rushmc 18 #176 December 8, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Cop out = excuse. And making a bunch of new laws and going after the innocent just so you can say you tried to do something and make yourself feel better wont help either. YOU COULD TRY READING WHAT I WROTE INSTEAD OF MAKING CRAP UP. If you'd done that initially you wouldn't have posted some of your silly responses. www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3040141#3040141 It is all so simple to you isnt it. Uniform laws that are not easy to circumvent is something you wrote. I will ask again. What law or laws are you talking about? Then the tried and true, "register all guns" Where can you point to, cause we both know it has been tried in many countries, where "registration has worked? And the owner be responsible for his/her weapons. Nobody has said gun owners should not be responsible. What is in dispute is what you and billvon would call being responsible is!!!! Are you the arbiter of responsibility???"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #177 December 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteCop out = excuse. And making a bunch of new laws and going after the innocent just so you can say you tried to do something and make yourself feel better wont help either. What exactly is "innocent" about leaving a semi automatic rifle around for your mentally disturbed stepson to take to the Mall and off a bunch of Christmas shoppers? The gun owner is as just guilty as the guy pulling the trigger.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #178 December 8, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Cop out = excuse. And making a bunch of new laws and going after the innocent just so you can say you tried to do something and make yourself feel better wont help either. What exactly is "innocent" about leaving a semi automatic rifle around for your mentally disturbed stepson to take to the Mall and off a bunch of Christmas shoppers? The gun owner is as just guilty as the guy pulling the trigger. Hell kallend, what you learned about what happened there that the rest of us do not yet know??? If you stop gernealizing it might be easier foro you"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #179 December 8, 2007 >What is in dispute is what you and billvon would call being responsible >is!!!! Are you the arbiter of responsibility??? No, courts are. I never said that irresponsible gun owners were responsible for how their guns were used. They ARE responsible for securing their guns. Here's what a court had to say: ===================================== Some gun owners could be liable for firearms stolen in home By Andrew Ryan, Associated Press Writer June 30, 2006 BOSTON --The state's highest court ruled Friday that gun owners may be negligent for shootings with their stolen firearms in specific situations, if they fail to properly lock up the weapons when they know someone with a history of violence has access to them. . . . "This decision is a bit of a victory for police officers," said David Yas, publisher of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. "It extends a little more protection to them as far as unguarded guns." Westminster police officer Lawrence Jupin was shot three times in May 1999 by Jason Rivers, a paranoid schizophrenic who was ruled mentally incompetent to stand trial. Rivers had unscrewed the hinges on his father's gun cabinet and taken one of his approximately 30 firearms. ========================================= Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #180 December 8, 2007 Quote>What is in dispute is what you and billvon would call being responsible >is!!!! Are you the arbiter of responsibility??? No, courts are. I never said that irresponsible gun owners were responsible for how their guns were used. They ARE responsible for securing their guns.Quote OK, what would you call being "responsibly" secure? From a leagal perspective in the context of this thread?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #181 December 8, 2007 "So what happens now? Another shooting in another mall" So what happens now? (appologies to Me Lloyd Webber) Sorry, it's the drink. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #182 December 8, 2007 Quote>What is in dispute is what you and billvon would call being responsible >is!!!! Are you the arbiter of responsibility??? No, courts are. I never said that irresponsible gun owners were responsible for how their guns were used. They ARE responsible for securing their guns. Here's what a court had to say: ===================================== Some gun owners could be liable for firearms stolen in home By Andrew Ryan, Associated Press Writer June 30, 2006 BOSTON --The state's highest court ruled Friday that gun owners may be negligent for shootings with their stolen firearms in specific situations, if they fail to properly lock up the weapons when they know someone with a history of violence has access to them. . . . "This decision is a bit of a victory for police officers," said David Yas, publisher of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. "It extends a little more protection to them as far as unguarded guns." Westminster police officer Lawrence Jupin was shot three times in May 1999 by Jason Rivers, a paranoid schizophrenic who was ruled mentally incompetent to stand trial. Rivers had unscrewed the hinges on his father's gun cabinet and taken one of his approximately 30 firearms. ========================================= OK, lets take a couple more specific examples for your opinion I have a hand gun. It is in a locked but portable case designed for keeping a hand gun. A perp breaks into my house, steals the case gets the gun out through destruction of the case and then used the gun to commint a crime. I your world would I be responsible? Senario two I have a room where I keep guns. I add a more secure door than just a wooden interior door. I keep the door locked. A family member breaks into the room. A felon or a mental case, you choose. This member gets the gun and kills people at a mall. Am I responsib le?