|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On November 17 2018 02:34 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 02:03 Danglars wrote:On November 17 2018 01:33 JimmiC wrote:On November 17 2018 01:06 Danglars wrote:On November 17 2018 00:55 riotjune wrote:
Kinda ironic that one of his most continually used “arguments” is that since gun advocates get butthurt easily, if you offend them just one bit they have the right to ignore everything you say. Coming from a guy who repeatedly use harsh language to put down others when they’re just trying to make civil arguments makes him look like a hypocrite, maybe he should take his own advice and leave insults out of the mix.
I know we’re not convincing anybody here, but it’s good to see people with differing viewpoints offer their perspectives to avoid your so-called echo chamber. But when the endpoint arguments repeatedly consist of American exceptionalism and “other people are even bigger pieces of shit, that gives me an excuse to stay a medium piece of shit” aka keep status quo/do nothing (which says a lot about one’s character), I can see why some gave up trying to engage in rational discourse before ad hominems get thrown about.
Just because I see way more traffic accidents and drug ODs than patients who got shot admitted to the hospital doesn’t mean we should do nothing about gun control. Poor standards in some areas does not excuse a complete lack of standard in another. Also why we don’t ignore infectious disease and soley go after Mcdonalds and food/soda companies for all the mortality rate they’re directly/indirectly causing.
Other arguments for guns I’ve already read but don’t agree with, other posters already counter-argued and put in words better than I’ll ever have. What's ironic is you include that third paragraph like it says something at all. Oh look, another gun control proponent with a facile comparison, like somebody here thinks traffic accidents and drug overdoses prove we don't need gun control! Who do you think you're arguing with? Seriously, I see posts like this all the time, and I can't fathom why you move from an observation on butthurt to an observation on bad arguments to ... a pointless and bad argument. Cherry picking, sniper Danglars swoops in after avoiding direct questions to attack one portion of someones post without taking into consideration of the post in its entirety. He mentioned that he agreed with the other points, that he just wanted to add on his own personal experiences. People use their own experiences in conversations all the time. What you bolded makes complete sense when you take it in the context of the entire post and don't just search for one thing you can fite against. Again you score no points here, people are trying to have conversations which include facts and logical arguments, as well as their life experiences and emotions which can add context to why they feel a certain way. This is especially important when their are stats on both sides. I don't know how many times you have argued about ones "personal safety" despite owning a gun being more dangerous than not. The gun makes you feel safe, it does to a lot of people. I'm also unsure if you understand the word ironic. He used it correctly and explained its use, you used it like alanis morissette. You’ve learned much from Trump. “Cherry picking, sniping Danglars” is your “low energy Jeb” or “sloppy Steve.” It is very diverting to hear your frequent interjections, especially because i also received a response from the actual person I responded to. Keep them up or this thread will lack mirth. Not really sir. I mean there is still the questions in PM you never answered even though I did yours. And the ones here. You also did exactly what I said you did and you do it very regularly.
Oh you thought you answered mine? That explains it. I thought your nonanswers shouldn't be rewarded with answers and that having given you that chance to do otherwise, you should be allowed to cause an end to it in the form you chose. I'll give it another look.
|
|
|
On November 17 2018 03:04 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 02:54 Danglars wrote:On November 17 2018 02:34 JimmiC wrote:On November 17 2018 02:03 Danglars wrote:On November 17 2018 01:33 JimmiC wrote:On November 17 2018 01:06 Danglars wrote:On November 17 2018 00:55 riotjune wrote:
Kinda ironic that one of his most continually used “arguments” is that since gun advocates get butthurt easily, if you offend them just one bit they have the right to ignore everything you say. Coming from a guy who repeatedly use harsh language to put down others when they’re just trying to make civil arguments makes him look like a hypocrite, maybe he should take his own advice and leave insults out of the mix.
I know we’re not convincing anybody here, but it’s good to see people with differing viewpoints offer their perspectives to avoid your so-called echo chamber. But when the endpoint arguments repeatedly consist of American exceptionalism and “other people are even bigger pieces of shit, that gives me an excuse to stay a medium piece of shit” aka keep status quo/do nothing (which says a lot about one’s character), I can see why some gave up trying to engage in rational discourse before ad hominems get thrown about.
Just because I see way more traffic accidents and drug ODs than patients who got shot admitted to the hospital doesn’t mean we should do nothing about gun control. Poor standards in some areas does not excuse a complete lack of standard in another. Also why we don’t ignore infectious disease and soley go after Mcdonalds and food/soda companies for all the mortality rate they’re directly/indirectly causing.
