|
|
Post by men an tol on Feb 20, 2018 11:39:28 GMT -5
I hear this very often, that people (for whatever reason, leave guns around so that children can get them. I’m sure that there is someone who does this, but if so I have never met them. When I was a child guns were in the home environment but I cannot remember a time when they were ‘just laying around. In my years as a firearms instructor, I cannot remember a time when someone, just left their gun(s) laying around. As with any tool adults teach correct usage and care for guns to their children. Have stupid things occurred with the misuse of guns? Of course they have, and stupid things have happened with all sorts of tools. You do not have to know people personally to realize many are careless with guns. I knew of 2 shootings that happened in Tennessee in the same year, when I lived there. In one, a woman accidentally shot herself with her husband's gun. She thought it was unloaded. She was alone but immediately called 911 and survived. In the other, some kids were playing with a gun their mother's boyfriend left in his holster. He had left it laying on a chair. They were 6 and 7 years old. They killed their babysitter with a shot to the head before she had even taken her coat off. Very sad. Over the years, I have heard of other accidents involving loaded guns so I know such things happen. Face it. I wasn't trying to make the point that we must know them personally, just that as being one (me) who was heavily involved with guns and the people who used them, My knowledge was very light in knowing such people. Of course, you are right accidents happen with guns. Accidents happen with all sorts of things and activities. Life has no guarantee that nothing will go wrong. I know three people who fell off from roofs while shingling. People are in automobile accidents every day. A kitchen is a terribly dangerous place and so are bathrooms. Slingshots are also dangerous and so is the sport of archery. Guns are no different. Look at the number of injuries from playing football. All of those things, and many others, are potentially dangerous. So what is the point? Should we line up all the things we can think of, largest number first, and then identify which has the highest percentage of accidents? With well over 340,000,000 million guns in the country, relative to other types of accidents I submit that guns will be way down the list, I further submit that will be because there is a greater effort to handle them safely than most other things. I really do not understand the obsession against guns, especially with all of the training programs to handle them correctly. |
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Feb 20, 2018 11:44:19 GMT -5
I suggest that you are right, dangerous things should not be left laying around. Such as automobiles just left in the garage with easy access to keys. Or in the kitchen where there are usually many knives laying around or in easy access drawers. Maybe we should enact new laws to the point that accidents are no longer permitted. |
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Feb 20, 2018 12:05:42 GMT -5
While it sounds reasonable, this has all been decided within the Constitution and by Court cases. To change that there would have to be a Constitutional Amendment If one could be drafted to meet that desire, it would take years for it to go through the ratification process, and then years of court cases would follow. It would be much simpler and faster to employ military Veterans (who need the work any way) to patrol and keep safe schools. They have been trained in the use of firearms and they are available right now. They could be made as a special unit of the county sheriff's office. A referendum vote suggested would not alter the Constitution. In addition such a suggestion is targeting the wrong thing as the Constitution does not give any right to any individual or group. In stead it recognizes preexisting individual rights (such as the right to keep and bear arms) and protects those rights. do you realise what your saying men ?..for a good man I do find you shortsighted on this matter your suggesting that ex service men and women be employed to keep school school children and their teachers safe from killers while they are on school/educational premises ... its unbelieveable that your suggesting appeasing the wrong doers and adding yet more guns into the mix you also talk about individual rights..... well how about the right to live .. how about the right to education without fear .. keeping and bearing arms is a very different matter than enabling murderers.. mass murderers killers and the criminal insane a militia any militia is drawn from individuals be they farmers or towns/city people was once necessary but now you have armed forces.. standing armed forces .. armed to the teeth .. so there is no requirement for an armed militia.. or for individuals to be armed and certainly not to the outrageous degrees of weaponry people do arm them selves with Golda Meir once said of the Palestinians they love death more than we love life ........ No change in the Constitution, no new law, will stop any killing. The killing is in the mind of the killer. Is the goal to feel good that we enacted some new law so that when the next killing occurs, we can with great self-pride say, ‘we did something we passed a law.’ Or is it more to the point by actually doing something. Passing a new law we can say to the new killer, “Oh, you are a bad person, you broke our new law and killed people.” Or could we have actually done something such as having armed the teacher who used his body to save children when by arming him he and many children might still be alive. But no, rather than do something we’ll just pass a law. While we are passing that law we might as well go all the way and pass a law that makes fires in schools illegal, or another law that children cannot use playground equipment as they might get hurt. Or extend the new law to cover other things such as banks and remove bank guards (and of course their guns) because with the new law no one will ever try to rob a bank. Personally, I’d rather see things be done that will do something. I offered here earlier an incident which was the largest mass killing at a school in United States history and not a gun was used. The problem is not the gun but the mental state of the killer, and with that we are making no real effort to find the reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by annaj26 on Feb 20, 2018 20:39:27 GMT -5
A big part of the problem is the ease with which people with violence on their minds can buy and stockpile guns.