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,435 #183 December 8, 2007 >OK, what would you call being "responsibly" secure? See article above. Also, from the California attorney general, who's a reasonable source: ------------------------------------- Store your gun safely and securely to prevent unauthorized use. Guns and ammunition should be stored separately. When the gun is not in your hands, you must still think of safety. Use a California-approved firearms safety device on the gun, such as a trigger lock or cable lock, so it cannot be fired. Store it unloaded in a locked container, such as a California-approved lock box or a gun safe. Store your gun in a different location than the ammunition. For maximum safety you should use both a locking device and a storage container. . . . If you decide to keep a firearm in your home you must consider the issue of how to store the firearm in a safe and secure manner. California recognizes the importance of safe storage by requiring that all firearms sold in California be accompanied by a DOJ-approved firearms safety device or proof that the purchaser owns a gun safe that meets regulatory standards established by the Department. The current list of DOJ-approved firearms safety devices and the gun safe standards can be viewed at the DOJ website. There are a variety of safety and storage devices currently available to the public in a wide range of prices. Some devices are locking mechanisms designed to keep the firearm from being loaded or fired, but don't prevent the firearm from being handled or stolen. There are also locking storage containers that hold the firearm out of sight. For maximum safety you should use both a firearm safety device and a locking storage container to store your unloaded firearm. Two of the most common locking mechanisms are trigger locks and cable locks. Trigger locks are typically two-piece devices that fit around the trigger and trigger guard to prevent access to the trigger. One side has a post that fits into a hole in the other side. They are locked by a key or combination locking mechanism. Cable locks typically work by looping a strong steel cable through the action of the firearm to block the firearm's operation and prevent accidental firing. However, neither trigger locks nor cable locks are designed to prevent access to the firearm. Smaller lock boxes and larger gun safes are two of the most common types of locking storage containers. One advantage of lock boxes and gun safes is that they are designed to completely prevent unintended handling and removal of a firearm. Lock boxes are generally constructed of sturdy, high-grade metal opened by either a key or combination lock. Gun safes are quite heavy, usually weighing at least 50 pounds. While gun safes are typically the most expensive firearm storage devices, they are generally more reliable and secure. Remember: Safety and storage devices are only as secure as the precautions you take to protect the key or combination to the lock. ----------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #184 December 8, 2007 Quote>OK, what would you call being "responsibly" secure? See article above. Also, from the California attorney general, who's a reasonable source: ------------------------------------- Store your gun safely and securely to prevent unauthorized use. Guns and ammunition should be stored separately. When the gun is not in your hands, you must still think of safety. Use a California-approved firearms safety device on the gun, such as a trigger lock or cable lock, so it cannot be fired. Store it unloaded in a locked container, such as a California-approved lock box or a gun safe. Store your gun in a different location than the ammunition. For maximum safety you should use both a locking device and a storage container.In this case you have just rendered the weapon, if owned for personal protection, useless. You want to make me responsible for the act of another if stolen . . . If you decide to keep a firearm in your home you must consider the issue of how to store the firearm in a safe and secure manner. California recognizes the importance of safe storage by requiring that all firearms sold in California be accompanied by a DOJ-approved firearms safety device or proof that the purchaser owns a gun safe that meets regulatory standards established by the Department. The current list of DOJ-approved firearms safety devices and the gun safe standards can be viewed at the DOJ website. There are a variety of safety and storage devices currently available to the public in a wide range of prices. Some devices are locking mechanisms designed to keep the firearm from being loaded or fired, but don't prevent the firearm from being handled or stolen. There are also locking storage containers that hold the firearm out of sight. For maximum safety you should use both a firearm safety device and a locking storage container to store your unloaded firearm. Two of the most common locking mechanisms are trigger locks and cable locks. Trigger locks are typically two-piece devices that fit around the trigger and trigger guard to prevent access to the trigger. One side has a post that fits into a hole in the other side. They are locked by a key or combination locking mechanism. Cable locks typically work