Other arguments for guns I’ve already read but don’t agree with, other posters already counter-argued and put in words better than I’ll ever have. What's ironic is you include that third paragraph like it says something at all. Oh look, another gun control proponent with a facile comparison, like somebody here thinks traffic accidents and drug overdoses prove we don't need gun control! Who do you think you're arguing with? Seriously, I see posts like this all the time, and I can't fathom why you move from an observation on butthurt to an observation on bad arguments to ... a pointless and bad argument. Cherry picking, sniper Danglars swoops in after avoiding direct questions to attack one portion of someones post without taking into consideration of the post in its entirety. He mentioned that he agreed with the other points, that he just wanted to add on his own personal experiences. People use their own experiences in conversations all the time. What you bolded makes complete sense when you take it in the context of the entire post and don't just search for one thing you can fite against. Again you score no points here, people are trying to have conversations which include facts and logical arguments, as well as their life experiences and emotions which can add context to why they feel a certain way. This is especially important when their are stats on both sides. I don't know how many times you have argued about ones "personal safety" despite owning a gun being more dangerous than not. The gun makes you feel safe, it does to a lot of people. I'm also unsure if you understand the word ironic. He used it correctly and explained its use, you used it like alanis morissette. You’ve learned much from Trump. “Cherry picking, sniping Danglars” is your “low energy Jeb” or “sloppy Steve.” It is very diverting to hear your frequent interjections, especially because i also received a response from the actual person I responded to. Keep them up or this thread will lack mirth. Not really sir. I mean there is still the questions in PM you never answered even though I did yours. And the ones here. You also did exactly what I said you did and you do it very regularly. Oh you thought you answered mine? That explains it. I thought your nonanswers shouldn't be rewarded with answers and that having given you that chance to do otherwise, you should be allowed to cause an end to it in the form you chose. I'll give it another look. I have been avoiding your more recent questions because you have been avoiding mine. But I have been clearly stating this for a long time. But please don't pretend like I wasn't answering all your stuff before I realized what game it is that you play. You are fine to disagree, but to pretend that I was not answering is very disingenuous even for you.
Listen, if you have further accusations, take it to PM. You have recently said I was dodging instead of answering questions, so you must in your own mind admit that others might also find your own conversation as consisting of dodges instead of answers. This difference of opinion might remain or give way to better understanding, but at this juncture I do not know which. I just want to avoid crapping up the thread with discussion of what you did or didn't do in PM.
|
|
|
|
|
He should be more careful with his property.
On November 17 2018 03:22 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 03:13 Danglars wrote:On November 17 2018 03:04 JimmiC wrote:On November 17 2018 02:54 Danglars wrote:On November 17 2018 02:34 JimmiC wrote:On November 17 2018 02:03 Danglars wrote:On November 17 2018 01:33 JimmiC wrote:On November 17 2018 01:06 Danglars wrote:On November 17 2018 00:55 riotjune wrote:
Kinda ironic that one of his most continually used “arguments” is that since gun advocates get butthurt easily, if you offend them just one bit they have the right to ignore everything you say. Coming from a guy who repeatedly use harsh language to put down others when they’re just trying to make civil arguments makes him look like a hypocrite, maybe he should take his own advice and leave insults out of the mix.
I know we’re not convincing anybody here, but it’s good to see people with differing viewpoints offer their perspectives to avoid your so-called echo chamber. But when the endpoint arguments repeatedly consist of American exceptionalism and “other people are even bigger pieces of shit, that gives me an excuse to stay a medium piece of shit” aka keep status quo/do nothing (which says a lot about one’s character), I can see why some gave up trying to engage in rational discourse before ad hominems get thrown about.
Just because I see way more traffic accidents and drug ODs than patients who got shot admitted to the hospital doesn’t mean we should do nothing about gun control. Poor standards in some areas does not excuse a complete lack of standard in another. Also why we don’t ignore infectious disease and soley go after Mcdonalds and food/soda companies for all the mortality rate they’re directly/indirectly causing.