Trumps handlers have probably laid this out to him as a good road to take on seeming to do something that will satisfy the teens and adults who will be coming out in demonstrations for better gun regulations. it includes attempts to get stricter gun regulations in the past that never got anywhere because of NRA bribed lawmakers. WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he has signed a memo directing the Justice Department to propose regulations to "ban all devices" like the rapid-fire bump stocks involved in last year's Las Vegas massacre.
Seeking to show action days after a deadly school shooting in Parkland, Florida, Trump spoke during a White House ceremony recognizing bravery by the nation's public safety officers.
"We must move past clichés and tired debates and focus on evidence based solutions and security measures that actually work," Trump said.
The announcement came days after the shooting deaths of 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. The device Trump referred to was used in the October shooting deaths of 58 people in Las Vegas, and attached to a half-dozen of the long guns found in the shooter's hotel room. A legislative effort to ban the device fizzled out last year.
White House officials say the president will be meeting with students, teachers and state and local officials to discuss ways of providing more school safety and address gun violence. Pressure has been mounting for action after the Parkland shooting.
Trump has also indicated he is open to a limited strengthening of federal background checks on gun purchases.
Over the weekend, the White House said he had spoken Friday to Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, about a bipartisan bill designed to strengthen the FBI database of prohibited gun buyers.
Trump spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders qualified the support, stressing that talks continue and "revisions are being considered," but said "the president is supportive of efforts to improve the federal background check system."
The main action Trump has taken on guns has been to sign a resolution blocking an Obama-era rule designed to keep guns out of the hands of certain mentally disabled people. The president has voiced strong support for gun rights and the National Rifle Association.
The bipartisan background check legislation would be aimed at ensuring that federal agencies and states accurately report relevant criminal information to the FBI. It was introduced after the Air Force failed to report the criminal history of the gunman who slaughtered more than two dozen people at a Texas church.
The White House statement comes as shooting survivors and other young people press for more gun control in a rising chorus of grief and activism. Their "March for Our Lives" is planned March 24 in Washington.
Ella Fesler, 16-year-old high school student in Alexandria, Virginia, was among the students at the "lie-in" in front of the White House. She said it was time for change, adding: "Every day when I say 'bye' to my parents, I do acknowledge the fact that I could never see my parents again."
But previous gun tragedies have not led Congress to act. After the Las Vegas massacre in the fall, Republicans and Democrats in Congress talked about taking a rare step to tighten the nation's gun laws. Four months later, the only gun legislation that has moved through Congress eases restrictions for gun owners.
Kristin Brown, co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the measure Trump discussed with Cornyn would help to enforce existing rules but would not close loopholes permitting loose private sales on the internet and at gun shows. She's pressing for a ban on assault-type weapons and for laws enabling family members, guardians or police to ask judges to strip gun rights temporarily from people who show warning signs of violence.
"We need a comprehensive system," Brown said. "One of these isn't enough."
Trump, who visited first responders and some victims Friday, had focused his comments on mental health, rather than guns. The White House says the president will host a "listening session" with students and teachers on Wednesday and will discuss school safety with state and local officials on Thursday. They have offered no further details on who will attend those sessions.
Trump spent most of the weekend at his private Palm Beach estate, Mar-a-Lago. White House aides advised against golfing too soon after the shooting. But on Presidents Day, the avid golfer headed to his nearby golf club. The White House did not answer questions about whether he was playing golf.
President Barack Obama took heavy criticism in 2014 when he went golfing during a vacation just minutes after denouncing the militants who had beheaded an American journalist. He later regretted playing golf so soon after the killing.
