67 replies to this topic

[The Unseen]

Stellar, on 17 January 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

Well, as I see it, the first step would be to make it more difficult for a criminal to get a gun, so I think the first step would be to require all gun to be locked up in a safe or firearms cabinet when the owner is not in direct control of it, such as when he leaves home. On average, in the last 15 years I think the study said, 200k+ guns had been reported stolen annually. Put them in a secure and difficult to break into container and that number can be significantly reduced I believe.

I bet it would,I keep my rifles,shotguns,pistols,and assualt wepons lock in a safe with trigger locks and the safe weighs more than 700 lbs which is bolted to the floor,Once a day I check inventory and pull out one pistol to carry on my side during the day of normal work around the house,Yes when people come to the door the first thing they see is my pistol in my hoster on my hip,Everyone in this block know I carry it,I mow the lawn with it,I fix the roof chingles with it on my side.I have even had the police see it and since I'm on my property and it's in plain sight they say nothing,they just wave,I am not a violent man,I am of good humor and have no record of anything except a traffic ticket that I got back in 2005 for going 35 miles an hour in a 30 mph zone,didn't see a sign"SOMEONE ran it over the previous day".I make no excusses for people who dont lock their gun up,I do and so should they.Ya know I bet if they blew up my house that the only thing that would servive would be the gun safe,lol

[Stellar]

The Unseen, on 17 January 2013 - 09:25 PM, said:

I bet it would,I keep my rifles,shotguns,pistols,and assualt wepons lock in a safe with trigger locks and the safe weighs more than 700 lbs which is bolted to the floor,Once a day I check inventory and pull out one pistol to carry on my side during the day of normal work around the house,Yes when people come to the door the first thing they see is my pistol in my hoster on my hip,Everyone in this block know I carry it,I mow the lawn with it,I fix the roof chingles with it on my side.I have even had the police see it and since I'm on my property and it's in plain sight they say nothing,they just wave,I am not a violent man,I am of good humor and have no record of anything except a traffic ticket that I got back in 2005 for going 35 miles an hour in a 30 mph zone,didn't see a sign"SOMEONE ran it over the previous day".I make no excusses for people who dont lock their gun up,I do and so should they.Ya know I bet if they blew up my house that the only thing that would servive would be the gun safe,lol

I'm glad to hear that. Unfortunately, I've been in many discussions with people who did not want that kind of weapons security to be enforced.

[aztek]

Stellar, on 17 January 2013 - 10:44 PM, said:

I've been in many discussions with people who did not want that kind of weapons security to be enforced.

and they are right.
you have no idea what you talking about.you can't enforce it, you simply physicly can not. why attempt to do something that is bound to fail??
those that lock them now will be doing it regarrdless law or no law. those who don't wont, law or not. very smple concept.
we don't want cops to come to our homes to check it. we just don't want cops in our homes\property for any reason. period.

Edited by aztek, 17 January 2013 - 10:57 PM.

[Stellar]

aztek, on 17 January 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:

and they are right.
you have no idea what you talking about.you can't enforce it, you simply physicly can not. why attempt to do something that is bound to fail??
those that lock them now will be doing it regarrdless law or no law. those who don't wont, law or not. very smple concept.
we don't want cops to come to our homes to check it. we just don't want cops in our homes\property for any reason. period.

It works up here. Everyone locks them up and it is enforced. In either case, I have no desire to explain how its done to you since I consider you a loose cannon when it comes to discussions. I've attempted to explain it to you twice previously but your responses amounted to nothing except "na na na not listening to you." If you wish to figure out how things work, research gun laws in Canada.

[Michelle]

Stellar, on 17 January 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

It works up here. Everyone locks them up and it is enforced.

May I ask how it is enforced?

By the way, I don't know how you can say everyone locks them up. That's like saying no one speeds or drives drunk. Simply because something is a law doesn't mean the law won't be broken.

Edited by Michelle, 17 January 2013 - 11:46 PM.

[Stellar]

Michelle, on 17 January 2013 - 11:21 PM, said:

May I ask how it is enforced?

By the way, I don't know how you can say everyone locks them up. That's like saying no one speeds or drives drunk. Simply because something is a law doesn't mean the law won't be broken.

When I said everyone, I meant vast majority. I have no way to account for all 100% of gun owners of course.

The way it works here is through two different methods as I see it. First of all, the vast majority of gun owners in Canada are law abiding citizens and have no interest in breaking the law over a firearms cabinet. This right here means the vast majority of guns can not be easily "swiped" by a burgler.

The next method is through the gun registration. All restricted weapons are registered and tracked. If someone breaks into your home and steals your gun, you have to report it. If you do not and they track your gun to a crime, you are in a world of hurt. If you do report it stolen, they investigate to ensure you were not deemed to have been storing them negligably. If you are found to have not stored them as per the law, you are once again in a world of hurt. Basically, no one wants to risk the holy hell that would rain down on them if their weapon was stolen due to improper storage.

