read one of those articles in some magazine about which bullet is best for shooting a person. That sort of thing is what the AntiGunners use to say "See, they WANT to shoot someone and do the most damage they can!" Nevermind that the reason it is in the magazine is to help someone save their own life from a killer who is probably hopped up on some drug.
I have no problem thinking this way because all of the gun owners I have met actually are good people and are not going to attack the State House or anyone else for that matter. But if you DO want to launch an attack on the State House, you do it by writing to Reps and Senators, letting them know that you want them to vote for your rights, you let them know that you follow issues, that you will be happy to tell others to either vote for them, or against them and that you are not just sitting around complaining that you are outnumbered by liberals. Not all of those liberals are staunch antigunners, some have just been voting that way cause no one has told them not to. If they think a large number of folks want them to vote the other way, they will. Being a democrat does not mean someone is anti gun, duh.
You started the tango with the "designed to kill" stuff. Second, lose the arrogance and sarcasm.
With that out of the way, just what problem is it that you are trying to solve? Are you trying to solve accidental deaths with firearms? OK, let's see how many accidental firearms deaths there are in the US and if the rate is increasing or decreasing.
Sure seems like we are going in the right direction.
Let's look that the causes of deaths in the US:
So, three times as many people drown as accidentally die from firearms, and the number of people who die from accidental firearms injuries is rather small, 1,441, given our population of ~300M.
Now, let's look at your "solution". Do safe storage laws reduce accidental deaths?
From: http://johnrlott.tripod.com/whitney.pdf
So, there isn't much of a problem and your proposed solution doesn't solve that non-problem.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 412
- Likes
- 10
Question - these causes of death, are they non-intentional? I'm just curious if the firearms deaths include murder/self-defense/suicide by eating a gun or not.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Here's a clue. I don't give an damn what other people think, how many of them there are thinking it or what some lawmaker votes on. My children are smart enough and that's my only concern. If other people aren't going to teach their kids properly that's not my concern.
This is the best part of that whole "holier-than-thou" story he wrote.
"Look at me, how safe I am and I would never break the law"
Then you find out his wonderful rainbow and unicorn protected guns actually are illegally stored. EPIC
You better go buy that safe quick because once MC's trolling minions find that little tidbit posted there might be some officers knocking on your door with a warrant and coming for that trap gun.
Last edited:
Go read that table again. It has entries for murder and suicide.
You started the tango with the "designed to kill" stuff. Second, lose the arrogance and sarcasm.
With that out of the way, just what problem is it that you are trying to solve? Are you trying to solve accidental deaths with firearms? OK, let's see how many accidental firearms deaths there are in the US and if the rate is increasing or decreasing.
Sure seems like we are going in the right direction.
Let's look that the causes of deaths in the US:
So, three times as many people drown as accidentally die from firearms, and the number of people who die from accidental firearms injuries is rather small, 1,441, given our population of ~300M.
Now, let's look at your "solution". Do safe storage laws reduce accidental deaths?
From: http://johnrlott.tripod.com/whitney.pdf
So, there isn't much of a problem and your proposed solution doesn't solve that non-problem.
Well, that was all pretty neat, you proposed a problem that I did not say I was trying to solve and then showed how it did not need to be solved. You missed your calling, you should have been a politician! LOL. I never said a word about trying to lower the accidental deaths caused by firearms. But those are great stats to know! Thanks.
No, my guns are not illegally stored, you made some false assumptions about how my guns are stored.
From one of your earlier posts:
Not caring what lawmakers vote on is exactly why the situation will never change, you do not really believe in the principles on which this country was founded, yet you want to talk about your rights, just how does that all work out? Or is it that you just want to cherry pick which parts of the system you like? You like the rights part, but you don't like the part where people get voted in to represent us and your candidate lost?
I've got no problem with my candidate losing. I've got a huge problem with other people's candidates thinking they can legislate away my freedom. They can't and I don't let them.
Please explain to me again how ignoring unconstitutional laws is not adhering to the principles this country was founded on. I think if you tried reading the constitution you'd find a small part about standing up to tyrannical gov't, not obeying unjust laws. Go ahead and follow laws that blantantly violate the constitution. I'm sure George Washington would be real proud of you.