by looping a strong steel cable through the action of the firearm to block the firearm's operation and prevent accidental firing. However, neither trigger locks nor cable locks are designed to prevent access to the firearm. Smaller lock boxes and larger gun safes are two of the most common types of locking storage containers. One advantage of lock boxes and gun safes is that they are designed to completely prevent unintended handling and removal of a firearm. Lock boxes are generally constructed of sturdy, high-grade metal opened by either a key or combination lock. Gun safes are quite heavy, usually weighing at least 50 pounds. While gun safes are typically the most expensive firearm storage devices, they are generally more reliable and secure. Remember: Safety and storage devices are only as secure as the precautions you take to protect the key or combination to the lock. ----------------------------------- Again, if any or all of these devices are used in my home and the gun is still stolen and used in a crime. Am I responsible? Again I will mention, much of what your propose (and I think persoally CA is way way over board) makes a weapon as a tool for personal pertection, usless"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,435 #185 December 8, 2007 >You want to make me responsible for the act of another if stolen . . . Actually, no. The courts will do that. >Again, if any or all of these devices are used in my home and the gun >is still stolen and used in a crime. Am I responsible? Nope. You took reasonable precautions. At that point your only responsibility would be to report it stolen to police. >much of what your propose (and I think persoally CA is way way over >board) makes a weapon as a tool for personal pertection, usless Why? Put a lockbox next to your bed and lock your bedroom door. You cannot treat a gun like a tennis ball. You can't just leave it out. It is a deadly weapon and must be treated as such. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #186 December 8, 2007 Quote>You want to make me responsible for the act of another if stolen . . . Actually, no. The courts will do that. >Again, if any or all of these devices are used in my home and the gun >is still stolen and used in a crime. Am I responsible? Nope. You took reasonable precautions. At that point your only responsibility would be to report it stolen to police. >much of what your propose (and I think persoally CA is way way over >board) makes a weapon as a tool for personal pertection, usless Why? Put a lockbox next to your bed and lock your bedroom door. You cannot treat a gun like a tennis ball. You can't just leave it out. It is a deadly weapon and must be treated as such. I think, generally, you and I are close to being on the same page. Thanks for helping me understand your position a bit better."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #187 December 8, 2007 How about you. What do you think in the following cases. Would I be legally liable in your world? I have a hand gun. It is in a locked but portable case designed for keeping a hand gun. A perp breaks into my house, steals the case gets the gun out through destruction of the case and then used the gun to commit a crime. I your world would I be responsible? Scenario two I have a room where I keep guns. I add a more secure door than just a wooden interior door. I keep the door locked. A family member breaks into the room. A felon or a mental case, you choose. This member gets the gun and kills people at a mall. Am I responsible?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,651 #188 December 8, 2007 QuoteHow about you. What do you think in the following cases. Would I be legally liable in your world? I have a hand gun. It is in a locked but portable case designed for keeping a hand gun. A perp breaks into my house, steals the case gets the gun out through destruction of the case and then used the gun to commit a crime. I your world would I be responsible? Scenario two I have a room where I keep guns. I add a more secure door than just a wooden interior door. I keep the door locked. A family member breaks into the room. A felon or a mental case, you choose. This member gets the gun and kills people at a mall. Am I responsible? If you can prove that you took reasonable precautions you have done your part. Leaving a semi auto rifle around in a house with a mentally ill person doesn't fit the description of reasonable precautions. IMO, gun owners MUST be responsible for the security of their weapons, just like the military is responsible for the security of its dangerous stuff and mining companies are responsible for the security of their explosives.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #189 December 9, 2007 Quote Quote How about you. What do you think in the following cases. Would I be legally liable in your world? I have a hand gun. It is in a locked but portable case designed for keeping a hand gun. A perp breaks into my house, steals the case gets the gun out through destruction of the case and then used the gun to commit a crime. I your world would I be responsible? Scenario two I have a room where I keep guns. I add a more secure door than just a wooden interior door. I keep the door locked. A family member breaks into the room. A felon or a mental case, you choose. This member gets the gun and kills people at a mall. Am I responsible? If you can prove that you took reasonable precautions you have done your part. Leaving a semi auto rifle around in a house with a mentally ill person doesn't fit the description of reasonable precautions. IMO, gun owners MUST be responsible for the security of their weapons, just like the military is responsible for the security of its dangerous stuff and mining companies are responsible for the security of their explosives. You and I both know gray areas will alway exists but, this, being the "definitition" of reasonable in this context, you and I can agree.