Other arguments for guns I’ve already read but don’t agree with, other posters already counter-argued and put in words better than I’ll ever have. What's ironic is you include that third paragraph like it says something at all. Oh look, another gun control proponent with a facile comparison, like somebody here thinks traffic accidents and drug overdoses prove we don't need gun control! Who do you think you're arguing with? Seriously, I see posts like this all the time, and I can't fathom why you move from an observation on butthurt to an observation on bad arguments to ... a pointless and bad argument. Cherry picking, sniper Danglars swoops in after avoiding direct questions to attack one portion of someones post without taking into consideration of the post in its entirety. He mentioned that he agreed with the other points, that he just wanted to add on his own personal experiences. People use their own experiences in conversations all the time. What you bolded makes complete sense when you take it in the context of the entire post and don't just search for one thing you can fite against. Again you score no points here, people are trying to have conversations which include facts and logical arguments, as well as their life experiences and emotions which can add context to why they feel a certain way. This is especially important when their are stats on both sides. I don't know how many times you have argued about ones "personal safety" despite owning a gun being more dangerous than not. The gun makes you feel safe, it does to a lot of people. I'm also unsure if you understand the word ironic. He used it correctly and explained its use, you used it like alanis morissette. You’ve learned much from Trump. “Cherry picking, sniping Danglars” is your “low energy Jeb” or “sloppy Steve.” It is very diverting to hear your frequent interjections, especially because i also received a response from the actual person I responded to. Keep them up or this thread will lack mirth. Not really sir. I mean there is still the questions in PM you never answered even though I did yours. And the ones here. You also did exactly what I said you did and you do it very regularly. Oh you thought you answered mine? That explains it. I thought your nonanswers shouldn't be rewarded with answers and that having given you that chance to do otherwise, you should be allowed to cause an end to it in the form you chose. I'll give it another look. I have been avoiding your more recent questions because you have been avoiding mine. But I have been clearly stating this for a long time. But please don't pretend like I wasn't answering all your stuff before I realized what game it is that you play. You are fine to disagree, but to pretend that I was not answering is very disingenuous even for you. Listen, if you have further accusations, take it to PM. You have recently said I was dodging instead of answering questions, so you must in your own mind admit that others might also find your own conversation as consisting of dodges instead of answers. This difference of opinion might remain or give way to better understanding, but at this juncture I do not know which. I just want to avoid crapping up the thread with discussion of what you did or didn't do in PM. Speaking of irony with a dash of hypocrisy, couldn't you have sent me this message in PM? TBH I don't really want to talk to you in PM because any attempt at that has been marred by what I'm saying here. However, if you do want to please do but lead it by answering my last questions, whatever they were since that was the deal we made that you broke. Otherwise I'll just keep responding to you when you snipe in at me and occasionally when you do it to others. If you don't like that feel free to respond to peoples entire posts and not the sections you think you can score points on.
I say this lest you accuse me publicly of dodging once again. You brought up private PMs out of the blue, I bring a single response. That's all. Carry on.
|
Yeah, but "he should be more careful with his property" does not sound like "He should be in some way held responsible for crimes committed with his guns if he doesn't take care to store them appropriately". Which was JimmiCs point.
"He should be more careful with his property" suggests that the worst punishment is that his gun is gone if he doesn't secure it. Which i do not agree with.
|
On November 17 2018 06:17 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, but "he should be more careful with his property" does not sound like "He should be in some way held responsible for crimes committed with his guns if he doesn't take care to store them appropriately". Which was JimmiCs point.
"He should be more careful with his property" suggests that the worst punishment is that his gun is gone if he doesn't secure it. Which i do not agree with.
I don't believe the problem of people leaving $50,000 weapons lying about in unlocked cars is a big enough problem to address with legislation. Maybe I'm poorly informed on the topic, and someone will bring to my attention the statistics on this.
|
Right, i kind of forgot that in the US weapons everywhere are completely normal. So i guess it is only really relevant when the weapons lying about are ones that the people around would otherwise not have been able to get. If it were just a normal gun lying about, people could just as well have bought that one in the next walmart or whatever. So i guess it doesn't matter under those circumstances.
Your live in an alien world.
|
|
|
On November 17 2018 06:28 Simberto wrote:
Right, i kind of forgot that in the US weapons everywhere are completely normal. So i guess it is only really relevant when the weapons lying about are ones that the people around would otherwise not have been able to get. If it were just a normal gun lying about, people could just as well have bought that one in the next walmart or whatever. So i guess it doesn't matter under those circumstances.
Your live in an alien world.
I'm a little mystified why you state something as completely normal in the US, a nation of 325million people, and conclude that "your live in an alien world." Maybe you're the alien, or maybe my world's conception of normal weapons will hold sway in time.
