[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

In this country the police need a search warrant to enter your home unless there is a clear crime in progress. If they knock on your door to tell you to keep the party noise down, ask to be invited in and you let them, you've just concented to a search and you could be arrested for something a guest has you didn't even know about. Many and likely most LEO's are good people but some have big chips on their shoulders and are looking for trouble.

That's a fair point, and well put. Thank you for pointing it out in a reasonable manner to me. What if the person who checked on the gun safes was not a LEO though, and had no powers to arrest or detain anyone but just report on the condition of your gun storage? Would that make it any better?

Originally Posted by August

Again you distort what myself and others have told you. Legal gun owners have been stepping back for decades and suddenly to you we're being unreasonable because we don't want to continue stepping back forever until the RKBA is completely gone.

I just fail to see what the problem of every American being a responsible gun owner by law is. Isn't that what the NRA wants? Every American who owns a gun to be a responsible gun owner?

I guarantee you that if Glock or Ruger found a sticky trigger they would recall and fix it without a law forcing them to do it.

Fair point

Heh wouldn't another name for a driverless firearm be "body guard"?

Good luck with that, they won't even subsidize $5 trigger locks let alone a $200 handgun safe. FWIW a safe with similar unlocking mechanism that is big enough for a shotgun would have been a thousand bucks or more. I guess if they can't take the right away maybe they can just price it out of reach of all but the elite rich would be the idea.

That's a capitalistic problem though, the noose which we've made for ourselves in that things to make life safer are priced so that only the rich can be safe. Some way of subsidising to force the prices down might help, perhaps the NRA could have some say in this, I mean how much does the NRA receive each year? What about firearms manufacturers? That's a market that's got to be a good earner, surely they could put a bit aside to subsidise either cheaper guns safes and/or research into safer storage systems.

You're right although I don't see you post in those type of threads with even close to the frequency and urgency that you do in this one Based on that it seems like you care a lot more about the 100 than the 650. I'm sure that's not how you really feel but the way I see it it does put your comments about acceptable collateral damage into a certain ironic perspective.

It's the way in which people shrug their shoulders when a school gets shot up that frustrates me, as though no-one really wants to try and stop it any more because of the fear that in trying to do so the 2nd Amendment will be infringed in some way.

Really man this isn't about gun safety it's about control over the people. If it were actually about safety then the anti's would abandon their efforts to close this fictitious gun show loop hole and start looking at ways to protect their so called gun free zones and to actually find ways to discourage these monsters from acting in the first place.

I guess you could build ten foot walls around schools, iron gates with metal detectors on them at the start, armed guards at the front, razor wire on the top of the wall. That's about the only way you could stop someone with a gun walking into a school unmolested. You could arm teachers, I guess, but then what is to stop one of them going postal?

Get serious about those things and you might find gun rights supporters more willing to compromise but as long as they continue to try and fix something that would not have prevented these well publicized mass killings but conveniently does include a universal registration scheme which has been long perceived to be the final step before confiscation it's awful hard to trust their motives.

The thing is, I don't think that anyone could actually be serious about confiscation in the American government because they know that it would lead to a civil war, it's about the only thing that would lead to a civil war and state succession is if someone tried to repeal the 2nd Amendment. It's suicide and anyone who knows America knows this.
I'm all for fixing and preventing school shootings in every and any way possible, although I'd rather it be done without turning schools into prison complexes, but I guess if that's what it takes then that's what it takes.

You get that training when you apply for a concealed carry permit or when you apply for a hunting license. Activities that take you out in public, just like automobiles by the way. But enforcing it though? Your little unarmed council worker is not going to be able walk though the Hood demanding to see everyone's gun safe. This would get ugly quickly.

Well, yeah, the Hood is going to take a little more tactical approach to it, armed LEOs and that, but those kinds of areas are probably used to armed LEOs paying them regular visits anyway.
The training for concealed carry and hunting licenses are good, and I mean I think that's the kind of training that should come with any gun for any reason. I mean showing someone you can shoot straight should be the minimal task for even thinking about owning a gun. I sure as hell wouldn't want to own a weapon until I knew that I could handle it without hurting myself or anyone around me who I didn't intend to hurt.

FWIW you used to get that kind of training in public schools too but the anti's eventually scuppered that idea.

Pity...it should be at least considered as an optional school activity.
It is tricky though because of how some kids are in this day and age, once upon a time you could teach firearms as part of building discipline and skills...but now you're just as likely to get a kid shoot his teacher with it. That comes down to something we did agree on earlier on how society and culture has changed and not necessarily for the better.
Trouble is, it's very difficult to change society, it tends to happen spontaneously.

Those efforts usually get blocked by the patient privacy advocate lobby. And I guess with good reason seeing how the administration has already tried to take away the gun rights of millions of veterans and seniors for the flimsiest of reasons with no regard for actual risk.

I don't mean so much linking firearm access to mental health, although obviously that should be a factor, but more improving access to mental health care in general, so if a parent has a concern about their child they have the ability to get treatment for them quickly. Of course, that in itself is a problematic situation because you have to balance out effective treatments versus medication. Last thing you want to do is raise an army of zombie children, but equally you want to prevent them from going postal. I mean, we can identify a number of factors which can lead to someone going postal, but it's getting to those people before they do.
Can such people be reformed? Some can, I think, but others may need to spend the rest of their lives removed from society.
Does this include veterans? Some, perhaps, but certainly not all. I mean out of all of society you're probably only looking at a maximum of 30% of people with metal health problems, out of which probably only 4% need permanently keeping away from others.

I mentioned earlier three things that I think need looking at in America, one and only one of them was access to firearms, the other two was mental health care and accidental media glorification. Of course, with the first point you run into the 2nd Amendment, and the third point you run into the 1st Amendment, so it's not an easy thing to look at.

Surely though, both pro and anti gun people can agree that the number of school and college shootings in America needs to be reduced? I mean, surely that's one thing we can agree on, even if we can't agree on the how or why, we can agree on the what.

Originally Posted by Frömmler Vogel

This

At the very least they should not be allowed to hide the sadistic bastards, if a priest is fingered for sacramenting a boy, let him feel the law.

Honestly, I don't care in what form harm comes to a child, it should all be stopped. Rape, Murder, Physical and Mental abuse, Indoctrination, Car accidents, UFO abduction, whatever. Children deserve the chance to live their lives without adult issues and problems infringing on it and ruining it. If a kid wants to dress up as a princess, let them, if they want to learn how to fire a gun, let them, if they want to learn about different religions, let them, let them be whatever they want, within reason, and that reason being that it doesn't harm another child. If a child wants to own a gun, give them a nerf gun, not a rifle. If a child wants to molest or hurt another child, then that needs to be stopped, and the reason why investigated.

Yeah, I get that it's not a black and white world, heck I've been saying that about many things for many years, but I think that if we have the possibility of improving things, especially if it improves things for our children, then we really should try.