Colorado State House Bill 24-1348 (storage of guns) example of liberal idiocy (1 Viewer)

[MamboDervish]

you are right, we don't do any of that - we don't blame the victims of a crime


gun owners are the victims of crimes here

Yes

damn criminals stealing things are the problem, I agree

....

possibly

what? now the victims of crimes are "stupid" ?

They certainly can be. Are you suggesting that no victims are stupid? I'd like to hear you make that case.

bs

No - not bs. The data is out there. Look it up.

but even if they were, again what's the core problem ? CRIMINALS

And since the data shows that stolen guns are often used in crimes, then those gun owners who are stupid enough to not be responsible for their weapons augments the core problem. More CRIMINALS !

its exactly the same - the core problem is criminals

See above ...

you can't make any comparisons to focusing on the victims of crimes and putting laws on people who are potential victims of crimes - that's liberal idiocy to the extreme

Actually, you very much can do that. A case can be made for criminal negligence. In fact, the parents of Ethan Crumbley were charged, and convicted of involuntary manslaughter, and sentenced to 10 years in prison because their son shot and killed four students at Oxford High School in Michigan. You can argue that the parents were victims of having their gun stolen by their criminal son, and accuse the jury of "liberal idiocy", but they're still in prison. So .... there's that.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

550 guns stolen out of unattended vehicles in Colorado last year, new law hopes to reduce that​

State House Bill 24-1348 took effect on Jan. 1. This bill prohibits knowingly leaving a handgun in an unattended vehicle unless the handgun is stored in a locked hard-sided container that is not left in plain view or that is in the locked trunk of a vehicle. A firearm that is not a handgun must be stored in a locked vehicle in a locked soft-sided or locked hard-sided container that is out of view. If the firearm is in a soft-sided container, a locking device must be affixed to the gun.




What is the core problem? People breaking into vehicles and stealing things. Liberal solution? Target the hundreds of thousands that carry in their cars and put legal restrictions and penalties on them. Ignore the criminals, target the victims of the crimes


I mean ... good gawd

Oh nonsense.

If a person is going to carry, it needs to be on their person. Leaving a firearm in a car is dangerous and should be avoided.

 

[CLAX1911]

Oh nonsense.

If a person is going to carry, it needs to be on their person. Leaving a firearm in a car is dangerous and should be avoided.

Some places you're not allowed to take a gun so should I just have no rights? Why is it the fault of the owner that someone breaks into their property and burglarizes it?

 

[Cosmo]

Good! As it should be if you're transporting guns. You are wise.

Why would this have any impact at all? It doesn't even work with murder when the penalty is death.

It's not always death. And when it is, it's almost always very slow (the start of the execution, not the execution itself).

Lawmakers are elected by the people.

 

[Cosmo]

Oh nonsense.

If a person is going to carry, it needs to be on their person. Leaving a firearm in a car is dangerous and should be avoided.

It's an inanimate object. It won't become more dangerous because it was left somewhere.

 

[MamboDervish]

It's not always death. And when it is, it's almost always very slow (the start of the execution, not the execution itself).

My point to that sentence was in response to the idea that greater penalties for gun theft will produce less gun theft. Why would they?

My example is, the murder rates in states with the death penalty are higher than the murder rates in states with no death penalty.
For the former, 4.7 per 100,000 compared to non-death penalty jurisdictions at a rate of 3.8 per 100,000.

 

[stealthycat]

It doesn't where did you get the idea that I thought it does? I think this bill punishes the victim.


Is that not your position?

I was just clarifying

 

[stealthycat]

Yes

....



They certainly can be. Are you suggesting that no victims are stupid? I'd like to hear you make that case.

what laws do we have in place giving them fines for being "stupid" ?

No - not bs. The data is out there. Look it up.

And since the data shows that stolen guns are often used in crimes, then those gun owners who are stupid enough to not be responsible for their weapons augments the core problem. More CRIMINALS !

stealing a gun doesn't make someone a criminal

See above ...