(dam that hurt)"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #190 December 9, 2007 Hey, let me throw one more situation at you (if I may) I live along. I have no family or friends visiting my house. I keep my rifles and shot guns in a closet, unloaded and in cases. Some "friends" know I have weapons (through discussion or seeing them on the range) and this "friend" breaks into my locked house, steals my weapons and kills someone at a mall. Thoughts? (not trying to trap you. just wanting to see if I can define the limits of what you think owner responsibility is)"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,651 #191 December 10, 2007 And yet another multiple shooting: www.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/us/10shooting.html?ref=us... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Rookie120 0 #192 December 10, 2007 The one in The Springs was stopped by a man with a gun. Imagine that. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #193 December 10, 2007 Quote The one in The Springs was stopped by a man with a gun. Imagine that. We can only guess at how many more may have died had the security gaurd not been armed. A debate went on here in Iowa for a while. A debate on whether to arm camus security at the states universities. The regents said yes to arming them even though university staff were against it. Glad they did not listen to the staff"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,651 #194 December 10, 2007 Quote Quote The one in The Springs was stopped by a man with a gun. Imagine that. We can only guess at how many more may have died had the security gaurd not been armed. We can be quite sure how many fewer would have died if the loony hadn't been able to get hold of a gun.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #195 December 10, 2007 Quote Quote Quote The one in The Springs was stopped by a man with a gun. Imagine that. We can only guess at how many more may have died had the security gaurd not been armed. We can be quite sure how many fewer would have died if the loony hadn't been able to get hold of a gun. True, we can also say how many would not have died in car accidents if alcohol was not legal too. So, whats your point?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,651 #196 December 10, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote The one in The Springs was stopped by a man with a gun. Imagine that. We can only guess at how many more may have died had the security gaurd not been armed. We can be quite sure how many fewer would have died if the loony hadn't been able to get hold of a gun. True, we can also say how many would not have died in car accidents if alcohol was not legal too. So, whats your point? Same as yours.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davedlg 0 #197 December 10, 2007 Quote The one in The Springs was stopped by a man with a gun. Imagine that. Actually, a woman with a gun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #198 December 10, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote The one in The Springs was stopped by a man with a gun. Imagine that. We can only guess at how many more may have died had the security gaurd not been armed. We can be quite sure how many fewer would have died if the loony hadn't been able to get hold of a gun. True, we can also say how many would not have died in car accidents if alcohol was not legal too. So, whats your point? Same as yours. Somehow I doubt it.........."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Botellines 0 #199 December 10, 2007 Quote(not trying to trap you. just wanting to see if I can define the limits of what you think owner responsibility is) If AQ managed to steal one of those russians nuclear suitcases and blow it in NY, many people would be screaming about owner responsability. Even if Russia really did all they could to prevent it. Spiderman said that with great power comes great responsability, so i think it is not crazy to somehow link gun ownership with crimes commited with said gun independently of precautions taken. Maybe a middle point would be that economical penalties (fines, compensations, etc) goes to the gun owner, as well as the one pulling the trigger, and criminal penalties (jail, etc) if the owner cannot prove that he did everything reasonable to avoid the outcome... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #200 December 10, 2007 QuoteSpiderman said that with great power comes great responsability,... That was Uncle Ben not the rice guy, but Spidey's uncle Ben ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next Page 8 of 13 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