Last edited:
First off, no one has empowered YOU to decide what is constitutional or not, we have courts that decide that. YOU will find THAT in the Constitution under Section III.
Please give me the reference in the CONSTITUTION to what you referred. I have read the document many times and it describes the form of our government, but I have not seen anything that resembles (to my reading) what you describe. What George Washington signed was a document that described a nation that was ruled by law, and those laws could be changed by our elected officials and overseen by our judicial system. Not a nation in which individuals just decided that the law was to be ignored.
"secure the Blessings of Liberty"
When the laws no longer secure my liberty they violate the spirit in which the constitution was created.
I don't think we need to list the number of laws that violate the plain language of each section.
I don't care what the courts say when they support things that are blantantly wrong and inhibit my freedom. Frankly at this point I have absolutely no respect for the supreme court, the office of the president or congress, nor do I acknowledge any powers they claim grant them the ability to restrict my freedom.
Because of people like you I'm ready to scrap the constitution and try something new. So go ahead and spout your nanny state garbage and I'll continue living my life how I see fit, not how you do.
It is all about YOUR liberty. The quote from the Constitution actually reads:
Notice that the Constitution is talking about ALL the people as a group. The guys who wrote it knew that they could not make EVERY INDIVIDUAL happy, they were creating a government that anyone with common sense could live with. You conveniently skipped over domestic Tranquility, some would view guns as NOT contributing to anything being tranquil unless they are used for defence and obtaining food.
Those who would like to poach deer would say the "Blessings of Liberty" means they should be able to hunt deer year round, to heck with any laws. Too bad if the deer would be extinct after awhile.
I think you got lost in the search for a forum. I think you meant to register at DU or HuffPo.
I fail to see how wanting to do as I please as long as it doesn't physically harm another person or deprive them of their property is not what the founders intended. But apparently, according to you, they were actually socialists who wanted everything for the greater good.
People like you are the reason our country is doomed to failure.
I fail to see how wanting to do as I please as long as it doesn't physically harm another person or deprive them of their property is not what the founders intended. But apparently, according to you, they were actually socialists who wanted everything for the greater good.
People like you are the reason our country is doomed to failure.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 16,367
- Likes
- 4,835
I called you a sheep because you clearly are one. Whether or not you wore the uniform is irrelevant. There are plenty of sheep on both sides of the sword.
For the record, you were the one who said:
I told you to **** off because you have no insight into the character of my service nor any right to denigrate it. So yeah, **** off.
Last edited:
That "sword" you referred to has two edges. You are correct, I have no idea of the character of your service, whether it was good or bad. What I do know about you is that you are good at slapping labels on someone you have very little knowledge of.
Having been in the military I do know that you will follow orders and there is no "denigration" in that, so that makes me wonder why you feel you were denigrated.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 16,367
- Likes
- 4,835
There's a big difference between following orders and "blindly following authority." The fact that you don't seem to grasp that concept, or even understand why it's offensive, speaks volumes.
I know all I'd ever want to know about you from the things you've written in this thread. You are an enemy of liberty.
Maybe this will help you out xtry. Take someone who thinks like you, stops at the local bar, has a few, then gets behind the wheel and heads home. He is NOT blasted out of his mind, but then he is not exactly at peak performance either (just over the "legal limit"). Like a lot of folks do here in the NE, he does not stop completely at the corner stop sign. Cop stops him and smells the beer. It is DUI time. 1st or 2nd time here in MA is a misdemeanor, but after that it is a felony. This is guys 3rd time.
Now think about it, he has never hurt anyone with his drinking and driving. But he is about to become a felon. No more guns, no more LTC (he wasn't carrying btw, so no problem there). Why does the state want to do that? Turn him into a felon?
Cause most people are tired of drunk drivers injurying and killing other people with their stupidity! Why do the rest of the people have to wait for someone to hurt or kill someone else before something can be done about?
The trick here is to understand that "doing what you please" often has the potential to wreck someone else's right to "Tranquility" which the Founders also wrote about wanting us all to have. So, the middle ground is for us to have our guns, handle them responsibly, so we can all have our Tranquility and Benefits of Liberty too.