Trump watched cable television news during the weekend and groused to club members and advisers about the investigation of Russian election meddling.
In a marathon series of furious weekend tweets from Mar-a-Lago, Trump vented about Russia, raging at the FBI for what he perceived to be a fixation on the Russia investigation at the cost of failing to deter the Florida school attack.___ D anilova reported from Washington. Associated Press writer Jonathan Lemire contributed to this report.www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-urges-ban-on-gun-devices-like-bump-stocks/ar-BBJnGfk?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp
|
|
|
|
Post by annaj26 on Feb 20, 2018 21:03:18 GMT -5
You do not have to know people personally to realize many are careless with guns. I knew of 2 shootings that happened in Tennessee in the same year, when I lived there. In one, a woman accidentally shot herself with her husband's gun. She thought it was unloaded. She was alone but immediately called 911 and survived. In the other, some kids were playing with a gun their mother's boyfriend left in his holster. He had left it laying on a chair. They were 6 and 7 years old. They killed their babysitter with a shot to the head before she had even taken her coat off. Very sad. Over the years, I have heard of other accidents involving loaded guns so I know such things happen. Face it. I wasn't trying to make the point that we must know them personally, just that as being one (me) who was heavily involved with guns and the people who used them, My knowledge was very light in knowing such people. Of course, you are right accidents happen with guns. Accidents happen with all sorts of things and activities. Life has no guarantee that nothing will go wrong. I know three people who fell off from roofs while shingling. People are in automobile accidents every day. A kitchen is a terribly dangerous place and so are bathrooms. Slingshots are also dangerous and so is the sport of archery. Guns are no different. Look at the number of injuries from playing football. All of those things, and many others, are potentially dangerous. So what is the point? Should we line up all the things we can think of, largest number first, and then identify which has the highest percentage of accidents? With well over 340,000,000 million guns in the country, relative to other types of accidents I submit that guns will be way down the list, I further submit that will be because there is a greater effort to handle them safely than most other things. I really do not understand the obsession against guns, especially with all of the training programs to handle them correctly. Some people sign up for a training program but I'd say that most do not. If you don't understand the concerns about the high number of assault weapons and how easy it is to get them, you're obviously not very concerned about the safety of innocent people. You have a lot of company out there, unfortunately. |
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Feb 20, 2018 21:38:46 GMT -5
I wasn't trying to make the point that we must know them personally, just that as being one (me) who was heavily involved with guns and the people who used them, My knowledge was very light in knowing such people. Of course, you are right accidents happen with guns. Accidents happen with all sorts of things and activities. Life has no guarantee that nothing will go wrong. I know three people who fell off from roofs while shingling. People are in automobile accidents every day. A kitchen is a terribly dangerous place and so are bathrooms. Slingshots are also dangerous and so is the sport of archery. Guns are no different. Look at the number of injuries from playing football. All of those things, and many others, are potentially dangerous. So what is the point? Should we line up all the things we can think of, largest number first, and then identify which has the highest percentage of accidents? With well over 340,000,000 million guns in the country, relative to other types of accidents I submit that guns will be way down the list, I further submit that will be because there is a greater effort to handle them safely than most other things. I really do not understand the obsession against guns, especially with all of the training programs to handle them correctly. Some people sign up for a training program but I'd say that most do not. If you don't understand the concerns about the high number of assault weapons and how easy it is to get them, you're obviously not very concerned about the safety of innocent people. You have a lot of company out there, unfortunately. Just what do you propose to address the concerns you have listed? |
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Feb 20, 2018 21:39:09 GMT -5
So, apparently we have reached a point where the Constitution means nothing. Where we have reached a point that making laws that fit within the Constitution and precedent of case law means nothing. Does it matter what the law states? Or, some percentage of our country wants some laws so badly, so intently, that law itself is not important, only governmental power.
So, explain to me how making new laws will end violence. Remember, that committing violence is not dependent on using a gun. Twenty-nine people were killed and 130 were injured Saturday night when 10 men armed with long knives stormed the station in the southwest Chinese city of Kunming, the state news agency Xinhua reported.
However, focusing just on guns, how will new restrictions on gun use be enforced. Will we now have new laws to turn in guns to the government? If people do not obey these new laws and keep their guns, what will new laws demand? What if someone manufactures their gun? Will their metal working equipment be confiscated? Will metal working equipment have to be licensed?