shropshire 0 #181 December 8, 2007 "So what happens now? Another shooting in another mall" So what happens now? (appologies to Me Lloyd Webber) Sorry, it's the drink. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #182 December 8, 2007 Quote>What is in dispute is what you and billvon would call being responsible >is!!!! Are you the arbiter of responsibility??? No, courts are. I never said that irresponsible gun owners were responsible for how their guns were used. They ARE responsible for securing their guns. Here's what a court had to say: ===================================== Some gun owners could be liable for firearms stolen in home By Andrew Ryan, Associated Press Writer June 30, 2006 BOSTON --The state's highest court ruled Friday that gun owners may be negligent for shootings with their stolen firearms in specific situations, if they fail to properly lock up the weapons when they know someone with a history of violence has access to them. . . . "This decision is a bit of a victory for police officers," said David Yas, publisher of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. "It extends a little more protection to them as far as unguarded guns." Westminster police officer Lawrence Jupin was shot three times in May 1999 by Jason Rivers, a paranoid schizophrenic who was ruled mentally incompetent to stand trial. Rivers had unscrewed the hinges on his father's gun cabinet and taken one of his approximately 30 firearms. ========================================= OK, lets take a couple more specific examples for your opinion I have a hand gun. It is in a locked but portable case designed for keeping a hand gun. A perp breaks into my house, steals the case gets the gun out through destruction of the case and then used the gun to commint a crime. I your world would I be responsible? Senario two I have a room where I keep guns. I add a more secure door than just a wooden interior door. I keep the door locked. A family member breaks into the room. A felon or a mental case, you choose. This member gets the gun and kills people at a mall. Am I responsib le?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #183 December 8, 2007 >OK, what would you call being "responsibly" secure? See article above. Also, from the California attorney general, who's a reasonable source: ------------------------------------- Store your gun safely and securely to prevent unauthorized use. Guns and ammunition should be stored separately. When the gun is not in your hands, you must still think of safety. Use a California-approved firearms safety device on the gun, such as a trigger lock or cable lock, so it cannot be fired. Store it unloaded in a locked container, such as a California-approved lock box or a gun safe. Store your gun in a different location than the ammunition. For maximum safety you should use both a locking device and a storage container. . . . If you decide to keep a firearm in your home you must consider the issue of how to store the firearm in a safe and secure manner. California recognizes the importance of safe storage by requiring that all firearms sold in California be accompanied by a DOJ-approved firearms safety device or proof that the purchaser owns a gun safe that meets regulatory standards established by the Department. The current list of DOJ-approved firearms safety devices and the gun safe standards can be viewed at the DOJ website. There are a variety of safety and storage devices currently available to the public in a wide range of prices. Some devices are locking mechanisms designed to keep the firearm from being loaded or fired, but don't prevent the firearm from being handled or stolen. There are also locking storage containers that hold the firearm out of sight. For maximum safety you should use both a firearm safety device and a locking storage container to store your unloaded firearm. Two of the most common locking mechanisms are trigger locks and cable locks. Trigger locks are typically two-piece devices that fit around the trigger and trigger guard to prevent access to the trigger. One side has a post that fits into a hole in the other side. They are locked by a key or combination locking mechanism. Cable locks typically work by looping a strong steel cable through the action of the firearm to block the firearm's operation and prevent accidental firing. However, neither trigger locks nor cable locks are designed to prevent access to the firearm. Smaller lock boxes and larger gun safes are two of the most common types of locking storage containers. One advantage of lock boxes and gun safes is that they are designed to completely prevent unintended handling and removal of a firearm. Lock boxes are generally constructed of sturdy, high-grade metal opened by either a key or combination lock. Gun safes are quite heavy, usually weighing at least 50 pounds. While gun safes are typically the most expensive firearm storage devices, they are generally more reliable and secure. Remember: Safety and storage devices are only as secure as the precautions you take to protect the key or combination to the lock. ----------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #184 December 8, 2007 Quote>OK, what would you call being "responsibly" secure? See article above. Also, from the California attorney general, who's a reasonable source: ------------------------------------- Store your gun safely and securely to prevent unauthorized use. Guns and ammunition should be stored separately. When the gun is not in your hands, you must still think of safety. Use a California-approved firearms safety device on the gun, such as a trigger lock or cable lock, so it cannot be fired. Store it unloaded in a locked container, such as a California-approved lock box or a gun safe. Store your gun in a different location than the ammunition. For maximum safety you should use both a locking device and a storage container.In this case you have just rendered the weapon, if owned for personal protection, useless. You want to make me responsible for the act of another if stolen . . . If you decide to keep a firearm in your home you must consider the issue of how to store the firearm in a safe and secure manner. California recognizes the importance of safe storage by requiring that all firearms sold in California be accompanied by a DOJ-approved firearms safety device or proof that the purchaser owns a gun safe that meets regulatory standards established by the Department. The current list of DOJ-approved