Guns in the House

[GinnyEmma]

If these threads prove anything it's that this issue will never be resolved to everyones' satisfaction. There have been some pretty judgemental statements made and no amount of debate is going to change those opinions. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but please accept that your opinion may not be right. Now, let's all hug and make up.

Lol, right is far too subjective. Right for you on this issue may different than right for me. It is the ignorance of saying you or I are not not worth knowing because of it that is not just sad but sickening.

 

[Colleen27]

The solution, in my opinion, is severe punishment for not storing your guns and ammunition correctly. Make it a felony offense (mandatory jail time...no future guns) to fail to keep your guns and ammunition locked up separately. Let people with children in the house know that they will likely lose custody if they fail to keep their weapons secured. Let them know that they will be equally responsible for any crime a minor child commits with one of their unsecured weapons. Possibly make people who buy weapons/get permits show proof that they have also purchased a gun safe.

I have no problem with the idea that parents should be held responsible for crimes their child commits with a gun, if it can be shown that the parents didn't properly secure that gun.

Personally, I think far too much is made of the need to lock guns and ammo up separately. It is ridiculous to say that it should be a felony carrying mandatory jail time - in other words, a crime more serious than drunk driving, stealing, or drug possession - to keep your guns an ammo locked the same gun safe. And mandating proof of a gun safe is impractical and intrusive and assures absolutely nothing other than that gun owners must have the financial resources to purchase a safe - there's no way to know if it is being used.

Besides, a specially designed safe for weapons is not the only way to keep them stored safely away from children. DH owns two guns but no gun safe. Why? Because his guns aren't kept in our home at all; they're under lock and key - but not in a safe - at my inlaws' home. How would someone purchasing a gun go about proving a situation like that?

 

[need2cruise]

This discussion just baffles me.

We have a constitional right to own guns. We have rights to store our possessions however we see fit. End of discussion.

I'm sorry, but owning a gun doesn't mean your rights should be restricted and you should be "policed" to make sure you are storing your guns the way SOMEONE else says you should.

This is life. People are going to get hurt, killed, etc. Be a bit smarter then we won't have to create so many laws to protect people from hurting themselves.

 

[mamacatnv]

I think you should rethink your reply. Consider a moral value that you hold dear; and then consider being friends with someone who regularly practices a behavior that directly violates your values. Perhaps you're pro-life; can you be "friends" (not just acquaintances; but "friends") with a physician who performs abortions? Perhaps you're gay; can you "friends", truly "friends", with someone who, on weekends, carries a sign "God Hates Gays"?

We talk a lot about tolerance and acceptance. Those are two different things, one more strongly positive than the other. Tolerance is not attacking others because their values are different from yours. Acceptance is granting that their living in accordance with their values is legitimate. Tolerance is essentially patronizing; acceptance is the minimum level of civility that should be expected between strangers and acquaintances, regardless of their differences. But neither tolerance nor acceptance is a legitimate foundation for friendship. Friendship requires connection on a deeper level, a connection precluded by diametrically-oppositional values.

Huh? The poster commented that she could never be friends with someone who kills animals so I asked if all her friends were non meat eaters. True it was a sarcastic reply to what I viewed to be a very close minded and judgemental statement.
What is it exactly that you think I need to rethink?

 

[tw1nsmom]

I have no problem with the idea that parents should be held responsible for crimes their child commits with a gun, if it can be shown that the parents didn't properly secure that gun.

Personally, I think far too much is made of the need to lock guns and ammo up separately. It is ridiculous to say that it should be a felony carrying mandatory jail time - in other words, a crime more serious than drunk driving, stealing, or drug possession - to keep your guns an ammo locked the same gun safe. And mandating proof of a gun safe is impractical and intrusive and assures absolutely nothing other than that gun owners must have the financial resources to purchase a safe - there's no way to know if it is being used.

Besides, a specially designed safe for weapons is not the only way to keep them stored safely away from children. DH owns two guns but no gun safe. Why? Because his guns aren't kept in our home at all; they're under lock and key - but not in a safe - at my inlaws' home. How would someone purchasing a gun go about proving a situation like that?

