U.S. Fire Arms laws and regulations

[dmurdock36]

question mark you have to be the most brainwashed person I have ever run across, facts mean nothing to you.

[questionmark]

ConnecticutLaw:

No person shall keep or store any loaded firearm on any premises under his control if he knows or reasonably should know that a person under 16 is likely to gain access without a parent’s or guardian’s permission, unless it is in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secured, is carried on the person or within close proximity, or is in a locked container.

Ehm, yes. And because there is no control people just disregard it, as we have just learned.

[Sakari]

if she had those guns secured, and being aware that her son had Aspergers disorder it was criminally temerary not to do so, she would be alive and so would 20 children be.

You people do not read other people replies. that is obvious.Especially when they make sense.

I had my guns locked in a fire proof safe, with trigger locks.....They were stolen.

[questionmark]

You people do not read other people replies. that is obvious.Especially when they make sense.

I had my guns locked in a fire proof safe, with trigger locks.....They were stolen.

I would sue the safe manufacturer...unless you left the key hanging beside the safe as I do (but I never have anything worth stealing in there, it is just there to safeguard my papers in case of fire). Even cheap safes, properly mounted and filled with sand, cannot be opened without considerable work, to the point that it makes hardly any sense to start drilling it unless very desperate for a gun or you have Prince Albert's duel guns in there) . And a metal cabinet, even with a combination lock (mostly as cheap as the metal cabinet) is NOT a safe. It is a metal cabinet.

[questionmark]

question mark you have to be the most brainwashed person I have ever run across, facts mean nothing to you.

Facts mean a lot to me, that is why I know that my manhood does not depend on a gun nor would five guns make me any safer than one gun. You shoulkd try some reality instead of CSI and Law&Order on TV.

[Cassea]

Why filled with sand?

[questionmark]

Why filled with sand?

Two reasons, sand is a bad heat conductor, which makes trying to weld open a safe difficult and second in case of fire it keeps the content without damage for a much longer time than if there was just a inner hollow. Most safes come with instructions that require they are filled with sand to obtain the manufacturer's security guarantees.

[AsteroidX]

The facts are the Constitution is being eroded piece by piece. The 2nd Amendment is just a biting point for many. Nor do I own a gun.

I dont watch those TV shows you listed. There for sheeple.

[Sakari]

I would sue the safe manufacturer...

Of course you would.....America, home of frivolous lawsuits and high insurance.....

I posted the story in this topic, or another one you are posting a lot in on how they were stolen. As I said, a lot here in the gun debate, just like to post, and not read replies....

It is damn near impossible to have discussions on this issue because of this....I need to try to step out of it.

I am getting beat by experience........

Edited December 17, 2012 by Sakari

[aztek]

Because the gun laws have a flaw: They lack a controllable provision to force owners to secure their guns when not in their direct control.

lol, there was noting wrong with laws, authorised owner was in the house, his mother, she got killed, we don't know how, but she might have been trying to stop him. so gun laws were not broken. hey there were cases where crooks killed cops with their own guns, what laws are you gonna blame for that?

[questionmark]

lol, there was noting wrong with laws, authorised owner was in the house, his mother, she got killed, we don't know how, but she might have been trying to stop him. so gun laws were not broken. hey there were cases where crooks killed cops with their own guns, what laws are you gonna blame for that?

If she put the gun so that her kid could get at it unauthorized they were broken. No matter where she was.

[Sakari]

lol, there was noting wrong with laws, authorised owner was in the house, his mother, she got killed, we don't know how, but she might have been trying to stop him. so gun laws were not broken. hey there were cases where crooks killed cops with their own guns, what laws are you gonna blame for that?

Cop had a gun.....Should have had a Tazer......Wait, people cry about that also.

[aztek]

I would sue the safe manufacturer...,

and you would loose, in fact your case would be thrown out. and if i was manufacturer, i would couter sue you, and would win, cuz i got more money and better lawyers

If she put the gun so that her kid could get at it unauthorized they were broken. No matter where she was.

that is your imagination, you have no idea how it actually happen.

you also showed ignogance of american gun laws, many times, it is not illegal for her to have her kid handling guns in her presence.

so again no laws where broken, untill shooting started.

Edited December 17, 2012 by aztek

[dmurdock36]

ok here are the facts the shooter was unable to purchase a gun legally, so he killed his mother and stole her guns and then went to the school the security would not allow him in the facility so he broke the window to get in and killed as many people as he could and didnt stop till someone pointed a gun at him and then he took the cowards way out and shot himself, tell me where any new gun law would have prevented any of this.

[questionmark]

and you would loose, in fact your case would be thrown out. and if i was manufacturer, i would couter sue you, and would win, cuz i got more money and better lawyers

That has nothing to do with any manufacturer, that has something to do with gun owners not keeping their guns safe. And yes, it would be thrown out of court because guns are the only products in the US that do not carry product liabilities. Thanks to the NRA and Congress.

But the case against the mother, had she survived, would surely not have thrown out. And we are talking about her neglect here, so switching the theme is not very productive.

[questionmark]

ok here are the facts the shooter was unable to purchase a gun legally, so he killed his mother and stole her guns and then went to the school the security would not allow him in the facility so he broke the window to get in and killed as many people as he could and didnt stop till someone pointed a gun at him and then he took the cowards way out and shot himself, tell me where any new gun law would have prevented any of this.

