Locked door? Locked container? Locked WTF?!

[drgrant]

There is nothing "nebulous" about .08 BAC.

Yes there is. If I get 1000 different people and all get them "drunk" at .08 BAC and give them a driving simulator to test their reactions and/or ability to drive (say for example, basic skills like keeping their car mostly in the appropriate lane) I will guarantee you that not all 1000 people will perform the same. Sure, many will probably fail, but that does not mean that all will fail. I doubt that .08 was chosen as a benchmark of "at this level, at least 95 percent of those tested will always **** up and fail a basic driving skills test. " I bet it's some kind of median value. In other words, some portion of the population is probably getting ****ed by the limit being set where it is. In my opinion that's not a sound law- because you have a law with a moving target in play.

I would have a lot less problem (and I bet most others here too) with DUI laws if the BAC was some value where it was a virtual guarantee that an overwhelming majority of the people would miserably fail a basic skills test. That might be too much impairment for some but the alternative (overzealous enforcement) is more absurd. For example, there is no getting around the fact that many DUI arrests are circumstantial to the reason why a given vehicle was stopped to begin with- eg, the reason the vehicle was stopped had nothing to indicate, on its front, that the person was driving impaired.

Cellphone Issue: You darn rootin tootin they should ban all cellphone use in a car, especially big butt trucks! Female drivers using a cell phone should get 2X the sentence in county jail. Female drivers under the age of 25 should get 3X the jail sentence! A FEDERAL law should be passed forcing automobile makers to put a device in cars that turns the cell phone off as soon as the ignition is turned on. Except my phone, I like my cell phone, I have hands free and rarely use it, never place a call, only answer incoming.

Seriously?

Some here have absolutely no clue how government actually works. They actually think that the State legislature without any scientific study just dreamed up the .08 BAC out of thin air.

It's pretty tempting to pretty much write off the rest of the content of your post, when you say stuff like this. (What do you think the legislature did when they came up with our gun laws, for example- yes, they did indeed, pull that shit out of thin air, more or less. They do this on a regular basis... whatever special interest groups happen to pander to them at the time, they often suck for it and it becomes the law. Instead of saying "No, **** you, more justification required! next!" which is what legislators should be doing. Anytime someone says "there ought to be a lawr..." the legislators job should be able to say NO most of the time. The legislators should play a key role in preventing nanny state cancer from spreading its way into the law books, instead of being the biggest promulgator of that kind of cancer in existence.

Further, whose scientific study, paid for by who? How can we trust, for example, the NHTSA, who is obviously going to have an agenda in line with speed control and DUI regulations? The government gets a lot of power from those two things, and a lot of bureaucracy. You don't "empire build" as a government funded organization by telling people that a given law is unnecessary.

WOW! "Communism is good", do you see one everytime someone has an opposing viewpoint?

You might as well have just written that, particularly after going FR in #161.

The definition of Police "Abuse" seems to be the one of things that is "nebulous" on this forum. The mere existence of police embodies "abuse" to some.

There's nothing nebulous about no knock warrants (where people get killed over pretty much nothing, like Jose Guerena) and dead dogs, which are like 85% of the cop abuse reports posted on this forum. Most of the "abuse" reports here are not guys going "waaaah someone gave me a ticket!!!!"

-Mike

 

[xtry51]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to drgrant again.

This is bullshit

 

[MisterHappy]

TR:

Let's go back to the original point of the thread: Safe storage laws.

Not BAC/OUI, dead dogs, or driver's licenses.

The first post you made, you referred to a person who had his posessions taken as "galactically stupid"; a few posts later, you were asked if you considered "tamper resistant" trigger locks sufficient.

I asked you what you considered acceptable, and gave you a list to choose from. You said you were tired of typing ( as I did), but apparently, your fingers got a second wind.

So. Please tell us what you consider acceptable WRT firearms storage. I'll ask again, directly: If I take my Browning A5 shotgun, and apply a trigger lock from Wallyworld, and put it in a closet, and a 14-year-old unlawfully enters my property and takes my posessions (the gun and lock) am I responsible? What added precautions should I have taken?

As the Stephen the Crazy Irishman says in Braveheart. "....Yes, Father? The Almighty says, "Don't change the subject. Just answer the ****' question."

Also, I truly have to say....with fewer than 100 posts...having several NESers on "ignore" has to be some kind of record.