Ok...maybe it's just that within the safe or very securely locked room there is a lockbox where the ammunition is kept. The idea is that if a child gets their hands on a gun it is another level of difficulty to get the ammunition. Also, if a gun safe isn't accessible to all, then a picture and description of exactly where the guns will be stored and locked.

And yes, if there are ever children in the house and you aren't locking up your guns it is just as bad as drug possession, DWI or assault. You should be charged.

There are many things we, as adults, can choose to do that we legally can't do if we have children. There are several states where it's against the law to smoke in a car if children are present. I can get rip roaring drunk in my home without my children present, but if I'm the only responsible adult and I'm incapacitated due to alcohol and something happens to my children I am guilty of negligence and child endangerment.

There are gun laws in many states that make it illegal to carry the weapons with you. There are limitations put in place to ensure the public safety. There should also be laws about guns that are in the homes where children might be present. If people with children can't afford to secure their guns, then they shouldn't have guns.

I'm not even against a parent teaching their child how to hunt. Under close, constant supervision in the right place. Once the guns are home though, no child should have access to them.

 

[bicker]

I read it several times and couldn't figure it out either.

If you're looking for something easy to argue against, then you're going to have trouble "figuring it out". If you're willing to consider an internally-consistent perspective on the issue, regardless of whether it is or is not compatible with your own perspective, then read it again.

I am by no means a law expert but given my experiece and reading concerning search and seizure interpratations I think at best this is a reach. The current situations where searchs are done routinely like at airports, sports events, concerts, amusement parks etc. are allowed but those searches come under a different part of the law than a home search does.

Specifically, they are cases where you opt-in to the situation that would make you eligible for the search. This would just make applying for a gun permit one of those cases.

You cannot compare searches of your person "out in the world" with the search of your home.

Yes you can. Indeed, the case against bodily searches is stronger than the case against home searches. Even if you don't like the ramifications of that.

 

[bicker]

No, I'm saying that by the time an occasional seasonal hobby like hunting comes up, the friendship is likely to be established.

That's not true. Perhaps an acquaintance can be established on such superficial grounds.

I can understand it if we're talking about a strongly held value, ie a vegetarian with a moral objection to the killing of animals for any human purpose, but that doesn't seem to be the context here.

Actually, that was one of the contexts mentioned in the specific messages from which this came.

 

[bicker]

You don't "police" people once they have their guns any more than you would "police" someone who has other known dangerous objects in their homes.

You may not want them to, but they can and should. For something so important, trusting that nothing will ever change is idiocy. Even the DPW comes in every five years or so and checks the water meter.

You just can't protect everyone from themselves.

If this was just a matter of protecting everyone from themselves, I'd agree with you. This is protecting people from other people, and beyond that, from other people causing death. And, again, I know you don't want their right to safety to be placed over your right to privacy, but that's tough. Both perspectives are valid, and only one can prevail. Your perspective is not sacrosanct and inviolate, and those who wish the other perspective to prevail are as reasonable and deserving of having their way as you are. Life is not simple. Sometimes serving every legitimate aspect is infeasible. That's just something you have to accept.

For the most part, people who own guns are responsible owners.

"For the most part" was clearly inadequate to avoid the tragedy outlined in the OP.

 

[GinnyEmma]

If we are going to put such restrictions on items that cause accidental death, the world will be lacking a lot of things. Driving a car is more likely to cause you harm than an accidental gun injury. It is just far easier to put limits on others.

 

[Kathi OD]

You may not want them to, but they can and should. For something so important, trusting that nothing will ever change is idiocy. Even the DPW comes in every five years or so and checks the water meter.

If this was just a matter of protecting everyone from themselves, I'd agree with you. This is protecting people from other people, and beyond that, from other people causing death. And, again, I know you don't want their right to safety to be placed over your right to privacy, but that's tough. Both perspectives are valid, and only one can prevail. Your perspective is not sacrosanct and inviolate, and those who wish the other perspective to prevail are as reasonable and deserving of having their way as you are. Life is not simple. Sometimes serving every legitimate aspect is infeasible. Get over it.

So who died and made you king? Big Brother, is that you?? Just because you feel they (the government) should come and do inspections of gun owners homes doesn't mean that's the way it should be. I seriously don't know what the DPW checking their meters has to do with the topic at hand.

