Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Pretty much this. Same goes for just laying around in one's house. If we step back and think about it, the rules and requirements of gun ownership don't come close to reflecting the seriousness/dangerousness of owning a gun. I can't think of many (any?) more things in this country that fall into that category.
You are supposed to be but, no, nothing stops you from driving an unregistered vehicle while unlicensed and uninsured.
If you disagree, then I presume you agree with me that there is some responsibility to secure your weapon.
I think we are in agreement that we are off but it is in regards to the bolded.
Since we are using car analogies we should probably hold gun owners to the same standards.
And if you are caught you get in trouble. We have established certain rules in place to protect everyone. Gun ownership probably needs to be held to at least the same standard as owning an Accord.
We? I have no interest in defending that Strawman but knock yourself out if you like.
You are only punished for operating an unregistered, uninsured vehicle without a license if you're not on private property. You can own them and operate them on private property all you want.
Not only that but there is a much higher chance that if someone stole the car they would kill someone with the car than the gun if they had stolen the gun instead. But nobody cares about that.
Could you please point out the specific posts where somebody is "putting more of an onus on the gun owner that didn't lock their vehicle vs a thief. "?
+1
yes. tried to make something similar into a law years ago in Philly and the NRA faithful fought it. The law was that a gun owner needed to report a lost or stolen gun. Helped police to track guns and also free gun owners from issues when those guns were used in a crime. this was suggested along with 2 other rules (one was you can't purchase than 2 hand guns in a month I believe), and all 3 got shot down.
You would be correct. At least, for me, anyway. Law or not, if I determine one of my guns is missing, I am letting LE know ASAP for precisely the reasons you listed.
you really believe "enter on to" and "enter in to" are significantly different enough that this is a hill you are deciding to die on?
Yes, I think there is a distinct difference. I understand that both are theft, but there is the additional B/E aspect of going into a car or a house vs simply taking something from someone's yard.
I got a different impression than you obviously and I'm not going to narrow it to one or two specific posts from the entire conversation at that point. Please feel free to reread through all the posts if you desire.
And I respect that you don't get that impression.
Loss of gun. (the one that was stolen) Damage to vehicle due to break in. Increased insurance premium due to claim.
I try to avoid these comparisons to cars, screwdrivers, etc as it just convolutes the discussion.
Lots of damage done to an unlocked door?
As like anyone else, I already have thoughts and experiences on the topic then I read the replies in the conversation focused on gun owner punishment and it forms an impression. I'm sorry I know you're hung up on this but I can't help further. Anything beyond this is me trying to justify my impression to you and that was not the point of the post. The only point was to show another person also felt like we're putting the onus on the gun owner vs the thief as well.
Sure. I guess it's like all things. There is a reasonable expectation for how all people should act. Not just when it comes to responsible gun ownership. I just don't see a reason to severely punish someone that has already been victimized. If we want to say $50 fine, then I would say that's acceptable. If we want to seize all guns and prevent them from ever owning a gun again, I would refer back to DUI laws where people don't lose their rights to drive for eternity after a first offense.
You win. No damage to an unlocked door.
I’m going with something a little more aggressive than a $50 fine. A DUI is time in jail, thousands in fines, etc.
Sure, the person who committed the murder of your loved one should be the focus of your anger....but you can still be very at how easily he/she obtained the gun because of another person's carelessness.
OK. What do you propose?
How about a $100 fine and make this is a first strike. If you have two more instances of not responsibly securing your firearms, you lose your ability to own guns.
I'm ok with the fine. I'm moderately ok with the strike. I tend to lean no on the lifetime ban. But I don't like giving someone 3 chances to fix their mistake. So, I could be persuaded.
When you get pulled over for a DUI you are going to jail that night.
This is the issue. We don't regulate the purchase of cars like we do guns. I someone left their gun in a car and it was stolen, they would be put on a list and would not be able to purchase a gun. If someone has 3 DUI's he can still walk out an buy a car tomorrow. There is no list, or background check preventing it.
If the firearm was stolen from them - no I would not be upset with the victim of the gun robbery. They had nothing to do with the crime. If someone steals a gun and then kills someone with it, it is very likely they would have found a way to get a gun one way or another.
They won’t have their drivers license after 3 DUI’s I assume, they wouldn’t have insurance so they shouldn’t be driving. If they do I think they would be going to jail immediately if pulled over.
I think most people agree that it's irresponsible. But, where is falls on the scale of punishment is where it will lose traction. Find the happy medium where it changes behavior without being vindictive.