 

[TReischl]

Yes there is. If I get 1000 different people and all get them "drunk" at .08 BAC and give them a driving simulator to test their reactions and/or ability to drive (say for example, basic skills like keeping their car mostly in the appropriate lane) I will guarantee you that not all 1000 people will perform the same. Sure, many will probably fail, but that does not mean that all will fail. I doubt that .08 was chosen as a benchmark of "at this level, at least 95 percent of those tested will always **** up and fail a basic driving skills test. " I bet it's some kind of median value. In other words, some portion of the population is probably getting ****ed by the limit being set where it is. In my opinion that's not a sound law- because you have a law with a moving target in play.

I would have a lot less problem (and I bet most others here too) with DUI laws if the BAC was some value where it was a virtual guarantee that an overwhelming majority of the people would miserably fail a basic skills test. That might be too much impairment for some but the alternative (overzealous enforcement) is more absurd. For example, there is no getting around the fact that many DUI arrests are circumstantial to the reason why a given vehicle was stopped to begin with- eg, the reason the vehicle was stopped had nothing to indicate, on its front, that the person was driving impaired.

Did you read what I posted from the NHTSA? There were over 10 studies performed. Of course you can trust no one, then you can question everything all the time, as you are doing so well.

And I can say that MANY DUI arrests are NOT circumstantial to the reason the vehicle was stopped to begin with.

You made a lot of suppositions in your argument that you actually have no basis in fact with which to support them other than "I doubt...." and "In my opinion...", and let's not forget your "and I bet..."

I can say with deadly certainty that ALL people with .08 BAC have their motor skills sufficiently impaired that they do not react in time to typical situations they might encounter on the roadways. How do I know this? I have seen the tests on my television. NO ONE passed at that level, not ONE. Run your argument at someone else.

Seriously?

No, not seriously, sheesh. Re: The cell phone. I believe they will be having a sale on senses of humor down at WallyMart next month.

It's pretty tempting to pretty much write off the rest of the content of your post, when you say stuff like this. (What do you think the legislature did when they came up with our gun laws, for example- yes, they did indeed, pull that shit out of thin air, more or less. They do this on a regular basis... whatever special interest groups happen to pander to them at the time, they often suck for it and it becomes the law. Instead of saying "No, **** you, more justification required! next!" which is what legislators should be doing. Anytime someone says "there ought to be a lawr..." the legislators job should be able to say NO most of the time. The legislators should play a key role in preventing nanny state cancer from spreading its way into the law books, instead of being the biggest promulgator of that kind of cancer in existence.

Now here, on the gun issues is where I can agree with you! These laws should have NEVER gotten on the books to begin with. That would have stopped all the stupid court decisions that have taken place. I would very much like to see the state have the same laws as the Fed set with two additions: Castle doctrine and no local government can override the state code. The Fed set could use a few tweaks, but that is a whole different subject.

Further, whose scientific study, paid for by who? How can we trust, for example, the NHTSA, who is obviously going to have an agenda in line with speed control and DUI regulations? The government gets a lot of power from those two things, and a lot of bureaucracy. You don't "empire build" as a government funded organization by telling people that a given law is unnecessary.

If you had read what I included and done a little more research, you would know that the .08 was not a "cake walk" piece of legislation at the Fed level. However, with Federal funding penalties attached for state adaptation, most states had no choice but to implement it. That is why so many "studies" were performed over a long period of time, with actual metrics in terms of lives lost or saved, not just driving skills as you suggested. Try reading.

You might as well have just written that, particularly after going FR in #161.

Because I write a purely sarcastic, in your face, can you get more ridiculous? response, THAT makes me a communist? WOW, you are wound WAY too tight my man.

There's nothing nebulous about no knock warrants (where people get killed over pretty much nothing, like Jose Guerena) and dead dogs, which are like 85% of the cop abuse reports posted on this forum. Most of the "abuse" reports here are not guys going "waaaah someone gave me a ticket!!!!"

Your original "nebulous" remark was in response to content concerning BAC, now it has shifted to no knock warrants. Actually, you like to get the target moving to support your arguments.

-Mike

 

[IrradiatedBacon]

holy christ, the paint chips falling off the walls aren't for eatin'

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[xtry51]

"I saw it on TV it must be true!"

I think this is his mom:

 

[TReischl]

TR:

Let's go back to the original point of the thread: Safe storage laws.

Not BAC/OUI, dead dogs, or driver's licenses.

The first post you made, you referred to a person who had his posessions taken as "galactically stupid"; a few posts later, you were asked if you considered "tamper resistant" trigger locks sufficient.

I asked you what you considered acceptable, and gave you a list to choose from. You said you were tired of typing ( as I did), but apparently, your fingers got a second wind.