Actually, you very much can do that. A case can be made for criminal negligence. In fact, the parents of Ethan Crumbley were charged, and convicted of involuntary manslaughter, and sentenced to 10 years in prison because their son shot and killed four students at Oxford High School in Michigan. You can argue that the parents were victims of having their gun stolen by their criminal son, and accuse the jury of "liberal idiocy", but they're still in prison. So .... there's that.

the parents were not the victim of the crime were they ?

 

[JMB1911A1]

Oh nonsense.

If a person is going to carry, it needs to be on their person. Leaving a firearm in a car is dangerous and should be avoided.

So, we can put you down as an opponent of “gun free” zones that require lawful concealed carry holders to leave their firearms in their vehicles, correct?

 

[ColdHardTruth]

So, we can put you down as an opponent of “gun free” zones that require lawful concealed carry holders to leave their firearms in their vehicles, correct?

So, you're okay with people carrying guns in schools, parks, and other places?

I do not really care about the parks but people who are not on-duty LEOs have no business being armed at a school.

I really do not care if people have a hunting rifle in the rear window of their trucks. This is old school and never really harmed anyone.

 

[JMB1911A1]

So, you're okay with people carrying guns in schools, parks, and other places?

How do people who are legally allowed to carry a firearm on a public street suddenly become dangerous when they step into a park? There is no reason for arbitrary geographic restrictions on lawful carry. Criminals don’t obey those laws.

I do not really care about the parks but people who are not on-duty LEOs have no business being armed at a school.

Why not? Why can’t I have my lawful concealed carry on me when picking up my kid at school. Unless the school has active deterrence such as metal detectors or armed guards, there is no deterrent for criminals.

What about college campuses, most of which are open to the public? If I cut through a college campus driving home, am I any more of a threat than if I am driving down any other street?

I really do not care if people have a hunting rifle in the rear window of their trucks. This is old school and never really harmed anyone.

 

[mike2810]

what laws do we have in place giving them fines for being "stupid" ?

They do exists.

Arizona has a "stupid" driver law.
"Arizona's "Stupid Motorist Law," or Arizona Revised Statute 28-910, holds drivers liable for emergency response costs if they become stranded in a flooded area after driving around barricades. This means drivers could be responsible for rescue services, towing, and other expenses incurred to remove them and their vehicle. The law's purpose is to discourage reckless driving in flooded areas and to allocate the costs of emergency responses to those who cause the need for them

 

[ColdHardTruth]

How do people who are legally allowed to carry a firearm on a public street suddenly become dangerous when they step into a park? There is no reason for arbitrary geographic restrictions on lawful carry. Criminals don’t obey those laws.

Why not? Why can’t I have my lawful concealed carry on me when picking up my kid at school. Unless the school has active deterrence such as metal detectors or armed guards, there is no deterrent for criminals.

It scares the children.

What about college campuses, most of which are open to the public? If I cut through a college campus driving home, am I any more of a threat than if I am driving down any other street?

I have no issue with this, but K-12 is a no-go.

 

[stealthycat]

They do exists.

Arizona has a "stupid" driver law.
"Arizona's "Stupid Motorist Law," or Arizona Revised Statute 28-910, holds drivers liable for emergency response costs if they become stranded in a flooded area after driving around barricades. This means drivers could be responsible for rescue services, towing, and other expenses incurred to remove them and their vehicle. The law's purpose is to discourage reckless driving in flooded areas and to allocate the costs of emergency responses to those who cause the need for them

that's true - however the driver isn't the victim of a crime

a little bit different

 

[ColdHardTruth]

that's true - however the driver isn't the victim of a crime

a little bit different

It's still a bad idea.

This is will make people not want to call for help. People will die because of it.

This is yet another reason to remove the GQP from office.

 

[mike2810]

that's true - however the driver isn't the victim of a crime

a little bit different

moving the goal post. you did not ask about stupid laws where the person is a victim.

 

[stealthycat]

moving the goal post. you did not ask about stupid laws where the person is a victim.

considering we're talking about finding victims of crimes .... I thought it was a given

 

[MamboDervish]

what laws do we have in place giving them fines for being "stupid" ?

