Time To Leave California
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
So, the analogy to most other things is pointless, certainly to a car.
I just don't get how you can say the analogy here is pointless, when both a car & a gun are weapons, and cars kill far more people than guns.
Marc Clifton wrote:
What is the primary purpose for the manufacture of a gun? Isn't it to kill?
That's your opinion. I own guns. I didn't buy them to kill. I bought them to target shoot, which I do regularly. I'v never killed anyone with my gun. The purpose of guns is subjective.
Marc Clifton wrote:
But we can go further. All cars have locks.
Um, no, all cars don't have locks. New model cars do. Not all cars have security systems, unless you call the useless blinking light on the dashboard a security system. My car doesn't have one, and it's a 2011.
Marc Clifton wrote:
It is therefore your responsibility to protect your gun, and if you fail to do so, I content that you are responsible for that failure.
If I left a loaded gun on the front porch, then you're right. Just as if I had left my car running and some kid got in. But when my gun is in my house, where no one but me has a lock to, then it's secured. And the law agrees with me. Notice I didn't saw the politicians agree with me. Hence the new legislation. If someone broke into my house & stole a crossbow & killed someone with it, should I be arrested? My guns are stored in a locked closet. If someone kicked down the door, which anyone could do, and stole my shotgun and killed someone with it, should I be prosecuted? All my guns have gun locks/cables on them. If someone stole my gun, cut off the lock, and killed someone with it should I be prosecuted?
Marc Clifton wrote:
If that idiot of a mother had locked her guns in her apartment in Newtown, a lot of kids would still be alive, including her.
Are you kidding? You're not serious? That nutjob would have used some other weapon. Like a bomb in a backpack. You're speaking out of fear & frustration, which I understand and sympathize with. But if you (and the brain dead idiots writing laws) would just do some simple fact checking, you (and they) would see that most law abiding citizens don't commit crimes with guns. It's true. The crime rate
Kevin Marois wrote:
I just don't get how you can say the analogy here is pointless, when both a car & a gun are weapons
Cars AND guns are weapons?! Can't argue with that. :thumbsup: Now I see you're just trolling. But I'm glad you didn't tell that both cars and guns are used for transportation. :laugh:
"Real men drive manual transmission" - Rajesh.
-
Kevin Marois wrote:
I just don't get how you can say the analogy here is pointless, when both a car & a gun are weapons
Cars AND guns are weapons?! Can't argue with that. :thumbsup: Now I see you're just trolling. But I'm glad you didn't tell that both cars and guns are used for transportation. :laugh:
"Real men drive manual transmission" - Rajesh.
If you run someone down with your car you will be charged with Assult With a Deadly Weapon. How is that 'trolling'???
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
-
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=738035[^] Read the section just past the flag. These laws were ALL passed yesterday.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
Kevin Marois wrote:
Time To Leave California
I left in 2004.
-
If you run someone down with your car you will be charged with Assult With a Deadly Weapon. How is that 'trolling'???
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
Whether or not a car can be used as a weapon is a completely different topic. But it isn't a weapon. I can possibly fatally injure someone with a straight punch to the temple or throat. My Taekwondo instructor could almost certainly kill with a punch to the chest. Does that mean human hands can be classified as deadly weapons and be banned? Obviously, no. Your comparison of guns with cars (or hands, or ballpens, or screw drivers, or shovels) is insensible because it goes beyond rationale. The purpose of a car is transportation, and the purpose of a gun is to shoot (and possibly kill). A gun is a weapon, and a car isn't. I find it completely acceptable that your government asks gun owners to take up some responsibilities because they've been given the freedom of owning a deadly weapon (yes, it is) that's primarily built to kill. And such freedom comes at the cost of taking up some minimal responsibilities like keeping your gun safely such that it doesn't fall into the wrong hands. As such, if you're not trolling, you're in serious denial of facts. You could do whatever you wanted to within your home as long as it isn't against the laws of land (upon which your home is built). Or you could move out of the land which you think is taking away your freedom. I'm sorry to make such a comment, but would your views on gun control be any different if you lost a loved one to some mad shooting spree? I pray there shall be no such mindless killing of people anywhere in the world, but right now the ground reality is different. And any steps taken towards controlling guns and imposing more responsibility on owning guns is correct. The law which murdered Savita[^] is a stupid law. The law which is asking you to act responsibly IS NOT a stupid one.