So. Please tell us what you consider acceptable WRT firearms storage. I'll ask again, directly: If I take my Browning A5 shotgun, and apply a trigger lock from Wallyworld, and put it in a closet, and a 14-year-old unlawfully enters my property and takes my posessions (the gun and lock) am I responsible? What added precautions should I have taken?

As the Stephen the Crazy Irishman says in Braveheart. "....Yes, Father? The Almighty says, "Don't change the subject. Just answer the ****' question."

Also, I truly have to say....with fewer than 100 posts...having several NESers on "ignore" has to be some kind of record.

As to the last: Paraphrasing St. Paul in his second letter to the Corinthians, I don't suffer fools gladly. Not that I am particularly religious, mind you.

Well MisterHappy, the situation has arisen, you bought a very nice Browning A5 (congrats on that btw) and then got all cheapo. Bought a WallyWorld trigger lock made with steel someone's dog could gnaw through. Aside from the fact that you were just purely stoooopid risking losing a Browning A5.......You did comply with THE LAW. Here is how I personally see it:

It is not real easy for a 14 y.o. to run around with a full size shotgun and keep it hidden very long, unless he is some kind of gang member. If he is a neighbor kid, the gun may turn up real quick like, unless his Dad is an ahole and loves A5's. If you HAD the means to provide more secure storage, you should have done it, especially if the kid subsequently kills himself by accident. Should the gov MAKE you put it in a safe? Nope. Should you make yourself put it in a very safe room or safe? Yup.

I will answer ahead of time for handguns, cause I see them as quite different from long guns. Those suckers (and I love them) are huge targets for criminals. Criminals love to steal them, they can get money for them and use them in the commission of more crimes. The vast majority of criminals are not into using shotguns and rifles (remember, I said majority, there are exceptions, some like AR-15's etc), so I personally think if you have the money to buy handguns, part of the cost of owning a handgun is buying a means to lock it up VERY securely. And yea, it can still be stolen by a determined thief. The type of security I am talking about is where they have to haul the whole thing off somehow and then work on it for a few hours before getting it open. Not some flimsy plastic box with a lock hanging on it.

And I still think he is "Galactically Stupid", c'mon, trying to sell the idea that his guns were secure with a door that is opened with a bobby pin? Then they are IN FACT stolen by the 17 year old boy that is living in the house? I know, I know, the kid is the culprit, the guy should be able to leave his guns unlocked, unsecured....HIS rights were violated by the passage of the law, the police are pigs, etc, etc. Bottom line though, when you live in Rome, do as the Romans do, or you wind up being Lion food. You do remember St. Paul, he didn't get fed to the lions, but he probably lost his head about 67 A.D.

 

[xtry51]

Clearly we're all negligent retards for not locking everything we own in large nuclear safe vaults at all times as to avoid thieves injurying themselves.

Everyday I learn something new about why our country is so screwed up.

Give me a minute. I need to go lock up all my silverware incase someone breaks in and wants to steal a knife and then use it to mug someone. I'd hate to be responsible for someone getting stabbed.

 

[jasons]

The vast majority of criminals are not into using shotguns and rifles (remember, I said majority, there are exceptions, some like AR-15's etc)

Oh come the **** on.

Everyday I learn something new about why our country is so screwed up.

I wonder if he votes?

 

[xtry51]

Oh come the **** on.





I wonder if he votes?

You can bet he does, probably two or three times.

 

[drgrant]

Did you read what I posted from the NHTSA? There were over 10 studies performed. Of course you can trust no one, then you can question everything all the time, as you are doing so well.

Maybe if people questioned everything all the time before we made shitty laws in a knee jerk reaction to some perceived problem, we would all be a lot better
off. I would have much rather seen the knee jerk reaction be to punish the shit out of people who kill or injure other people with their cars.

There are a thousand things the state could do to combat deaths due to drunk driving than resort to malum prohibitum crap like an arbitrarily low BAC limit.

And I can say that MANY DUI arrests are NOT circumstantial to the reason the vehicle was stopped to begin with.

Let me guess, you're going to tell me that "speeding" is an indicator. It doesn't take much to stop a car for something trivial. A lot of DUI arrests result from activities not
necessarily related to someone creating a danger on the road. My point is, observable activity that indicates and intoxicated driver, like weaving all over the road, driving at bizarrely low speeds on the highway, erratic operation, etc. Not "Your license plate bulb was burned out, so that's why I stopped you". Which in many small towns in MA is a pretty
common thing.

Yeah, there are plenty of blatant DUI arrests, too, but my gut impression is that many of them are simply from fishing expeditions.