Who said anything about fines? Is that detour something you needed to pull out of your ass in the middle of losing a debate?

stealing a gun doesn't make someone a criminal

Yeah - it certainly does.

the parents were not the victim of the crime were they ?

I didn't read a transcript of their defense in court, but their attorney might have argued that they were. The son taking their gun could be a crime.

 

[stealthycat]

Who said anything about fines? Is that detour something you needed to pull out of your ass in the middle of losing a debate?

literally the bill

• Civil Infraction:
  Unsafe storage of a firearm in a vehicle is considered a civil infraction, punishable by a maximum $500 fine.

Yeah - it certainly does.

the theft yes - but having a gun in your hand doesn't change you into something. You're already that person - it doesn't change you any more than holding a fork or a shovel changes a person

I didn't read a transcript of their defense in court, but their attorney might have argued that they were. The son taking their gun could be a crime.

again, being the victim of a crime shouldn't be fined

 

[MamboDervish]

literally the bill

• Civil Infraction:
  Unsafe storage of a firearm in a vehicle is considered a civil infraction, punishable by a maximum $500 fine.

So why the stupid question? Do you even read what you've written?

the theft yes - but having a gun in your hand doesn't change you into something. You're already that person - it doesn't change you any more than holding a fork or a shovel changes a person

I rest my case.

again, being the victim of a crime shouldn't be fined

Criminal negligence is a crime! - by definition. Involuntary manslaughter is a crime!
Do you really want to keep this dance up? It seems like a waste of time and energy to me.

 

[stealthycat]

So why the stupid question? Do you even read what you've written?

I rest my case.

Criminal negligence is a crime! - by definition. Involuntary manslaughter is a crime!
Do you really want to keep this dance up? It seems like a waste of time and energy to me.

I think we need to pass a law that if you're negligent and don't lock your purse or knife in a lockbox in your car - its a $50,000 fine

Why not? Its YOUR fault someone broke into your car and stole those items, right ?

and that's the same thing they're doing with guns, or anything else .... victim of a crime? Well then its YOUR fault, don't blame the criminals

I swear, only liberal Democrats would be ok with things like this .... craycray world we live in

 

[MamboDervish]

I think we need to pass a law that if you're negligent and don't lock your purse or knife in a lockbox in your car - its a $50,000 fine

Why not? Its YOUR fault someone broke into your car and stole those items, right ?

and that's the same thing they're doing with guns, or anything else .... victim of a crime? Well then its YOUR fault, don't blame the criminals

I swear, only liberal Democrats would be ok with things like this .... craycray world we live in

Reductio ad absurdum won't sell your argument. Two parents will be serving 10 years behind bars. Deal with it.

 

[stealthycat]

Reductio ad absurdum won't sell your argument. Two parents will be serving 10 years behind bars. Deal with it.

• Michigan: Jennifer and James Crumbley, parents of the Oxford High School shooter, Ethan Crumbley, were convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 2024. This was a landmark case, as they were the first parents in the US to be charged and convicted for their role in a mass school shooting committed by their child.
• Georgia: Colin Gray, father of a 14-year-old shooter, Colt Gray, was charged with second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. He was accused of "allowing him to possess a weapon," leading to the death of four people.
• Texas: A mother was recently charged with providing ammunition and tactical gear to her teenage son who was planning a school shooting. She was also charged with making online threats against the schoo

they gave him the guns, helped him, provided gear for ................... don't lie and try to make this anything close to being the victim of a robbery and being fined for it

good gawd

 

[Cosmo]

My point to that sentence was in response to the idea that greater penalties for gun theft will produce less gun theft. Why would they?

The same reason we have penalties for crimes to begin with.

My example is, the murder rates in states with the death penalty are higher than the murder rates in states with no death penalty.
For the former, 4.7 per 100,000 compared to non-death penalty jurisdictions at a rate of 3.8 per 100,000.

There could be hundreds of other reasons murder rates are higher. Not sure why you assumed it must be because of the death penalty. We'd have to try and see what effect it has.

 

[Rich2018]

Some places you're not allowed to take a gun so should I just have no rights?

So a shotgun, for example, is not portable in those places ?