Teens With Access To 'Arsenal' Intended To Use Legal Cache For Columine-like Killing

Ahhh, the rage we see exhibited here is why I now thank God the Canadians don't have guns - especially "typical studly 18 year old Canadians."

 

... have to pry it out of my cold, dead fingers.

What was that you were saying about a gun ban, MacBeth? I mean, if you really want to start a civil war that would lead to the slaughter of tens of thousands of American law enforcement officers (and soldiers, since they would have to be used too) as well as countless otherwise-law abiding US citizens, then just try and enact a nationwide gun ban.

It's too late. You'll sure as hell never get mine away as long as I live. Too late...

Mandatory gun safes. Voice-activated locks. Biometric recognition systems. I have no problem with those, as they significantly decrease the possibility of anyone - burglars and rapists included - gaining access to a firearm that they should not have, and that is the real problem: regulating access, not ownership. But to just say "Well, all the guns should go" is not only naive, it is rather dangerous thinking. As a non-firearms owner I don't think you have any clue what sort of hole you're digging there.

 

RM,

I saw your ex with another guy last night...she looked happy.




DD

 

That's not exactly how I would have said it, but... It never hurts not pissing off masses of your population when you don't have to. You should save that for when you actually need to do it.

Whoah there, when did I ever say anything about what was right, better, or safer? I was not trying to moralize in my last post, just commenting that a national gun ban would inspire a violent upheaval.

If you must know, I think it is right for law abiding citizens to own firearms, better if they do, and safer for the populace as a whole if they do. Why? Law abiding citizens are not going to use their firearms irresponsibly, they are able to deter and defend themselves and their families in situations where the government is incapable of doing so effectively or in a timely manner, and keep governments (not just our own) in check.

Silly. There were both moral and economic incentives for ending slavery. Exactly what moral and economic imperative is there to take away a law abiding citizen's firearms?

The only issue we have here is that of accessibility. Personally, I think that gun ownership brings with it a heavy responsibility - to make sure that no one else can get access to them. Anyone who does not do so - and it is not difficult to do so - is criminally negligent in my book. Personally, if I were the one making the rules, I would hold the person who the firearms were stolen from just as responsible as the perpetrator for any crimes committed with their firearms. It is not that difficult, or even that expensive, to lock your weapons up in ways that make it virtually impossible for anyone but the most adept thief to get to them.

As in nearly all of these cases where minors steal their parents' or neighbors' firearms, the weapons were basically locked in some sort of a closet or locker with nothing more than a padlock or similar lock between the kids and the weapons' liberation. That is not enough, as any set of lock cutters will attest to. Every owner needs a combination or keyed gun safe and triggerlocks on every weapon, IMHO. No one, especially not a kid untrained in the arts of locksmithing, will crack that combination.

Personally, I am about to be having a little one running around the house, and I intend to erect a small fortress around my weapons. I am going to have some military grade stuff in there, and cannot afford to have any lapses in judgement, especially when little Colin gets around fourish and starts seeing daddy walking around the house in battle rattle - little kids love military stuff, which probably explains alot about me... I will have at least three lock systems between him and my arsenal. I think any parent who does less is not only negligent, but seriously testing fate.

I also think that the legal age for civilians to purchase firearms should be raised to 21, and that before purchasing one everyone should have to go through an extensive firearms safety course. But I also think that the drinking age should be lowered to 18, and that everyone should have to take a course in alcohol safety, so go figure...

 

The problem with your argument is that when you refuse to arm yourself, you give full responsibility for the safety of yourself, family and property to the government. I don't know if you realize this, but dialing 911 will not instantly get you assistance from the police. By the time the cops respond, either A. you have been murdered B. rapists have finished raping your wife B. made off with your car or truck C. all three. I prefer the right to defend myself using deadly force if I so desire. As a former Marine, I'm an expert in the use of firearms and I'm not afraid to use them. Trust me, if your life is on the line, who are you going to trust? The same government that can't even manage a simple task like delivering the mail? Or trust yourself and the piece of blue steel in your hands. If you don't want to own guns, fine, don't, but don't try to take away mine and other's right to self-defense with firearms.

 

haha...yeah, i guess i'll have to take it out on ya with a bear trap or a harpoon...eh?

this in no way means that i actually am going to do this, this is simply a sarcastic comment

 

Do you feel the same way about the other amendments? Is the 4th amendment antiquated because it hamstrings our ability to do whatever it takes to fight drug use and crime? Is the first amendment moot now that anyone can post what they want on the 'net?

I believe in the constitution and the bill of rights.

 

I think that reasonable checks and regulations should be in place, but BANNING guns (or anything else) is not the answer.

 

I took your flight of fancy and it didn't do anything to change my mind. BANNING guns is not the way to go.

 

Right, they had reasonable regulations on their guns, but they did not BAN them. If you come into town (presumably to get drunk and gamble), you don't need a gun, that is what we have a sherriff for. You can have your guns back after you are outside the area where the sherriff can respond quickly.

I would rather be armed and have the choice to confront someone who has broken into my house than be at that person's mercy because they have a gun and I don't.

The funny part of me arguing this side is that I don't own any guns and I still support their regulation. I guess I have the same position on this one as I do on drugs.

 

I agree about a motivated guerilla force. A motivated set of individuals COULD stand up to the government if the sins of the leaders were bad enough to warrant a revolution. This would be especially true if many of the soldiers felt the same way as the people.

Not if there was enough opposition to the government's position or actions.

You mean just like how prohibition has reduced our access to drugs?

There are devices that can be put into the hilt of a handgun or the stock of a rifle or shotgun that acts as a safety and requires an authorized handprint or a fingerprint to arm the weapon. This would be an appropriate control, IMO.