You made a lot of suppositions in your argument that you actually have no basis in fact with which to support them other than "I doubt...." and "In my opinion...", and let's not forget your "and I bet..."

Most of your suppositions seem to be based on watching a television program, and reading a bunch of government crap about drunk driving. Not sure how that is any better.

Let's put it this way, If I was rich I would conduct the study myself- perhaps by using say, people from a professional driving school to establish the criteria. I'm sure someone has already conducted something that is actually objective and not agenda driven. I doubt any of those studies were used in consideration of this law.

There's also a big difference between "being able to have good reaction time" and "being able to operate a motor vehicle safely under most circumstances". Some people likely don't have good reaction time even when they are stone cold sober. Most of the DUI deaths are not caused by "someone simply having bad reaction time" they're caused by heinous shit like driving on the wrong side of a highway, or flying through a red light or stop sign. Most DUI deaths are likely caused by people whose BAC is way the hell beyond .08, too.

I can say with deadly certainty that ALL people with .08 BAC have their motor skills sufficiently impaired that they do not react in time to typical situations they might encounter on the roadways. How do I know this? I have seen the tests on my television. NO ONE passed at that level, not ONE. Run your argument at someone else.

Passed what? What is the standard? A deer running into the road? (hint, shitloads of people hit deer while stone cold sober!) A traffic signal going from green to yellow to red? A stop sign?

What about a control? How many people did terribly without even being intoxicated? Are you going to punish people with shitty motor skills as well? Will you surrender your drivers license when your reaction time is tested not to be equal or greater than the national average? Would you support such testing? After all, if it's important while drunk, it should be equally important to know what it is while sober, too.

I would very much like to see the state have the same laws as the Fed set with two additions:

This only further proves that you hate individual liberty. The federal government should have little to no involvement in regulating small arms. There are a myriad of federal gun laws in existence that people like you support that I find offensive, from a civil rights standpoint. (GCA68, prohibited person, background checks, etc, etc, national firearms act, import bans, ad nauseam. )

If you had read what I included and done a little more research, you would know that the .08 was not a "cake walk" piece of legislation at the Fed level. However, with Federal funding penalties attached for state adaptation, most states had no choice but to implement it. That is why so many "studies" were performed over a long period of time, with actual metrics in terms of lives lost or saved, not just driving skills as you suggested. Try reading.

So your argument is that it was a good law because the feds used a carrot and stick method to promote something they knew would be unpopular... gee, I wonder why that is? So on top of a shitty law, abuse of federal power was used to promulgate it. That makes the BAC limit that much more compelling- the feds had to basically POINT A GUN at the states to get them to adopt it. This is a very convincing argument. This law is a good law- because it was passed with the equivalent of legislative terrorism.

Because I write a purely sarcastic, in your face, can you get more ridiculous? response, THAT makes me a communist? WOW, you are wound WAY too tight my man.

Wound to tight?

I'm not the one that has added like 10 people to his ignore list in like 5 minutes because they said something I didn't like. There are a couple of other posters who I hope see this thread, and when you ignore them too, I'm really going to laugh at how absurd it is.

This thread is pure AU.

Your original "nebulous" remark was in response to content concerning BAC, now it has shifted to no knock warrants. Actually, you like to get the target moving to support your arguments.

You're the one who first introduced police abuse into this discussion, not me, try again. Don't blame me for thread drift that I didn't create. I agree with MH, maybe we should stick with locked containers.

-Mike

 

[Rob Boudrie]

A problem with "it saved lives, so it was a good idea" proof is that the logical extension is:

- Drop to .04, see if it saves more lives. If so, you've got proof .04 is a good idea and should consider .02

- If raising the drinking age to 21 saved lives, raise it to 25 and check again. If this saves more lives, raise to 30 and repeat the cycle until no more lives are saved by raising the age.

 

[jasons]

I agree with MH, maybe we should stick with locked containers.

We should store this guy in a locked container. That level of retardation is truly dangerous.

 

[MisterHappy]

You make several assumptions that are in error. The A5 is a pre-war beater, value of about $250. But, thanks for the upgrade.

And thanks for saying that I complied with the law.

Also, thanks for finally giving your opinion as to what constitues secure storage. I see that it's far and away beyond the law's requirements. You're welcome to do it.

What you are NOT welcome to do, however, is to use your opinion of what it "safe" as a touchstone for others' actions that are within the law.

Now...back to the A5 - even though it's a beater, what I described is not my storage strategy. That's not for public consumption.