What can we then do with the mentally ill who do the killing with guns? Can we make new laws which place more punishment on them if they kill with a gun? What if they kill with a knife, or a hammer, or with dynamite? More importantly how will the average citizen defend against someone with a gun, or a knife.
What about after the guns have been taken (turned in) will we have to increase the numbers of police? How many?
It has been suggested that we have many armed and trained military, apparently to protect the people. If we go that way we will have to drop the Posse Comitatus Act. The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878 by President Rutherford B. Hayes. The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using its military personnel to act as domestic law enforcement personnel.
It seems that this would be moving backward.
What is the goal? Is it really to reduce or even end killing? Or is it to pass new laws banning guns?
|
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726 
|
Post by Jessiealan on Feb 21, 2018 0:18:13 GMT -5
What is the goal? Is it really to reduce or even end killing? Or is it to pass new laws banning guns? The politicians are trying to get votes and that could rely on pleasing their constituents. That is why they are in office. Didn't you suggest the people get out and try to make a difference? Maybe you are falling behind times, men an tol. People are sometimes honest and moral - not trying to pump up lobbyists and partisans. The connections to the NRA will not allow Congress to go to far, but in this case every little bit helps. We are watching closely. |
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Feb 21, 2018 1:02:24 GMT -5
What is the goal? Is it really to reduce or even end killing? Or is it to pass new laws banning guns? The politicians are trying to get votes and that could rely on pleasing their constituents. That is why they are in office. Didn't you suggest the people get out and try to make a difference? Maybe you are falling behind times, men an tol. People are sometimes honest and moral - not trying to pump up lobbyists and partisans. The connections to the NRA will not allow Congress to go to far, but in this case every little bit helps. We are watching closely. The NRA is not a problem as they are doing exactly what their membership want them to do in a lot of areas. In the area of Lobbying in Washington DC, you're going after the wrong people. The NRA could drive up with trucks loaded with money and they couldn't change a thing. That is, except for one thing, the NRA wants legislative efforts to go a certain way but they can have no success unless there is something for sale. If the members of Congress do not sell out their votes, that is having nothing for sale, then all things would be more likely to be decided based on logic and the merits of the case. The NRA is competing with others for the votes of the congressional members. It would be much simpler if the Congressional members simply said no. |
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Feb 21, 2018 1:04:36 GMT -5
What is the goal? Is it really to reduce or even end killing? Or is it to pass new laws banning guns? The politicians are trying to get votes and that could rely on pleasing their constituents. That is why they are in office. Didn't you suggest the people get out and try to make a difference? Maybe you are falling behind times, men an tol. People are sometimes honest and moral - not trying to pump up lobbyists and partisans. The connections to the NRA will not allow Congress to go to far, but in this case every little bit helps. We are watching closely. Yes, people should become aware of the various sides of an issue and everyone should be involved. However, that is never going to happen as it is much easier to just complain. |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 21, 2018 6:43:55 GMT -5
I suggest that you are right, dangerous things should not be left laying around. Such as automobiles just left in the garage with easy access to keys. Or in the kitchen where there are usually many knives laying around or in easy access drawers. Maybe we should enact new laws to the point that accidents are no longer permitted. all I am saying is that we do not allow toddlers and children to have access to deadly medications.. we keep them out of reach..and with child safe tops on containers etc ....and yet those same children who we will not allow to play with dangerous drugs etc so many times have easy acess to guns in draws or cupbords...if we value our children we do every thing to keep them safe so yes acidents happen.. but in a houses where there are children a load gun in a draw is not so much an accident as an enevitability in at least one or two homes ... just as having access to guns around teenagers is enevitably going to lead to deaths.. and the same applys to any age group as has been seen over and over again so while acidents happen we don't have to make sure that acidents happen the constitution is a man made constitution and therefore should not be beyond change to adapt to the societal changes ...and just as there is no need for a militia by the same token there is no need for an armed populace don't forget Men I come from entirely a different culture...and I would object to the police being armed... because it isn't necessary in every day life ...the police can be armed for certain situations and in certain places as a precaution .... the differences between us were shown when I posted we had had armed police in the village .. and that daughter went up and asked what was going on which would be very normal here to wander over and ask ... yet the response here was she shouldn't have asked should have steered clear |