Seriously, I think you're the one who needs to get over it.

If you think the government needs to start inspections of people and their homes to make sure that everyone's safety is assured, then fine. The numbers of people who die each year from non-working smoke detectors far outnumbers those who die from the bullet of an irresponsible gun owner who left their gun lying around the house, waiting for a child to get hold of it.

"For the most part" was clearly inadequate to avoid the tragedy outlined in the OP.

"For the most part" is clearly inadequate in most tragic situations, but that doesn't mean we start over-reacting to them.

 

[bicker]

If we are going to put such restrictions on items that cause accidental death...

Well, I did outline two of the handful of unique aspects, that differentiate this case from those other case, specifically, the ability to cause death from a distance.

Driving a car is more likely to cause you harm than an accidental gun injury.

The case has been made for driving exams every five years. The only reason why it isn't the case is because our society values money more than lives. You are correct that it would be less expensive to provide assurance with regard to guns than cars. Some assurance is better than none. It does not have to be fair.

 

[bicker]

So who died and made you king?

You assert your kingship, insisting on getting your way. Glass houses, Kathi.

Just because you feel they (the government) should come and do inspections of gun owners homes doesn't mean that's the way it should be.

And just because you feel that they shouldn't does mean that's the way it should be. That was the point I just made.

I seriously don't know what the DPW checking their meters has to do with the topic at hand.

It is an inspection where many people have to give access to their home.

Seriously, I think you're the one who needs to get over it.

No, you.

If you think the government needs to start inspections of people and their homes to make sure that everyone's safety is assured, then fine. The numbers of people who die each year from non-working smoke detectors far outnumbers those who die from the bullet of an irresponsible gun owner who left their gun lying around the house, waiting for a child to get hold of it.

I'm all in favor of accomplishing two things for the price of one.

"For the most part" is clearly inadequate in most tragic situations, but that doesn't mean we start over-reacting to them.

I agree. I've made the point in dozens of threads over the last year (ranging from the BP spill to the recent killing of a police officer by a parolee), yet many posters took the opposing viewpoint in those threads.

To be clear, I don't really think that anything should change as a result of this incident, or any small number of incidents. My point is that claims that changes (such as random inspections and such) "should never" be considered or "could never" be imposed are ridiculously self-serving, and utterly without merit. It's just people trying to put their own personal preference forward as if it was more important than it really is.

 

[Kathi OD]

It is an inspection where many people have to give access to their home.

For what? I've never heard of such a thing.

 

[bicker]

You'd have to ask them. Regardless, the point isn't why they do it, but rather that they do do it, and it is legal.

 

[need2cruise]

You'd have to ask them. Regardless, the point isn't why they do it, but rather that they do do it, and it is legal.

I've never in my 14 years of home ownership had anyone come in and inspect anything. And, if someone said they HAD to, I'd tell them to show me the court ordered paperwork because I don't HAVE to let ANYONE into my home just because I have a "meter".

 

[bicker]

Until you can show the chapter-and-verse where it says that your home is absolutely inviolate, I think you're just trying to convince yourself that what you want is what it actually the case. But we can agree to disagree about it; just please don't be shocked or outraged when what I'm telling you comes to pass.

 

[need2cruise]

Until you can show the chapter-and-verse where it says that your home is absolutely inviolate, I think you're just trying to convince yourself that what you want is what it actually the case. But we can agree to disagree about it; just please don't be shocked or outraged when what I'm telling you comes to pass.

Chapter & Verse of the US Constitution
FOURTH AMENDMENT
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized.


Again, they can only gain access at this point in time-with a warrant. What may come has yet been written, so I'm not speculating on what ifs. I will defend my right to gun ownership, I've done enough research on history to see what happens when the government gains that control and that will be a huge fall to our nation. As George Washington himself stated:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

And Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying:
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

 

[bicker]

Chapter & Verse of the US Constitution
FOURTH AMENDMENT
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects,

I made that point before.... we do random body searches of persons. We already do. And "persons" is listed before houses. What the heck makes you think that that passage allows searches of "persons" (which we know happens) but doesn't allow searches of "houses"? Think about it.