For the particular case, $50,000 assault rifles are extraordinarily rare, and rarer still that someone would move it so stupidly (a wealthy athlete that treats all expensive things as toys and doesn't know prudence might explain some of it) is shocking. Part of the reason for the price is that modernly manufactured ones aren't legal to sell to civilians ... they're more collectors items and show-off than actually useful. Compare with the AR-15 that you can pick up for under $1,000.
I don't really recall how many decades it's been since a civilian using an actual assault rifle (M16 in this case) actually killed anyone. May I also add, shame on the Miami Heat star that so recklessly transported his weapon around.
|
United States24682 Posts
On November 17 2018 06:29 JimmiC wrote:
I was concerned for what someone could do with that weapon, silencer and so on.
I imagine he could whack someone in the head with the silencer. It wouldn't be dangerous in any other respect I can think of.
In many places in the U.S., leaving the gun unprotected like that would be illegal and he would be punished. I don't know what the deal is with Miami but they don't seem to criminalize that particular negligence for whatever reason.
|
|
|
On November 17 2018 08:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 06:28 Simberto wrote:
Right, i kind of forgot that in the US weapons everywhere are completely normal. So i guess it is only really relevant when the weapons lying about are ones that the people around would otherwise not have been able to get. If it were just a normal gun lying about, people could just as well have bought that one in the next walmart or whatever. So i guess it doesn't matter under those circumstances.
Your live in an alien world. I'm a little mystified why you state something as completely normal in the US, a nation of 325million people, and conclude that "your live in an alien world." Maybe you're the alien, or maybe my world's conception of normal weapons will hold sway in time. For the particular case, $50,000 assault rifles are extraordinarily rare, and rarer still that someone would move it so stupidly (a wealthy athlete that treats all expensive things as toys and doesn't know prudence might explain some of it) is shocking. Part of the reason for the price is that modernly manufactured ones aren't legal to sell to civilians ... they're more collectors items and show-off than actually useful. Compare with the AR-15 that you can pick up for under $1,000. I don't really recall how many decades it's been since a civilian using an actual assault rifle (M16 in this case) actually killed anyone. May I also add, shame on the Miami Heat star that so recklessly transported his weapon around.
Look, I voted against the legislation in my state that addressed incidents like this, but the point is obviously not about $50,000 rifles and is about people not being held accountable for irresponsible weapon storage.
Holding people accountable for guns that are obtained because they weren't reasonably secured is a law we could use. Particularly when it comes to small children.
Of course my idea of accountability isn't the one this country uses where if you're wealthy you pay a negligible fine and if you're not you rot in a cage.
If you have a gun stolen/"borrowed" from an unsecured location you shouldn't be able to own a gun until you've demonstrated you've learned your lesson about the importance of properly securing your weapons.
One huge problem with the conversation in general and this thread is that it stupidly centers specifically mass shootings and not gun related deaths. But then only talk about guns in relation to mass shooting and not the other factors that lead someone to believing shooting a bunch of random innocent people is a solution.
The solutions to reduce mass shootings and the solutions to significantly reduce gun related deaths are related but are not the same and trying to conflate the two is one reason this conversation never goes anywhere.
|
On November 17 2018 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 08:22 Danglars wrote:On November 17 2018 06:28 Simberto wrote:
Right, i kind of forgot that in the US weapons everywhere are completely normal. So i guess it is only really relevant when the weapons lying about are ones that the people around would otherwise not have been able to get. If it were just a normal gun lying about, people could just as well have bought that one in the next walmart or whatever. So i guess it doesn't matter under those circumstances.
Your live in an alien world. I'm a little mystified why you state something as completely normal in the US, a nation of 325million people, and conclude that "your live in an alien world." Maybe you're the alien, or maybe my world's conception of normal weapons will hold sway in time. For the particular case, $50,000 assault rifles are extraordinarily rare, and rarer still that someone would move it so stupidly (a wealthy athlete that treats all expensive things as toys and doesn't know prudence might explain some of it) is shocking. Part of the reason for the price is that modernly manufactured ones aren't legal to sell to civilians ... they're more collectors items and show-off than actually useful. Compare with the AR-15 that you can pick up for under $1,000. I don't really recall how many decades it's been since a civilian using an actual assault rifle (M16 in this case) actually killed anyone. May I also add, shame on the Miami Heat star that so recklessly transported his weapon around. If you have a gun stolen/"borrowed" from an unsecured location you shouldn't be able to own a gun until you've demonstrated you've learned your lesson about the importance of properly securing your weapons.
