Need more guns. Is it local?

[packsaddle]

Egad! There ARE people wacko enough to believe something like that.

 

Beavah, I was wrong, they're NOT baiting you.

 

So, I'm looking at my reloading supplies. What I'm seeing on some of the containers is that they're classed as explosives. DUH!!! C'mon people, get creative! Negentropy is not what propels a bullet. I can tell you from personal experience that dynamite (and blasting caps, and other unmentionables) can be a source of HUGE entertainment.

 

If someone had access to dynamite these days, like I had back in the 60s, they could create a very effective defensive perimeter around their home especially considering the electronic gizmos we have now. They could even stick some of those little 'invisible fence' signs out there to keep the 'dogs' away. Woof!

So ROCK ON, my fellow wackos! Timothy is smiling up at you, just waiting.

[Basementdweller]

All this gun talk on the forum has led me to believe a few things.

 

 

There are a lot of paranoid scouters

 

There are a lot of scouters taking boys on outings they shouldn't be going on, if you feel the need for a firearm you should rethink your plan.

 

I don't buy into the media hype.

 

I am a gun owner and I am glad that I cut ties with NRA as they have lost touch with reality long ago.

 

I live in the ghetto and thank god that I don't live in the same fear as many of you who live in the burbs or country.

 

 

[Eagledad]

>>Beavah, c'mon. That has to be a joke. No one is wacko enough to believe something like that.

The rest of you guys need to stop baiting the furry guy.

[Twocubdad]

Vol -- nah. That may have been true at one time, but technology has solved that. Gander Mountain advertises biometrically-opening gunsafes for under $100 all the time. RID technology exists such that your gun "recognizes" you and is inoperable for others. If you're really serious about this, then when you come home you open you gunsafe and pu the guns out where you think you need them -- when you leave, lock them up. But if your neighborhood so unsafe you think it prudent to keep a loaded gun at the ready on your night stand where is is accessible to children or burglars, then you get to weigh -- and bear -- that risk against the liability of failing to secure your weapons.

 

Are we not constantly teaching our Scouts that with freedom comes responsibility?

 

If you've not been following my posts on this (and I've lost track of which tread is which), I believe mass shootings, as horrible as they are, are anomalies, an average of 21 deaths per year over the past 10. On the other hand, 18,000+ are blowing their own brains out with guns every year. And how many gun crimes are committed with guns easily stolen from careless but otherwise legal owners? If your guns are stolen from the seat of your truck or a glass case in your den, you don't get whine, "oooh, I'm the victim here. Go catch the bad guy." YOU are the bad guy and should be held responsible for your carelessness.

 

You want to watch while Diane Feinstein's gun control bill passes? You want to have to get in line while Joe Biden writes down your name and the serial number of your guns? You want to take a chance on how many states will vote to repeal the Second Amendment? Then sit and do nothing. Keep letting the morons at the NRA represent you. Keep up the line of reasoning that doing what EVERY SINGLE RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER ALREADY DOES abridges your rights.

[Stosh]

Someone breaks into my house, steals my guns, and I'm the criminal?

 

Why is it I'm having difficulty understanding the reasoning here?

 

Always love it when someone makes the victim the bad guy.

 

In the case of rape, for years we have emphasizing the person threatened is the victim. But in the case of guns, it's the other way around?

 

Someone breaks into your house and threatens you with rape.

 

Are you to fight back risking harm or even death? Or do you go along with the perpetrator hoping for the best.

 

Prevalent opinion says one should fight back with whatever means possible.

 

Now take the above example and replace the word rape with gun.

 

Gotta stay the same both times or someone's going to be accusing someone of hypocrisy and for just reason.(This message has been edited by jblake47)

[perdidochas]

Twocub,

 

Getting rid of guns isn't going to stop suicides. It's virtually impossible to own a gun in Japan, and they have a suicide rate that is higher than our combined murder and suicide rate.