firearms safety devices and the gun safe standards can be viewed at the DOJ website. There are a variety of safety and storage devices currently available to the public in a wide range of prices. Some devices are locking mechanisms designed to keep the firearm from being loaded or fired, but don't prevent the firearm from being handled or stolen. There are also locking storage containers that hold the firearm out of sight. For maximum safety you should use both a firearm safety device and a locking storage container to store your unloaded firearm. Two of the most common locking mechanisms are trigger locks and cable locks. Trigger locks are typically two-piece devices that fit around the trigger and trigger guard to prevent access to the trigger. One side has a post that fits into a hole in the other side. They are locked by a key or combination locking mechanism. Cable locks typically work by looping a strong steel cable through the action of the firearm to block the firearm's operation and prevent accidental firing. However, neither trigger locks nor cable locks are designed to prevent access to the firearm. Smaller lock boxes and larger gun safes are two of the most common types of locking storage containers. One advantage of lock boxes and gun safes is that they are designed to completely prevent unintended handling and removal of a firearm. Lock boxes are generally constructed of sturdy, high-grade metal opened by either a key or combination lock. Gun safes are quite heavy, usually weighing at least 50 pounds. While gun safes are typically the most expensive firearm storage devices, they are generally more reliable and secure. Remember: Safety and storage devices are only as secure as the precautions you take to protect the key or combination to the lock. ----------------------------------- Again, if any or all of these devices are used in my home and the gun is still stolen and used in a crime. Am I responsible? Again I will mention, much of what your propose (and I think persoally CA is way way over board) makes a weapon as a tool for personal pertection, usless"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #185 December 8, 2007 >You want to make me responsible for the act of another if stolen . . . Actually, no. The courts will do that. >Again, if any or all of these devices are used in my home and the gun >is still stolen and used in a crime. Am I responsible? Nope. You took reasonable precautions. At that point your only responsibility would be to report it stolen to police. >much of what your propose (and I think persoally CA is way way over >board) makes a weapon as a tool for personal pertection, usless Why? Put a lockbox next to your bed and lock your bedroom door. You cannot treat a gun like a tennis ball. You can't just leave it out. It is a deadly weapon and must be treated as such. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #186 December 8, 2007 Quote>You want to make me responsible for the act of another if stolen . . . Actually, no. The courts will do that. >Again, if any or all of these devices are used in my home and the gun >is still stolen and used in a crime. Am I responsible? Nope. You took reasonable precautions. At that point your only responsibility would be to report it stolen to police. >much of what your propose (and I think persoally CA is way way over >board) makes a weapon as a tool for personal pertection, usless Why? Put a lockbox next to your bed and lock your bedroom door. You cannot treat a gun like a tennis ball. You can't just leave it out. It is a deadly weapon and must be treated as such. I think, generally, you and I are close to being on the same page. Thanks for helping me understand your position a bit better."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #187 December 8, 2007 How about you. What do you think in the following cases. Would I be legally liable in your world? I have a hand gun. It is in a locked but portable case designed for keeping a hand gun. A perp breaks into my house, steals the case gets the gun out through destruction of the case and then used the gun to commit a crime. I your world would I be responsible? Scenario two I have a room where I keep guns. I add a more secure door than just a wooden interior door. I keep the door locked. A family member breaks into the room. A felon or a mental case, you choose. This member gets the gun and kills people at a mall. Am I responsible?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #188 December 8, 2007 QuoteHow about you. What do you think in the following cases. Would I be legally liable in your world? I have a hand gun. It is in a locked but portable case designed for keeping a hand gun. A perp breaks into my house, steals the case gets the gun out through destruction of the case and then used the gun to commit a crime. I your world would I be responsible? Scenario two I have a room where I keep guns. I add a more secure door than just a wooden interior door. I keep the door locked. A family member breaks into the room. A felon or a mental case, you choose. This member gets the gun and kills people at a mall. Am I responsible? If you can prove that you took reasonable precautions you have done your part. Leaving a semi auto rifle around in a house with a mentally ill person doesn't fit the description of reasonable precautions. IMO, gun owners MUST be responsible for the security of their weapons, just like the military is responsible for the security of its dangerous stuff and mining companies are responsible for the security of their explosives.