Imo you should be held as accessory to murder. Not storing your weapon properly directly impacted someone else's ability to take a life, and you should be held accountable for that. Rich or poor; you should be going to jail.
|
On November 17 2018 09:29 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2018 08:22 Danglars wrote:On November 17 2018 06:28 Simberto wrote:
Right, i kind of forgot that in the US weapons everywhere are completely normal. So i guess it is only really relevant when the weapons lying about are ones that the people around would otherwise not have been able to get. If it were just a normal gun lying about, people could just as well have bought that one in the next walmart or whatever. So i guess it doesn't matter under those circumstances.
Your live in an alien world. I'm a little mystified why you state something as completely normal in the US, a nation of 325million people, and conclude that "your live in an alien world." Maybe you're the alien, or maybe my world's conception of normal weapons will hold sway in time. For the particular case, $50,000 assault rifles are extraordinarily rare, and rarer still that someone would move it so stupidly (a wealthy athlete that treats all expensive things as toys and doesn't know prudence might explain some of it) is shocking. Part of the reason for the price is that modernly manufactured ones aren't legal to sell to civilians ... they're more collectors items and show-off than actually useful. Compare with the AR-15 that you can pick up for under $1,000. I don't really recall how many decades it's been since a civilian using an actual assault rifle (M16 in this case) actually killed anyone. May I also add, shame on the Miami Heat star that so recklessly transported his weapon around. If you have a gun stolen/"borrowed" from an unsecured location you shouldn't be able to own a gun until you've demonstrated you've learned your lesson about the importance of properly securing your weapons. Imo you should be held as accessory to murder. Not storing your weapon properly directly impacted someone else's ability to take a life, and you should be held accountable for that. Rich or poor; you should be going to jail.
Presuming someone is murdered as opposed to something like a kid getting your bedroom dresser pistol and blowing his friends head off playing cops and robbers (that's more manslaughter).
I'll tell you now there is also a lot of overlap on why people think charging someone when their improperly secured gun is used for a crime is ridiculous, think charging a kid who got pressured into being a lookout for a home invasion gone wrong with murder is legit, and why we never talk about the cultural issues (beyond gun ownership) that lead to mass shootings of unrelated/innocent people.
|
|
|
United States24682 Posts
On November 17 2018 09:01 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 08:26 micronesia wrote:On November 17 2018 06:29 JimmiC wrote:
I was concerned for what someone could do with that weapon, silencer and so on.
I imagine he could whack someone in the head with the silencer. It wouldn't be dangerous in any other respect I can think of. In many places in the U.S., leaving the gun unprotected like that would be illegal and he would be punished. I don't know what the deal is with Miami but they don't seem to criminalize that particular negligence for whatever reason. I have read that a silencer is more dangerous because it takes people longer to realize whats going on a run away, so like people around a corner if they hear a gun shot will run away from it if they can't hear it they will be there opening up more targets of the shooter. I'm not sure if this is true because I have not read about a bunch of shootings involving a silencer but it kind of makes sense. I think you were reading about guns using subsonic bullets which don't make sonic booms regardless of the silencer. The silencer probably make a rifle more enjoyable to shoot though.
That good that some states have rules around this. It is always odd to me how different each states rules on things can be. Do any have rules that make someone liable if their gun is used in crime and it wasn't properly stored or reported stolen?
The lack of uniformity from State to State, in general, is an important part of the USA's identity, good or bad. I don't know what rules exist regarding use of an unsecured gun in a crime.
|
On November 17 2018 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 08:22 Danglars wrote:On November 17 2018 06:28 Simberto wrote:
Right, i kind of forgot that in the US weapons everywhere are completely normal. So i guess it is only really relevant when the weapons lying about are ones that the people around would otherwise not have been able to get. If it were just a normal gun lying about, people could just as well have bought that one in the next walmart or whatever. So i guess it doesn't matter under those circumstances.