"Real men drive manual transmission" - Rajesh.
-
yes, I'm aware of that. and I don't agree with it. boohoo.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert EinsteinYour agreement with it is not required.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
... and a burglar steals them and then kills someone with your weapons, or kills a policeman responding to a burglary with your weapons, that you are held accountable as if you had committed the murder yourself.
Would you disagree?You're joking, right? Of course I disagree. Are you responsible if someone steals your car and kills someone with it?
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
Cars aren't made to kill people.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Kevin Marois wrote:
Absolutely. I have real issues with the government telling me what to do in my own home.
It's not the place of the gov to decide what happens in my house.OK, but then I have the expectation that if you leave guns unlocked and accessible, and a burglar steals them and then kills someone with your weapons, or kills a policeman responding to a burglary with your weapons, that you are held accountable as if you had committed the murder yourself. [edit]Furthermore, if a child kills himself or a friend accidentally, I would expect that you be held accountable as if you had killed that child yourself. [/edit] Would you disagree? Marc
Testers Wanted!
Latest Article: User Authentication on Ruby on Rails - the definitive how to
My BlogI don't agree with this line of argument. As Kevin says, you're not held directly responsible if other items you own are stolen and then used in a crime, and I don't think that leaving something accessible to a thief should be a crime (which is basically what you're proposing). The argument for keeping weapons away from people, or locked up as securely as possible, is to avoid them being used against other people, sure. Depending on the lethality of the weapon and its non-weapon uses, the level of appropriate restriction varies – for example it doesn't make sense to be too restrictive for knives because we all need them in the kitchen, but guns and explosives can be restricted only to particular jobs where you actually need them. The social good of having fewer weapons available can be argued to outweigh the small reduction in personal liberties (and that is a pure left/right value judgement which is why logic and reason don't work in that argument). But it doesn't follow that you should become responsible for the acts of others when they steal your dangerous item.
-
I don't agree with this line of argument. As Kevin says, you're not held directly responsible if other items you own are stolen and then used in a crime, and I don't think that leaving something accessible to a thief should be a crime (which is basically what you're proposing). The argument for keeping weapons away from people, or locked up as securely as possible, is to avoid them being used against other people, sure. Depending on the lethality of the weapon and its non-weapon uses, the level of appropriate restriction varies – for example it doesn't make sense to be too restrictive for knives because we all need them in the kitchen, but guns and explosives can be restricted only to particular jobs where you actually need them. The social good of having fewer weapons available can be argued to outweigh the small reduction in personal liberties (and that is a pure left/right value judgement which is why logic and reason don't work in that argument). But it doesn't follow that you should become responsible for the acts of others when they steal your dangerous item.
BobJanova wrote:
you're not held directly responsible if other items you own are stolen and then used in a crime,
The "other items" are not weapons made to kill.
BobJanova wrote:
But it doesn't follow that you should become responsible for the acts of others when they steal your dangerous item.
And why is it exactly bad if you were asked to keep your dangerous item locked safely? I don't think it's too much to ask for; you seem to be admitting that it's a dangerous item anyways.
"Real men drive manual transmission" - Rajesh.
-
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=738035[^] Read the section just past the flag. These laws were ALL passed yesterday.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
I have to be honest - all of the proposals seem to be completely reasonable and common sense? Without digging into "the debate" too heavilly - is there a particular element that upsets you or is it just that it's an attempt to regulate per se that's the problem?
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
So, the analogy to most other things is pointless, certainly to a car.
I just don't get how you can say the analogy here is pointless, when both a car & a gun are weapons, and cars kill far more people than guns.
Marc Clifton wrote:
What is the primary purpose for the manufacture of a gun? Isn't it to kill?
That's your opinion. I own guns. I didn't buy them to kill. I bought them to target shoot, which I do regularly. I'v never killed anyone with my gun. The purpose of guns is subjective.
Marc Clifton wrote:
But we can go further. All cars have locks.