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #189 December 9, 2007 Quote Quote How about you. What do you think in the following cases. Would I be legally liable in your world? I have a hand gun. It is in a locked but portable case designed for keeping a hand gun. A perp breaks into my house, steals the case gets the gun out through destruction of the case and then used the gun to commit a crime. I your world would I be responsible? Scenario two I have a room where I keep guns. I add a more secure door than just a wooden interior door. I keep the door locked. A family member breaks into the room. A felon or a mental case, you choose. This member gets the gun and kills people at a mall. Am I responsible? If you can prove that you took reasonable precautions you have done your part. Leaving a semi auto rifle around in a house with a mentally ill person doesn't fit the description of reasonable precautions. IMO, gun owners MUST be responsible for the security of their weapons, just like the military is responsible for the security of its dangerous stuff and mining companies are responsible for the security of their explosives. You and I both know gray areas will alway exists but, this, being the "definitition" of reasonable in this context, you and I can agree.(dam that hurt)"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #190 December 9, 2007 Hey, let me throw one more situation at you (if I may) I live along. I have no family or friends visiting my house. I keep my rifles and shot guns in a closet, unloaded and in cases. Some "friends" know I have weapons (through discussion or seeing them on the range) and this "friend" breaks into my locked house, steals my weapons and kills someone at a mall. Thoughts? (not trying to trap you. just wanting to see if I can define the limits of what you think owner responsibility is)"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #191 December 10, 2007 And yet another multiple shooting: www.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/us/10shooting.html?ref=us... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #192 December 10, 2007 The one in The Springs was stopped by a man with a gun. Imagine that. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #193 December 10, 2007 Quote The one in The Springs was stopped by a man with a gun. Imagine that. We can only guess at how many more may have died had the security gaurd not been armed. A debate went on here in Iowa for a while. A debate on whether to arm camus security at the states universities. The regents said yes to arming them even though university staff were against it. Glad they did not listen to the staff"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #194 December 10, 2007 Quote Quote The one in The Springs was stopped by a man with a gun. Imagine that. We can only guess at how many more may have died had the security gaurd not been armed. We can be quite sure how many fewer would have died if the loony hadn't been able to get hold of a gun.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #195 December 10, 2007 Quote Quote Quote The one in The Springs was stopped by a man with a gun. Imagine that. We can only guess at how many more may have died had the security gaurd not been armed. We can be quite sure how many fewer would have died if the loony hadn't been able to get hold of a gun. True, we can also say how many would not have died in car accidents if alcohol was not legal too. So, whats your point?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #196 December 10, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote The one in The Springs was stopped by a man with a gun. Imagine that. We can only guess at how many more may have died had the security gaurd not been armed. We can be quite sure how many fewer would have died if the loony hadn't been able to get hold of a gun. True, we can also say how many would not have died in car accidents if alcohol was not legal too. So, whats your point? Same as yours.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davedlg 0 #197 December 10, 2007 Quote The one in The Springs was stopped by a man with a gun. Imagine that. Actually, a woman with a gun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #198 December 10, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote The one in The Springs was stopped by a man with a gun. Imagine that. We can only guess at how many more may have died had the security gaurd not been armed. We can be quite sure how many fewer would have died if the loony hadn't been able to get hold of a gun. True, we can also say how many would not have died in car accidents if alcohol was not legal too. So, whats your point? Same as yours. Somehow I doubt it.........."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #199 December 10, 2007 Quote(not trying to trap you. just wanting to see if I can define the limits of what you think owner responsibility is) If AQ managed to steal one of those russians nuclear suitcases and blow it in NY, many people would be screaming about owner responsability. Even if Russia really did all they could to prevent it. Spiderman said that with great power comes great responsability, so i think it is not crazy to somehow link gun ownership with crimes commited with said gun independently of precautions taken. Maybe a middle point would be that economical penalties (fines, compensations, etc) goes to the gun owner, as well as the one pulling the trigger, and criminal penalties (jail, etc) if the owner cannot prove that he did everything reasonable to avoid the outcome... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #200 December 10, 2007 QuoteSpiderman said that with great power comes great responsability,... That was Uncle Ben not the rice guy, but Spidey's uncle Ben ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