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Feb 21, 2018 9:50:57 GMT -5
I suggest that you are right, dangerous things should not be left laying around. Such as automobiles just left in the garage with easy access to keys. Or in the kitchen where there are usually many knives laying around or in easy access drawers. Maybe we should enact new laws to the point that accidents are no longer permitted. all I am saying is that we do not allow toddlers and children to have access to deadly medications.. we keep them out of reach..and with child safe tops on containers etc ....and yet those same children who we will not allow to play with dangerous drugs etc so many times have easy acess to guns in draws or cupbords...if we value our children we do every thing to keep them safe so yes acidents happen.. but in a houses where there are children a load gun in a draw is not so much an accident as an enevitability in at least one or two homes ... just as having access to guns around teenagers is enevitably going to lead to deaths.. and the same applys to any age group as has been seen over and over again so while acidents happen we don't have to make sure that acidents happen the constitution is a man made constitution and therefore should not be beyond change to adapt to the societal changes ...and just as there is no need for a militia by the same token there is no need for an armed populace don't forget Men I come from entirely a different culture...and I would object to the police being armed... because it isn't necessary in every day life ...the police can be armed for certain situations and in certain places as a precaution .... the differences between us were shown when I posted we had had armed police in the village .. and that daughter went up and asked what was going on which would be very normal here to wander over and ask ... yet the response here was she shouldn't have asked should have steered clear /quote] And all I’m saying Mouse is that all of the cries against guns is out of proportion. As has been noted many times, here in the United States we have over 320,000,000 guns in the hands of the private sector and about 33,000 deaths annually. With fewer automobiles, about 260,000,000 passenger automobiles in the United States there is more than 37,000 deaths from accidents. All I’m saying is that if we are to get upset about deaths then we should be having marches about automobiles. But it is even stranger because guns being used to stop robberies and injuries and deaths total about 2,000,000 events annually. A positive use of guns. That accidents happen is true, that sometimes they occur due to lack of realistic care of the weapon is also true. As I said before, if that is to be our guide then we should look at easy availability to other ‘things’ which can cause injury and death. The kitchen knife is a good example. Or tools on a work bench. The pointing to the Constitution of the United States and the Second Amendment is a misunderstanding of what the Constitution is meant to do. That is, to define a national central government. The clauses in it are directed toward that end. Those rights mentioned as clauses in the Bill of Rights all are meant to control government. The Constitution grants no rights of any type. The Individual Rights noted in the Bill of Rights are all rights existing outside of the Constitution. If there were no Constitution those rights would still exist. If the Second Amendment didn’t exist we would still have guns in the hands of the private sector. Any death by any means is one too many, but the continued obsession with guns is way out of proportion. It was mentioned that care is given to the storage of other things so that children can not get them and yet children die from these other things every year. Accidents by any means is generally due to lack of knowledge and yet no where near all who have guns have been to any training class. Guns are not going away so begin where something positive might be done, get people to training classes. |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 22, 2018 4:15:12 GMT -5
"""Accidents by any means is generally due to lack of knowledge and yet no where near all who have guns have been to any training class. Guns are not going away so begin where something positive might be done, get people to training classes.""
training classes would not be for curious toddlers or teenage angsts or of any use when tempers flare ..... however as has been suggested why not institute a nationwide housing for guns.. that would not impinge on any ones rights ..
make the owner of the gun-s 100% responsible for the housing and use of weapon/weapons .. so that.. if any one else were to access that weapon then the owner would face murder charges etc
and given there are very few Elephants in America there is no reason to own a weapon that will bring an Elephant down...