 

I do agree that it is common sense to keep your guns and ammunition secured. That said, a gun owner shouldn't be held responsible for the crimes committed by another using his stolen guns. It's blaming the victim, which I believe we all should agree is wrong. Those biometric pistol safes you tout won't stop a determined person from stealing your gun. Yes, it will slow them down, but it won't stop it. A few blows with a sledge hammer will destroy them to the point of being able to get out the gun.

 

The NRA once concerned itself primarily with gun safety and marksmanship. Most of it's money still goes towards those two goals. (admittedly, splitting hairs, but the NRA is a non-profit, and to keep it's tax free status, it has to be careful with politics. The NRA does have a separate PAC that does the lobbying, etc. The money of the NRA is separate from the money of the PAC). The NRA was forced into it's political advocacy by folks like Dianne Feinstein who publicly proclaimed in 1995 that she would ban all guns in the country if she could get the votes to do it in the Senate. Extremism by either side breeds extremism in the other side.

 

[Twocubdad]

 

General Statutes 14-315.1 Storage of firearms to protect minors

 

(a) Any person who resides in the same premises as a minor, owns or possesses a firearm, and stores or leaves the firearm (i) in a condition that the firearm can be discharged and (ii) in a manner that the person knew or should have known that an unsupervised minor would be able to gain access to the firearm, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor if a minor gains access to the firearm without the lawful permission of the minor's parents or a person having charge of the minor and the minor:

 

(1) Possesses it in violation of G.S. 14‑269.2(b);

 

(2) Exhibits it in a public place in a careless, angry, or threatening manner;

 

(3) Causes personal injury or death with it not in self defense; or

 

(4) Uses it in the commission of a crime.

 

(b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a person from carrying a firearm on his or her body, or placed in such close proximity that it can be used as easily and quickly as if carried on the body.

 

© This section shall not apply if the minor obtained the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry by any person.

 

(d) "Minor" as used in this section means a person under 18 years of age who is not emancipated

 

 

This strikes me as a pretty reasonable standard. It's been on the books long enough I assume it's passed constitutional muster. Trigger locks, you're covered. Gun locked up even if a thief breaks the lock, still okay. Gun in your physical control or under your supervision, check. Sitting on top of the TV while you're at work, no. Dashboard of the truck, no. I would change "minor" to "unauthorized person."

 

If you maintain your firearms irresponsibly and that causes me harm, your should be held liable for that harm.

 

You guys really don't thing gun owners don't have a responsibility to take very reasonable steps to prevent their guns from falling into the wrong hands? That really surprises me.

[Beavah]

Yah, sayin' that da NRA was forced into political advocacy is like sayin' that the NEA was forced into unionism. I think da proper way to think about it is that there was money available, and interest, and it was exciting. And, to be fair, advocacy is a service that associations often provide. The NRA, like many associations, has a separate PAC that funds politicians and political and issue campaigns, as well as a large lobbying group within da NFP organization itself which does legislative tracking, advocacy, and membership and general "issues education." Da reason for the PAC is to be able to pay politicians and campaigns directly, which is what the NFP can't do.

 

Where it gets a bit odd is when da positions the Association advocates aren't in line with da actual sentiments of the organization's general membership, or da organization lobbies its own membership to take more extreme positions. That happens with da teachers' union, and it's happening with the NRA. I don't think da executive leadership is really takin' the same line that da majority of responsible gun owners would take. Perhaps that's because many responsible gun owners have left the NRA.

 

Vol_Scouter, TwoCubDad is takin' a fine and very principled conservative position, eh? He's arguin' that gun ownership should be treated legally under a strict liability framework. If yeh own a gun, you are personally responsible for it. Same as a contractor owning explosives. You're responsible for safe use, for safe transport, for safe and secure storage. If you do harm with it, or if someone else gets a hold of it and does harm, you are personally responsible. Either accept the risk, or purchase insurance to distribute da risk, or choose not to accept the risk of owning that kind or number of firearms or ammunition. In other words, be responsible, and don't expect other folks or the government to pay to bail yeh out when you're not.

 

I have to admit, I'm findin' that approach increasingly attractive. Seems far preferable to complex regulations or "bans" on this, that, or the other thing. Allows folks their freedom so long as they accept full financial responsibility. If yeh want to leave your loaded guns around because yeh fear your neighbors, fine, but yeh accept all da responsibility for that.