As for the door that could be opened by a bobby pin...the problem is that there is NO defined storage requirements, other than the word "secure". One person's "secure" is another's Galatically Stupid. You apparently think that a gun worth $200 should be locked in a vault costing five times that (based on the parameters you stated) because there exists the possibility of another's criminal action. Would you also require that all gun owners have a monitored alarm system? It would help protect the safe, after all.....




And not being religious myself, I'll paraphrase Mathew 7:3. It's what I generally say to hard core Xtians that insist on Wintessing to me: Motes and beams.

Also, I'l go back to something that was missed - the actions of the 14 y.o. - the Eighth Commandment applies.

 

[MisterHappy]

A problem with "it saved lives, so it was a good idea" proof is that the logical extension is:

- Drop to .04, see if it saves more lives. If so, you've got proof .04 is a good idea and should consider .02

- If raising the drinking age to 21 saved lives, raise it to 25 and check again. If this saves more lives, raise to 30 and repeat the cycle until no more lives are saved by raising the age.

0.08 is high, by world standards:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content


If some is good, more is better.

 

[xtry51]

0.08 is high, by world standards:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content


If some is good, more is better.

We really need to get on this and be more like Europe!

 

[MisterHappy]

No.

Look at the last line in my sig.

 

[Admin]

And I still think he is "Galactically Stupid", c'mon, trying to sell the idea that his guns were secure with a door that is opened with a bobby pin? Then they are IN FACT stolen by the 17 year old boy that is living in the house? I know, I know, the kid is the culprit, the guy should be able to leave his guns unlocked, unsecured....HIS rights were violated by the passage of the law, the police are pigs, etc, etc. Bottom line though, when you live in Rome, do as the Romans do, or you wind up being Lion food. You do remember St. Paul, he didn't get fed to the lions, but he probably lost his head about 67 A.D.

What a good little comrade.

Blame the victim because thankfully it wasn't you. Right? I'm going to bite my tongue here because at this point I simply don't have the energy tonight. I am hopeful one of my fireteam leaders directs suppressive fire in your general direction. You are a perfect example why we lose our god given rights every day.

 

[Jamie]

What a good little comrade.

Blame the victim because thankfully it wasn't you. Right? I'm going to bite my tongue here because at this point I simply don't have the energy tonight. I am hopeful one of my fireteam leaders directs suppressive fire in your general direction. You are a perfect example why we lose our god given rights every day.

You are way more diplomatic than I would have been. I'll just have to agree with you and keep myself from being banned.

 

[Lank]

I'm waiting for someone to ask (on this thread) if a 10-22 is an FID gun.....

 

[xtry51]

I'm waiting for someone to ask (on this thread) if a 10-22 is an FID gun.....

Nope, clearly an assault weapon used by criminals

I can't believe you're even allowed to buy them.

 

[MassMark]

 

[economist]

I also stopped because some of the "peanut gallery" on this forum like to quote one line from an answer and offer it up as "proof positive" that someone does not know what they are talking about. They like to ignore entire thoughts just to prove their viewpoints.

Or, after reading a few thousand words of rambling and incoherent nonsense they just quote the part that is somewhat comprehensible. I just read this thread and I have no idea what you are talking about. You are confident, I'll give you that, but about what I can't quite tell. You rant against some rule or another and then rant against people who don't follow the rules you just ranted about. You note appropriate limits for government, but then chastise those who fail to realize the will of the people in violation of those limits. Then you quote random or lengthy text or biblical references for no apparent reason. This is what came to mind:

 

[drgrant]

 

[xtry51]

You are confident, I'll give you that, but about what I can't quite tell.

 

[Madball13]

Clearly we're all negligent retards for not locking everything we own in large nuclear safe vaults at all times as to avoid thieves injurying themselves.

Everyday I learn something new about why our country is so screwed up.

Give me a minute. I need to go lock up all my silverware incase someone breaks in and wants to steal a knife and then use it to mug someone. I'd hate to be responsible for someone getting stabbed.

Looking to get blocked myself

 

[Disgorge]

This thread is making my head spin.

anyway...yes or no...
locked closet within bedroom. outdoor style lock on closet door (not bobby pin type)
key well hidden away from closet

 

[terraformer]

This thread is making my head spin.

anyway...yes or no...
locked closet within bedroom. outdoor style lock on closet door (not bobby pin type)
key well hidden away from closet

Next week your head will spin right off. We are announcing something that all gun owners will want to pay attention to.

 

[jasons]

Next week your head will spin right off. We are announcing something that all gun owners will want to pay attention to.

 

[Disgorge]

Next week your head will spin right off. We are announcing something that all gun owners will want to pay attention to.

coherent, well written gun laws that are easily understood?