ive said before my great uncle always had a gun.. they were securely kept in a locked cabinate[useful during war years for rabbits and pheasants to be added to the food supply]and where I live now guns are in use..infact last year.. an accident between a car and a horse and the horse was put out of its misery within 5mins of the accident rather than waiting for a vet to arrive
people and weaponry can co exist but you have to have some common sense
|
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Feb 22, 2018 8:15:40 GMT -5
"""Accidents by any means is generally due to lack of knowledge and yet no where near all who have guns have been to any training class. Guns are not going away so begin where something positive might be done, get people to training classes."" training classes would not be for curious toddlers or teenage angsts or of any use when tempers flare ..... however as has been suggested why not institute a nationwide housing for guns.. that would not impinge on any ones rights .. make the owner of the gun-s 100% responsible for the housing and use of weapon/weapons .. so that.. if any one else were to access that weapon then the owner would face murder charges etc and given there are very few Elephants in America there is no reason to own a weapon that will bring an Elephant down... ive said before my great uncle always had a gun.. they were securely kept in a locked cabinate[useful during war years for rabbits and pheasants to be added to the food supply]and where I live now guns are in use..infact last year.. an accident between a car and a horse and the horse was put out of its misery within 5mins of the accident rather than waiting for a vet to arrive people and weaponry can co exist but you have to have some common sense Mouse, this has come up before, If you own anything, and another is injured or dies when in contact with it, you are liable for the damage. Say someone walks up your sidewalk trips and falls and breaks a leg, you are liable. If you have a swimming pool in the back yard, the back yard is fenced and a child gets into your back yard gets in the swimming pool and drowns, you are liable, even if the child had to break in to get to the pool. Even if you had a cover on the pool and someone, even a child, was able to get the cover off, got into the pool and died, you are responsible, If you had a party and someone dove into your pool and broke their neck, you are responsible. These situations I’ve mentioned are from actual court cases and the owner of the object or place lost in terms of liability. There was one case where a cabin someone owned was repeatably being broken-into. The owner set up a trap by setting up a gun inside the cabin pointing at the door and it would only fire if someone broke into the cabin through that ‘locked’ door. A person broke in, the gun fire, the person breaking in died and in the court case the person who owned the cabin and set up the trap ended up spending time in prison. Here in the United States, you are always responsible for what you own, including guns and only degree of responsibility is discussed. However, that is not what is being discussed. People are trying to make ‘how’ you care for the gun the issue. If you do not follow the rules for gun storage you are responsible and should face penalty of law, even if the gun is not used. |
|
|
|
Post by Dex on Feb 22, 2018 11:50:42 GMT -5
"""Accidents by any means is generally due to lack of knowledge and yet no where near all who have guns have been to any training class. Guns are not going away so begin where something positive might be done, get people to training classes."" training classes would not be for curious toddlers or teenage angsts or of any use when tempers flare ..... however as has been suggested why not institute a nationwide housing for guns.. that would not impinge on any ones rights .. make the owner of the gun-s 100% responsible for the housing and use of weapon/weapons .. so that.. if any one else were to access that weapon then the owner would face murder charges etc and given there are very few Elephants in America there is no reason to own a weapon that will bring an Elephant down... ive said before my great uncle always had a gun.. they were securely kept in a locked cabinate[useful during war years for rabbits and pheasants to be added to the food supply]and where I live now guns are in use..infact last year.. an accident between a car and a horse and the horse was put out of its misery within 5mins of the accident rather than waiting for a vet to arrive people and weaponry can co exist but you have to have some common sense Mouse, this has come up before, If you own anything, and another is injured or dies when in contact with it, you are liable for the damage. Say someone walks up your sidewalk trips and falls and breaks a leg, you are liable. If you have a swimming pool in the back yard, the back yard is fenced and a child gets into your back yard gets in the swimming pool and drowns, you are liable, even if the child had to break in to get to the pool. Even if you had a cover on the pool and someone, even a child, was able to get the cover off, got into the pool and died, you are responsible, If you had a party and someone dove into your pool and broke their neck, you are responsible. These situations I’ve mentioned are from actual court cases and the owner of the object or place lost in terms of liability. There was one case where a cabin someone owned was repeatably being broken-into. The owner set up a trap by setting up a gun inside the cabin pointing at the door and it would only fire if someone broke into the cabin through that ‘locked’ door. A person broke in, the gun fire, the person breaking in died and in the court case the person who owned the cabin and set up the trap ended up spending time in prison. Here in the United States, you are always responsible for what you own, including guns and only degree of responsibility is discussed. However, that is not what is being discussed. People are trying to make ‘how’ you care for the gun the issue. If you do not follow the rules for gun storage you are responsible and should face penalty of law, even if the gun is not used. That sounds more like desperate excuses than it does good thinking, Men an tol. Does the NRA give the members pamphlets to use for defense like the Mormons do? |
|