 

Only thing I would add is an insurance requirement or surety bond of some sort, tied to the purchase of guns or ammunition. Yeh need that to try to get da judgment-proof who don't have any assets to be able to meet their responsibility. Either that, or yeh need to attach criminal penalties so that such folks go to jail for quite a while, but that seems a bit counterproductive.

 

Plus, da NRA might actually like it if they thought about it, eh? They could provide insurance, which they would actually make money off of if their members were really safe. And it would encourage 'em to focus on training and education, because that would improve their insurance bottom line.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[CalicoPenn]

" that idea still suffers from the same weakness that gun 'bans' suffer from, namely, that crooks and crazies don't often pay much attention to laws."

 

Non-sequitor. Crooks and crazies don't pay attention to most laws. Speeders don't pay attention to speed limits. Does that mean we shouldn't pass laws? If so, problems solved - we can disband all of our governments now because we no longer need them since they can't pass laws to maintain civil order, and we'll devolve into mass chaos in the first two days.

 

"You want to have to get in line while Joe Biden writes down your name and the serial number of your guns?" I'd really like to know why there is so much opposition to gun registration. The only thing I ever hear is "it violates a constitutional right" or the paranoid "because then they will know what to confiscate". I'd like to point out that the right to vote is a constitutional right too but no one seems to have problems with folks being required to register to vote, and a significant number of folks think that people need to take additional steps in order to exercise their constitutional right to vote, but that heaven forbid we require guns to be registed because that's a constitutional right. I own guns and I have no problem registering them with the State if required to do so.

 

 

As for Concealed Carry? It's cowardly. At one time in this country, guns were carried openly. If you carried a hidden gun, you were a sneak, a cheat, a thief, in general, you were a dishonorable man. If the NRA were truly honorable, they would be lobbying for open carry, not for concealed carry. Why hide your gun unless you're ashamed to be seen with it?

[Beavah]

Someone breaks into my house, steals my guns, and I'm the criminal?

 

Nah. Nobody has said anything about criminal penalties. But under TwoCubDad's scheme, yeh would be strictly liable if the real criminal used your gun to shoot someone else. So it would be prudent for you to purchase insurance.

 

If you chose to store 20 AR-15s with 20,000 rounds of armor-piercing ammunition in your basement, I expect you would have to pay more for insurance, because of da additional damage the criminal could do with those guns. But maybe not, if yeh installed a state-of-the-art built-in gun safe. Your actuarial risk might even be less.

 

Someone breaks into your house and threatens you with a gun. Are you to fight back risking harm or even death? Or do you go along with the perpetrator hoping for the best.

 

Well da rational answer to that is "it depends". I don't reckon I'm goin' to try to load my muzzleloader to take on a fellow with a semi-automatic. I don't see the point you're tryin' to make, though, jblake. There would not be any issue under TwoCubDad's proposal if you used a weapon in true self-defense. Now, if you shot the neighbor who was just checkin' on your place because you were so afraid he might be that gun-toting rapist that's got yeh all in a twitter, then yep, you are liable, and yeh better have insurance or his widow is goin' to own your house.

 

Beavah

 

[Stosh]

The state I live in was one of the last holdouts to conceal carry. The finally passed it. With that being said, the state has ALWAYS had an open carry law on the books. One does not need a permit to open carry. Anyone can carry. They just need the permit to hide the gun from view. Without a background check, without training, without any governmental restrictions whatsoever, I can get out of my car, strap on a holster over my coat and walk any public place that doesn't have a weapons ban. The laws for open carry vary from state to state, so one size doesn't fit all.

 

When I was doing presentations for various groups, as an "officer" I always carried a pistol and sword. Made sure it was on the outside of my clothing before I left the parking lot for the building I was to speak at. A police officer friend of mine reminded me that when I take the rifle-musket, I needed to take it out of the case and carry it open as well.

 

I have never needed to register my "arsenal" of guns, no one knows where they are, except my wife, and I can carry them in public whenever I wish.