Um, no, all cars don't have locks. New model cars do. Not all cars have security systems, unless you call the useless blinking light on the dashboard a security system. My car doesn't have one, and it's a 2011.
Marc Clifton wrote:
It is therefore your responsibility to protect your gun, and if you fail to do so, I content that you are responsible for that failure.
If I left a loaded gun on the front porch, then you're right. Just as if I had left my car running and some kid got in. But when my gun is in my house, where no one but me has a lock to, then it's secured. And the law agrees with me. Notice I didn't saw the politicians agree with me. Hence the new legislation. If someone broke into my house & stole a crossbow & killed someone with it, should I be arrested? My guns are stored in a locked closet. If someone kicked down the door, which anyone could do, and stole my shotgun and killed someone with it, should I be prosecuted? All my guns have gun locks/cables on them. If someone stole my gun, cut off the lock, and killed someone with it should I be prosecuted?
Marc Clifton wrote:
If that idiot of a mother had locked her guns in her apartment in Newtown, a lot of kids would still be alive, including her.
Are you kidding? You're not serious? That nutjob would have used some other weapon. Like a bomb in a backpack. You're speaking out of fear & frustration, which I understand and sympathize with. But if you (and the brain dead idiots writing laws) would just do some simple fact checking, you (and they) would see that most law abiding citizens don't commit crimes with guns. It's true. The crime rate
Kevin Marois wrote:
My guns are stored in a locked closet. If someone kicked down the door, which anyone could do, and stole my shotgun and killed someone with it, should I be prosecuted?
All my guns have gun locks/cables on them. If someone stole my gun, cut off the lock, and killed someone with it should I be prosecuted?No, because you are taking responsible measures. And that's the point. The law is there because many gun owners are not responsible. That's why we have laws in the first place, because people are incapable of ethical and "correct" behavior otherwise. Sure, I don't want the government telling me (or you) what to do or not to do, but with regards to laws affecting civil liberties, I hold responsible my fellow man for their behavior that requires the law to begin with, not some amorphous, easily blamed entity called "the government." If you don't like the gun laws, then I suggest you go out there and get gun owners to be responsible for their weapons. A lot, such as yourself, are. I know and respect a lot of people where I have that own guns and own them responsibly. And as to statistics, the point of statistics is to argue your point, not to demonstrate a truth. And there are lots of statistics out there for what guns do and don't do. You're just looking at a particular one that bolsters your views. Marc
Testers Wanted!
Latest Article: User Authentication on Ruby on Rails - the definitive how to
My Blog -
Your agreement with it is not required.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Resistance is futile. You will be absorbed! *borg* *borg* *borg*
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein -
You have a problem, with, for example: "Senate Bill 108 - (Yee) requires mandatory locked storage of firearms within a locked house regardless of whether anyone is present." ??? Really ??? Marc
Testers Wanted!
Latest Article: User Authentication on Ruby on Rails - the definitive how to
My BlogYes, actually. Taken at face value, that says you can't take the gun out of locked storage. Ever. Not necessarily what they meant...but if that is the case, they've no business writing laws, since they're morons.
-
BobJanova wrote:
you're not held directly responsible if other items you own are stolen and then used in a crime,
The "other items" are not weapons made to kill.
BobJanova wrote:
But it doesn't follow that you should become responsible for the acts of others when they steal your dangerous item.
And why is it exactly bad if you were asked to keep your dangerous item locked safely? I don't think it's too much to ask for; you seem to be admitting that it's a dangerous item anyways.
"Real men drive manual transmission" - Rajesh.
-
I think it's a good thing that weapons are locked away. I'm just saying that it is fairly silly to suggest that you should be liable for a crime committed with something stolen from you.
If I'm correct, that law is only suggesting that guns be kept safely locked up. If someone (possibly a miscreant) breaks open through the safety, then I do not think that the owner of the gun will be liable for a crime committed using that gun. I may have to re-read the entire law, but this is what I understood after I skimmed through the text first. My argument with the OP was because he suggested that the government has no business telling him to keep his gun locked. He doesn't like anyone telling him what to do inside his home, which I thought was crazy.
"Real men drive manual transmission" - Rajesh.