[Michelle]

Thank you. I'm not sure what a "world of hurt" is, but I'll take your word for it.

[Thanato]

Stellar, on 17 January 2013 - 08:31 PM, said:

Thanatos: you do not have to be part of a gun club to get a pistol.

Just checked on the firearms website and you can have one for Target Shooting, Collecting, or Work (Security job). You need to provide proof that you compete or shoot at an CFO Approved range for the Target Shooting.

~Thanato

[Stellar]

Thanato, on 18 January 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

Just checked on the firearms website and you can have one for Target Shooting, Collecting, or Work (Security job). You need to provide proof that you compete or shoot at an CFO Approved range for the Target Shooting.

~Thanato

I did Not have to to get my pistol.

[rashore]

Um, if the only thing keeping a man from killing his wife is killing animals and leaving their carcasses to rot, perhaps he really is mentally unstable enough to warrant not allowing him firearms. If nothing else, the tendency to sport kill and leave to rot animal carcasses is pretty frigging disturbing. What if his habit was strangling cats or axing dogs instead of shooting deer? And to kill enough animals to the point where your spouse is getting on your case to clean up all the corpses? Blech.

[Stellar]

Thanato, on 18 January 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

Just checked on the firearms website and you can have one for Target Shooting, Collecting, or Work (Security job). You need to provide proof that you compete or shoot at an CFO Approved range for the Target Shooting.

~Thanato

Ahh, I reviewed the laws an I understand what you mean. If you tell them you're going to be target shooting, you need to be part of a range. What I told them fell under the occupation category, hence me not needing to be part of a range when I purchased the firearms.

[Raptor Witness]

Thanato, on 17 January 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

In my mind as a Soldier, Joe Blow is a threat to himself (Drinking while Hunting has been the cause of many gun related deaths and injury) as well as he is a Violent man because he likes to beat his wife. What is to stop him in the heat of the moment to escalate a beating to an execution? It has happened before and it will happen again. The situation which yo propose ends in the correct method, the man should not be allowed to own a firearm and should be given further psychiatric help.

To say that the man poses no threat to himself or his wife is ludicrous. As he is already a threat to his wife. People like the one in the example should not be allowed to use firearms let alone own them.

~Thanato

If Joe Blow were already a convicted a felon, then I agree, but if he seeks the help of a mental health professional before he is convicted of a serious crime, I don't think he should risk losing his guns as a result. The simple reason is, he won't get help, and it will only make matters worse. My example assumes Joe Blow hasn't been convicted of a felony yet. The wife is hoping he'll change, but that's not the argument I'm trying to make, rather the limitations created by a mental health police force with the authority to confiscate guns based upon individual opinions.

How many police officers' won't get help? Will they be treated differently? Now you're getting into equal protection and a big can of worms.

I'm looking for creative answers, not the same old reasoning. It's failing, after all, and will continue to fail. We need real solutions, not cosmetic changes, and if we fail to act quickly, I predict that these killers will multiply and eventually begin getting away with their crimes. It's clearly the next level of the game, and someone is bound to see this.

The Beltway sniper attacks were a good example, even though they eventually got caught. There are smarter guys out there, who don't want to die or get caught.

All this crazy guy in Conneticut had to do was attack a school bus on a rural road. He could have lived to play again.

Edited by Raptor Witness, 19 January 2013 - 07:27 AM.

[ZaraKitty]

Flawless logic.

[Stellar]

Raptor Witness, on 19 January 2013 - 07:07 AM, said:

If Joe Blow were already a convicted a felon, then I agree, but if he seeks the help of a mental health professional before he is convicted of a serious crime, I don't think he should risk losing his guns as a result. The simple reason is, he won't get help, and it will only make matters worse. My example assumes Joe Blow hasn't been convicted of a felony yet. The wife is hoping he'll change, but that's not the argument I'm trying to make, rather the limitations created by a mental health police force with the authority to confiscate guns based upon individual opinions.

How many police officers' won't get help? Will they be treated differently? Now you're getting into equal protection and a big can of worms.

I'm looking for creative answers, not the same old reasoning. It's failing, after all, and will continue to fail. We need real solutions, not cosmetic changes, and if we fail to act quickly, I predict that these killers will multiply and eventually begin getting away with their crimes. It's clearly the next level of the game, and someone is bound to see this.

The Beltway sniper attacks were a good example, even though they eventually got caught. There are smarter guys out there, who don't want to die or get caught.

All this crazy guy in Conneticut had to do was attack a school bus on a rural road. He could have lived to play again.

Umm, aren't wife beating and threatening to kill someone considered crimes?

[lone wolf2]

It isn't the gun that makes a person a killer. Take away the guns and people will use bows and knives.
Your not going to be able to take the guns away from the criminals. Just the law abiding citizens.
Then murder rates will rise.