It won't be categorical. That would be "unreasonable". Rather, there would have to be a cause, that being ownership of a gun.

Again, they can only gain access at this point in time-with a warrant. What may come has yet been written, so I'm not speculating on what ifs.

But I was.

All I've been saying is that the law can be passed - it won't require a Constitutional Amendment, just the same kind of laws that allow them to do random searches of "persons" now.

Note that this isn't about government fearing the people: It is about very reasonable people fearing their neighbors lack of conscientiousness.

 

[need2cruise]

I made that point before.... we do random body searches of persons. We already do. And "persons" is listed before houses. What the heck makes you think that that passage allows searches of "persons" (which we know happens) but doesn't allow searches of "houses"? Think about it.

It won't be categorical. That would be "unreasonable". Rather, there would have to be a cause, that being ownership of a gun.

But I was.

All I've been saying is that the law can be passed - it won't require a Constitutional Amendment, just the same kind of laws that allow them to do random searches of "persons" now.

Note that this isn't about government fearing the people: It is about very reasonable people fearing their neighbors lack of conscientiousness.

Hate to tell you this then, but guns are not the only thing that kills people. So if you're worried about your neighbors owning guns and having a lack of conscious, then you may as well start worrying about knives, fire, homemade explosives, etc.

Yes a law may be passed, but thats why it's up to us Americans to stay true to our Constitution and stand up for it instead of nitpicking it apart. I don't know if you are aware, but our country has been the only country that has lasted over 200 years in the pattern that was set forth for us. The writers of our Constitution knew what they were doing when they wrote it. History speaks for itself. So, you may want to think about that while you are trying to do away with our 2nd amendment rights and think of what other rights can end up being lost when we start that ball rolling.

 

[bicker]

Hate to tell you this then, but guns are not the only thing that kills people.

Uh, I think you must have missed most of the thread, because this has already been covered earlier. Guns have several unique aspects, that among them being the that gunshots can be fatal, and that the fatality can be caused at a substantial distance. Those are special circumstances.

So if you're worried about your neighbors owning guns and having a lack of conscious, then you may as well start worrying about knives, fire, homemade explosives, etc.

Please try to understand what those who disagree with you are saying, rather than just dismissing it derisively.

Regardless, knives aren't anywhere near as fatal at substantial distances, so the need to worry about knives is much less. Fire, I believe, is at least part of the context of the inspections that my DPW conducted. Homemade explosives haven't killed anywhere near as many people, in recent years, as irresponsibly stored handguns, so again, the need to worry is much less.

Yes a law may be passed, but thats why it's up to us Americans to stay true to our Constitution and stand up for it instead of nitpicking it apart.

Staying true to our Constitution includes passing such a law - it is up to us, collectively, to decide, for each period of time, whether or not to do so. It isn't an absolute, unqualified, unequivocal right. Like most rights, it is conditional, qualified, and equivocal - balanced up against other, similarly defensible rights. Again, that's the point I've been making. So many people are so quick to assume that whatever they want - whatever they feel entitled to - must therefore be theirs. It's just not true. It's a fiction many folks tell themselves to fuel unreasonable outrage when that which reasonable and due process has determined serves the common interest best runs against their own personal interest.

I don't know if you are aware, but our country has been the only country that has lasted over 200 years in the pattern that was set forth for us. The writers of our Constitution knew what they were doing when they wrote it.

Including giving us the power to pass laws, such as what we're discussing. You can't have it both ways. Either what we've been doing for the last 200 years - i.e., growing, changing, adjusting, adapting, modifying, etc. - is good, or it isn't good.

History speaks for itself. So, you may want to think about that while you are trying to do away with our 2nd amendment rights and think of what other rights can end up being lost when we start that ball rolling.

I think you're way off-base, on several levels. Ask yourself something: Do you continually find yourself shocked at how society changes over time, how laws change over time to reflect challenges our nation faces? If so, then perhaps the problem is that you're only considering the parts of the Constitution you like, and not the parts of the Constitution that lead to and/or support the changes that you don't like. That kind of view is bound to result in anger, frustration, etc., because it runs counter to what will happen.