Your live in an alien world. I'm a little mystified why you state something as completely normal in the US, a nation of 325million people, and conclude that "your live in an alien world." Maybe you're the alien, or maybe my world's conception of normal weapons will hold sway in time. For the particular case, $50,000 assault rifles are extraordinarily rare, and rarer still that someone would move it so stupidly (a wealthy athlete that treats all expensive things as toys and doesn't know prudence might explain some of it) is shocking. Part of the reason for the price is that modernly manufactured ones aren't legal to sell to civilians ... they're more collectors items and show-off than actually useful. Compare with the AR-15 that you can pick up for under $1,000. I don't really recall how many decades it's been since a civilian using an actual assault rifle (M16 in this case) actually killed anyone. May I also add, shame on the Miami Heat star that so recklessly transported his weapon around. Look, I voted against the legislation in my state that addressed incidents like this, but the point is obviously not about $50,000 rifles and is about people not being held accountable for irresponsible weapon storage. Holding people accountable for guns that are obtained because they weren't reasonably secured is a law we could use. Particularly when it comes to small children. Of course my idea of accountability isn't the one this country uses where if you're wealthy you pay a negligible fine and if you're not you rot in a cage. If you have a gun stolen/"borrowed" from an unsecured location you shouldn't be able to own a gun until you've demonstrated you've learned your lesson about the importance of properly securing your weapons. One huge problem with the conversation in general and this thread is that it stupidly centers specifically mass shootings and not gun related deaths. But then only talk about guns in relation to mass shooting and not the other factors that lead someone to believing shooting a bunch of random innocent people is a solution. The solutions to reduce mass shootings and the solutions to significantly reduce gun related deaths are related but are not the same and trying to conflate the two is one reason this conversation never goes anywhere.
It was an assault rifle, and that's a big bugaboo around most parts. That's why I wanted to point out that dynamic. It's a high interest story without a lot of applicability to the discussion. It would matter if gun robberies were on the rise in general, or gun theft from unlocked cars.
California has excessive laws in this area for storage and criminal penalties. I'm not going to meddle in some other state's business if theirs is lighter.
|
On November 17 2018 10:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2018 08:22 Danglars wrote:On November 17 2018 06:28 Simberto wrote:
Right, i kind of forgot that in the US weapons everywhere are completely normal. So i guess it is only really relevant when the weapons lying about are ones that the people around would otherwise not have been able to get. If it were just a normal gun lying about, people could just as well have bought that one in the next walmart or whatever. So i guess it doesn't matter under those circumstances.
Your live in an alien world. I'm a little mystified why you state something as completely normal in the US, a nation of 325million people, and conclude that "your live in an alien world." Maybe you're the alien, or maybe my world's conception of normal weapons will hold sway in time. For the particular case, $50,000 assault rifles are extraordinarily rare, and rarer still that someone would move it so stupidly (a wealthy athlete that treats all expensive things as toys and doesn't know prudence might explain some of it) is shocking. Part of the reason for the price is that modernly manufactured ones aren't legal to sell to civilians ... they're more collectors items and show-off than actually useful. Compare with the AR-15 that you can pick up for under $1,000. I don't really recall how many decades it's been since a civilian using an actual assault rifle (M16 in this case) actually killed anyone. May I also add, shame on the Miami Heat star that so recklessly transported his weapon around. Look, I voted against the legislation in my state that addressed incidents like this, but the point is obviously not about $50,000 rifles and is about people not being held accountable for irresponsible weapon storage. Holding people accountable for guns that are obtained because they weren't reasonably secured is a law we could use. Particularly when it comes to small children. Of course my idea of accountability isn't the one this country uses where if you're wealthy you pay a negligible fine and if you're not you rot in a cage. If you have a gun stolen/"borrowed" from an unsecured location you shouldn't be able to own a gun until you've demonstrated you've learned your lesson about the importance of properly securing your weapons. One huge problem with the conversation in general and this thread is that it stupidly centers specifically mass shootings and not gun related deaths. But then only talk about guns in relation to mass shooting and not the other factors that lead someone to believing shooting a bunch of random innocent people is a solution. The solutions to reduce mass shootings and the solutions to significantly reduce gun related deaths are related but are not the same and trying to conflate the two is one reason this conversation never goes anywhere. It was an assault rifle, and that's a big bugaboo around most parts. That's why I wanted to point out that dynamic. It's a high interest story without a lot of applicability to the discussion. It would matter if gun robberies were on the rise in general, or gun theft from unlocked cars. California has excessive laws in this area for storage and criminal penalties. I'm not going to meddle in some other state's business if theirs is lighter.
I'm talking (and the applicable point beyond any sensationalism is) about culpability for improperly secured guns, the type and so on is superfluous.
It's highly applicable unless we restrict the conversation as I was pointing out, which intentionally or not, makes the whole exercise mostly useless.
Whether gun robberies are rising or not has little bearing on whether improperly secured firearms are and have been used extensively in pretty much all kinds of gun related deaths.
I don't allocate any value to the position that we shouldn't encourage other states to reduce gun-related deaths by improving the rates at which guns are properly secured or discouraging it as "meddling".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