There are some responsibilities that go with all these rights and liberties. People are real fast to point out the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, they are real slow to talk about the actual Constitution which provides for the three branches of our government, which includes the Courts and Congress. The Bill of Rights is HUGE deal because it is supposed to protect us from the rest of the government and allow for adjustments to be made as needed. Sometimes they don't work, like Prohibition.
Wait! Are you saying that my stating you were "blinding following authority" was offensive? WOW! YOU were the one who said it first to me. And now you are WHINING that it is offensive. Are you SURE you were a Marine, were you a Merchant Marine?
Now you call me an "Enemy of Liberty". I am not gonna whine, or even snivel a little bit. I just find that incredibly funny. Have you thought about maybe moving to like Ruby Ridge?
You would not know what Liberty was if it bit you in the butt.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 16,367
- Likes
- 4,835
Your question:
My answer:
"A responsible adult" in general terms is not you specifically.
I did call you a sheep for buying into the Brady group "all guns are for killing" (and therefore we need special laws for them) bullshit, but you were the one who wrote it so I'll stand by that.
My answer:
"A responsible adult" in general terms is not you specifically.
I did call you a sheep for buying into the Brady group "all guns are for killing" (and therefore we need special laws for them) bullshit, but you were the one who wrote it so I'll stand by that.
Last edited:
MisterHappy
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,462
- Likes
- 17,678
The problem with this argument is that it empowers "creep" of restrictions.
To go along with your drinkng and drivng analogy: Not too long ago, .10 was the "legal limit" ....now it's .08. Why? Because if a little restriction is good, more is better. It's all for the public good. I'm sure you've seen the PSA-style commercials where the message is "Buzzed driving is drunk drivng". So....while it has not become "law" yet, the new "rule" is that .06, or .04, or whatever "buzzed" is, is now essentially the same as .09 or more. I"ll bet that within a few years, it will .05.
For many people, 2 beers in one hour will give one an "over the limit" BAC. For everyone, it's 3 (see this chart: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...blAUKntOaf40gHI3ICIDA&ved=0CDsQ9QEwBQ&dur=176 )
By your reasoning, this is an excellent plan. Because the potential of a drink driver is so great a threat that (currently) legal behavior should criminalized. So, the natural extention is that more restrictions are good.
If you not the topline on the chart....the only safe BAC is 0.00
The "just over the legal limit" is not the problem that caused the stop - it was the not stopping at the stop sign (as you say many do here in NE). So. The dangerous activity it what is engaged in by many - the stop sign violation. If he were over the limit, and stopped; waited three seconds and proceeded; there would be no issue, as he was not stopped for OUI, but for running the stop sign . Now, the fact that he's had a few may or may not have caused him to violate the law - but honestly, I see more people with cell phones doing it than drunks.
I occasionally use the cell in the car ( though I do try to limit it). Would you ban all cellhone use (as whether it's hands-free or not makes little difference in impairment) because of the potential for an accident? I've never had an accident caused by my cell-phone use - why should my essential liberties be constrainned by your perception of potential problems?
And, to delve into ancient history, this thread was about "proper" storage. Your version is "secured" in a certain way; you seem to think that your way is the only way. There is a continuum of risk.
This weekend I'll be at a place where there will be over 100 firearms, just standing around, in racks, with no locks. There will be people of all ages from 13 to 80 wandering about. Almost all of them will have ammo on their persons that will fit most of these guns. Is this an unsafe condition? I know that there will be at least one 13 yo (a child) because he's my kid; when he takes his gun to the line I will pay him no more attention than any other shooter (likely less, as I know his level of safety).
I anticipate no problems. But......is it possible that someone will take a gun without premission and use it? Yes.* Am I worried? No.
Would you be?
By the way, it's an ATA Trap shoot. I'm not worried about my guns being stolen, as there are much nicer ones left unattended - but those owners are not worried, either.
*Actually this happend to my son - an a-hole picked up his gun at a club we were vsiting, without permission, and took a few shots with it. My kid went out to say, "Excuse me....WTF?" (though politley, he's a gentleman) and the adult that took the gun said, "Is this your gun? You need to clean it," and walked off.
Last edited:
Similar threads