By forcing the mother to have the gun in a safe or unserviceable (like a missing firing pin) when not under her control or on display. It would have taken the kid days to get at it (cause had he .had any explosives to open the safe he hardly would have used a gun). And very good safes for guns can be bought at prices way below of that of a mediocre gun, certainly they are much cheaper than the cheapest assault rifle.

[aztek]

That has nothing to do with any manufacturer, that has something to do with gun owners not keeping their guns safe. And yes, it would be thrown out of court because guns are the only products in the US that do not carry product liabilities. Thanks to the NRA and Congress.

But the case against the mother, had she survived, would surely not have thrown out. And we are talking about her neglect here, so switching the theme is not very productive.

lmao, you and your antiamerican mentality, amongst other things, really make me laugh, keep up the good work.if his mother survived, the shooter might be dead, or it might not happen, you convinetaly omit the fact that she got killed in her house with her guns, may be she was trying to stop him, may be not. but posibility exsists.

[aztek]

That has nothing to do with any manufacturer,

don't back pedal, it has, you said you would sue safe maker.

Edited December 17, 2012 by aztek

[Sakari]

That has nothing to do with any manufacturer, that has something to do with gun owners not keeping their guns safe. And yes, it would be thrown out of court because guns are the only products in the US that do not carry product liabilities. Thanks to the NRA and Congress.

But the case against the mother, had she survived, would surely not have thrown out. And we are talking about her neglect here, so switching the theme is not very productive.

Before I go.....

Do you know how backasswords you all are?

Of course people will try to keep their guns " safe ", and " locked up "......

But here is where you are so screwed up.......

You (meaning anti gun people ) keep blaming gun owners for their guns being stolen......Like it is my fault if anyone STEALS anything of mine!!!!!!!

How about this.....Instead of blaming the owners for not having fort fricken knox as a safe, blame the damn thieves that break into homes, business's, safes, etc.

Go to the root of the problem......Use a brain cell.

You are saying people are not doing a good enough job of keeping guns from thieves.......Instead, you should be wondering why the hell we need to do this in the first place....

If we used this logic for the kids in the school.....

You would be saying ......................." the doors should have been locked "...." it is the Schools fault for not securing the children "

Edited December 17, 2012 by Sakari

[questionmark]

lmao, you and your antiamerican mentality, amongst other things, really make me laugh, keep up the good work.if his mother survived, the shooter might be dead, or it might not happen, you convinetaly omit the fact that she got killed in her house with her guns, may be she was trying to stop him, may be not. but posibility exsists.

She would end up indicted even if she had survived badly wounded. And that is not anti-American (third title from you in one thread, you are growing beyond yourself, keep it up), that is a fact. Her kid was a risk factor (read about Aspergers) getting even near a gun. And she knew that.

[questionmark]

don't back pedal, it has, you said you would sue safe maker.

Is the safe maker a gun manufacturer?

Ah, now I see how come you think we are lying to you, you suffer under delusions. You should have told us that quite some time ago, we would go easier on you.

[aztek]

She would end up indicted even if she had survived badly wounded. And that is not anti-American (third title from you in one thread, you are growing beyond yourself, keep it up), that is a fact. Her kid was a risk factor (read about Aspergers) getting even near a gun. And she knew that.

dude, go where you belong, ignore list.good bye

[aztek]

Is the safe maker a gun manufacturer?

those are your words.

I would sue the safe manufacturer...unless you left the key hanging beside the safe as I do (but I never have anything worth stealing in there, it is just there to safeguard my papers in case of fire). Even cheap safes, properly mounted and filled with sand, cannot be opened without considerable work, to the point that it makes hardly any sense to start drilling it unless very desperate for a gun or you have Prince Albert's duel guns in there) . And a metal cabinet, even with a combination lock (mostly as cheap as the metal cabinet) is NOT a safe. It is a metal cabinet.

[questionmark]

Before I go.....

Do you know how backasswords you all are?

Of course people will try to keep their guns " safe ", and " locked up "......

But here is where you are so screwed up.......

You (meaning anti gun people ) keep blaming gun owners for their guns being stolen......Like it is my fault if anyone STEALS anything of mine!!!!!!!

How about this.....Instead of blaming the owners for not having fort fricken knox as a safe, blame the damn thieves that break into homes, business's, safes, etc.

Go to the root of the problem......Use a brain cell.

You are saying people are not doing a good enough job of keeping guns from thieves.......Instead, you should be wondering why the hell we need to do this in the first place....

If we used this logic for the kids in the school.....

You would be saying ......................." the doors should have been locked "...." it is the Schools fault for not securing the children "

Yes.,, I blame the gun owner, just as I would blame a car owner who leaves his car with the key in the ignition, the car gets stolen and somebody killed.

If you leave a gun lying around so a killer can take it, in my eyes you are just as responsible for the homicide as the guy pulling the trigger. No matter if that place is under your pillow, in your nightstand or on the coffee table.

[questionmark]

those are your words.

I would sue the safe manufacturer...unless you left the key hanging beside the safe as I do (but I never have anything worth stealing in there, it is just there to safeguard my papers in case of fire). Even cheap safes, properly mounted and filled with sand, cannot be opened without considerable work, to the point that it makes hardly any sense to start drilling it unless very desperate for a gun or you have Prince Albert's duel guns in there) . And a metal cabinet, even with a combination lock (mostly as cheap as the metal cabinet) is NOT a safe. It is a metal cabinet.

Naturally those are my words, because a safe, to the contrary to a gun carry manufacturer liabilities. Sometime I wonder about you.

Edit: Well, not really.

Edited December 17, 2012 by questionmark