 

Nothing illegal about any of this in the state I reside.

 

 

[Twocubdad]

Afternoon, Calico.

 

I just got back from Lowe's. Bought a pack of screws and tile cleaner. The check-out girl asked for my phone number, which declined to provide. I don't care to aide Lowe's marketing department building a database of my purchasing habits. That doesn't make me paranoid or crazy, just private.

 

What is the purpose of registration or licensure? Wave a magic wand and suddenly have a list of every gun and it's owner in the country. How does that make us safer unless there is ultimately a means of using that data to tax, control or deny ownership? Basically, this is the old, "if you don't have anything to hide..." argument. I don't have anything to hide, rather something to protect -- my civil rights.

 

I'm actually not much of a gun guy, so this really isn't the emotional issue for me it is for others. I am, however, a big fan of small constitutional government and individuals maintaining their personal liberties AND responsibilities.

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmm...

 

Now yeh lost me, TwoCubDad. Da only way your strict liability / insurance notions would work is if it's possible to establish da provenance of a gun used in a crime or accidental shooting. That requires some form of documented registration/title/ownership.

 

Beavah

 

[Rick_in_CA]

CalicoPenn: "As for Concealed Carry? It's cowardly. At one time in this country, guns were carried openly. If you carried a hidden gun, you were a sneak, a cheat, a thief, in general, you were a dishonorable man. If the NRA were truly honorable, they would be lobbying for open carry, not for concealed carry. Why hide your gun unless you're ashamed to be seen with it?"

 

jblake47: "Nothing illegal about any of this in the state I reside."

 

Unfortunately, that isn't the case in every state. Here in California, open carry (though legal) will get you harassed and maybe even arrested by the police in most cities.

 

A case in point. A friend of mine works for an armored car company. He is licensed and bonded to carry a firearm for work, and does. His company has a policy that employees store their guns at home. He rides a motorcycle to and from work (he doesnt own a car). He doesnt have a concealed carry license, and its basically impossible to get one in the county he lives and works. So the only legal way for him to transport his pistol between home and work is openly in a holster on his hip. After the eighth time (he kept written records of each incident) he was pulled over by police at gun point (you want to talk about scary - try multiple people pointing guns at you and all yelling something like: Hands! Hands! and Get down on the ground! - now try that eight times in three months), he was instructed (in writing no less) by the county sheriff to illegally hide the gun in the cargo compartment of his motorcycle. And yes, was told a conceal carry license was out of the question, we dont do those here. So now he carries a laminated copy of the letter with him, and illegally hides his gun. No more stops. The only reason he didnt end up in jail was that he always wore his uniform under his motorcycle suit, and carried his papers. The police told him that usually that would just arrest someone for brandishing if they openly carry a gun. Something is very broken if the county sheriff has to instruct you to break the law. Its nonsense like this that generates distrust of the anti-gun side in gun debates (and stupid comments by the NRA and other spokespeople that generated distrust of the pro-gun side).

 

Arent some municipalities considering laws that require concealed carry (not that everyone must carry a gun, but that if you do you have to conceal it)?

[Twocubdad]

You're right, Beav, if you're talking about tracing guns which are stolen, disappear from record and then used sometimes years later in a crime.

 

I'd be happy if the added liability made folks secure their guns from suicidal teenagers, curious toddlers and enraged spouses. And I'm willing to bet that when folks start taking better care to storing their guns, that if their house does get burglarized their guns will be less likely stolen. The supply of guns on the street will be impacted.

 

I'm also supposing the added liability and/or insurance costs will cause some folks to just say the heck with it and get rid of some of the millions of guns sloshing around. My father-in-law has an old .38 I have stored for him. I don't need it, I don't want it, I don't have ammo for it. If my insurance premiums are going up on account of it, I'll drop it off with the sheriff. And honestly, after discussing all this for the last couple days, I'm probably going to do just that anyway.

 

Since I'm not running for office, I have no need for grand, sweeping changes which get my picture in the paper with Joe Biden. I'm cool with a more incremental approach.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)