There are so many shootings to choose from....you need a scorecard
The topic was about securing the weapons. That ranges from unknown, to parents returning firearms to troubled kids, to kids killing their parents to steal their weapons depending on the case in question.
Yeah we need national laws on securing weapons properly
Do you have any specifics in what "securing weapons properly" would actually be? I've seen a wide range of suggestions from ammo and guns stored in separate rooms to using a zip tie as being secured. What do you think is reasonable and wouldn't create unneeded hardship to people wanting to exercise their rights
The most recent one with shotgun and revolver
And easily defeated, plus hard to prove it was on a certain gun at a specific time. It's one of those lousy gun control laws that's problematic to enforce you said you opposed. But it's a feel good law that I could support if I got a trade off I felt was worthy in return.I think we would need to be careful about making it too expensive. But trigger locks are cheap and supplied with every new gun purchased.
On one hand you say keep cost down and on the other you say require people have two separate safes for ammo and guns. That is DOA. No need for two safes and requiring so is an undo hardship. I could go along if you have say more than 15 (capacity of a medium safe)guns it's a requirement, but not for one or two when you've already said trigger locks are acceptable.At the least this should be a requirement and ammo locked in a separate location.
I am fine with someone having a loaded gun in there safe that has quick access if that is what they prefer
And easily defeated, plus hard to prove it was on a certain gun at a specific time. It's one of those lousy gun control laws that's problematic to enforce you said you opposed. But it's a feel good law that I could support if I got a trade off I felt was worthy in return. On one hand you say keep cost down and on the other you say require people have two separate safes for ammo and guns. That is DOA. No need for two safes and requiring so is an undo hardship. I could go along if you have say more than 15 (capacity of a medium safe)guns it's a requirement, but not for one or two when you've already said trigger locks are acceptable.
I give more leeway to adults without kids and how they store a quick access firearm. But assuming some above details are hashed out I could see requirements for households with miniors stricter than households without
and the gun? Is a locked drawer ok there if not why? My safe has a section inside it that is locked. Would that fit your requirement? If they are kept side by side in different containers is that ok or do You see a minimum distance requirementBut it COULD save some lives. And yeah.....that makes me feel good. I never said two separate safes. I am fine with a locked drawer for ammo.
If it is in a separate location that alone could save lives. And many would see these laws and do even more. Lots of lives could be saved. And that is a good thing
and the gun? Is a locked drawer ok there if not why? My safe has a section inside it that is locked. Would that fit your requirement? If they are kept side by side in different containers is that ok or do You see a minimum distance requirement
Sure it could. It could also have no effect at all.
What do you see? You know this could save lives and is a minor inconvenience. If you think it will never be an issue leave your loaded gun on the coffee table. But if a kid kills with it then we have something to hammer you with
Well there is no federal law so no you wouldn't have anything. And I wouldn't leave a loaded gun on the coffe table with kids in the house. So no worries.
Ok if you are done so am I.
But this could save lives
There is no civil discousre with gun supporters, they lack rational arguments. THey rely on stupid **** like "guns don't kill people, people kill people" or "the more people are armed the safer we are" or they just deny the reality of school shootings. Or they pretend they would be rambo during a situation and save the day, meanwhile the reality is they would probably piss themselves, or end up shooting innocent people.
Look at most threads on this, the gun supporters do nothing but deflect and make blanket statements with nothing to back it up
It could or it couldn't never questioned that. It's those whom act like it will without any doubt save lives I question.
But its not. Your response is victim blaming...plain and simple.
what were the facts surrounding his relationship with his son prior to the shooting?
It could or it couldn't never questioned that. It's those whom act like it will without any doubt save lives I question.
Your claim of a straw man is a straw man to draw attention away from the fact that you are victim blaming. Pretty embarrassing.Irrelevant. Your response was a Straw Man. Look it up.
Irrelevant. The guns were unsecured and easily taken to kill innocent people.
Guns! That is the defense!
Even one life is worth it... but GUNS!
Can't talk about GUN restrictions ... GUNS!
The Boston Tea Party was done by vandals tooHere is the latest gun-banners hero. Patricia Hill.
professor at Univeristy of Nebraska-Lincoln
Convicted vandal.
I hope she knows on appeal, she could get an even stiffer sentence.
500 bucks is livable.
Seeing how she was observed by a security guard doing the act, the appeal does not make a lot of sense.
She should take the hit and be a $500 martyr for her cause.
View attachment 67233395
Even one life is worth it... but GUNS!
Can't talk about GUN restrictions ... GUNS!
Your claim of a straw man is a straw man to draw attention away from the fact that you are victim blaming. Pretty embarrassing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?