There’s a difference between saying “gun owners should reasonably secure their firearms against unauthorized access” (by … for example, keeping them in a locked gun safe) and saying “no one should be able to get access to it [except the gun owner]”. The first one is possible, the second one isn’t. Any idiot with a couple of big strong pry bars, drills, grinders, or cutting torches can eventually gain access to any gun safe or vault. No owner of anything anywhere can give that sort of guarantee.
If you can’t keep a loaded gun at home, then you’ve outlawed them for self-defense purposes. Something that the Supreme Court says cannot be done.
I’d love to see how you lock up all your cleaning materials and medicines. Must be a pain in the ass when someone spills something.
My cleaning supplies and medications were kept where no one but a responsible member of my family could get at them. If I were not at home I would take any fire arms with me in the trunk of my car, or make sure there was no ammunition available.
I have found that when we were being robbed in the middle of the night , I called the police in the dark and the robbers fled, they left their car so the police had it towed. They didn’t get anything. Once years ago a man came through our bathroom window and I called out," who is there" and he fled. Any thing I have of value is kept in the safety deposit box at our bank. I just hope the people; who have guns are a better shot than a criminal. If one is a heavy sleeper the criminal has the advantage. An alarm system is the best way to go, in my opinion.
Having a gun is a risk both for the owner and the criminal.
So you don’t believe what you’re selling? Wonderful.
Note that the only ones speaking up against it are all pro-gun rights. It is a tactic for such people to ask for more and more minute specificities, and treat any small misconception as an affront so large the violator can’t possibly have anything worthy to say about the gun debate.
I’m going to continue to call them assault weapons. We all have a general idea of what it is, and none of us are writing dissertations or laws, so there is no need to get into that level of detail yet. And yes, an assault weapon ban makes sense. All assault weapons are machine guns are tommy guns are gatling guns. Ban them all 
How does that apply? It is a responsible thing to keep anything harmful away from anyone who would use it in the wrong way.
Not only is it a silly debate tactic, but it also relates directly to the function that firearms serve for many gun aficionados: filling a need for self-worth. Knowing something, esp. knowing more about something than other people or even being an expert, enhances these guys’ sense of worth. The real hook though is that it is command over something they want to think other people see as scary.
How strong am I if I can master something you think of as scary? When people feel helpless to influence others, becoming scary themselves is sometimes the only thing left.
Of course, the only people who call these things “scary looking” are the gun aficionados themselves, but that’s because they need to believe other people are scared by the things they have dominion over.
Yes, but sometimes reality intrudes into the pipe-dream. It would be safer to lock up all the bleach in the world in Fort Knox, but it would make cleaning socks nigh impossible.
Its an attempt to clarify what exactly you mean by assault weapon.
Identify the assault weapons, please:
Tell me which one of those rifles is an assault weapon, and why, and we may be able to agree that it is a useful definition.
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Of course, the only people who call these things “scary looking” are the gun aficionados themselves, but that’s because they need to believe other people are scared by the things they have dominion over.
Today 12:23 PM
[/QUOTE]
Couldn’t be because the AWB was just arbitrary and based on purely visual aspects of what were basically just semi-automatic weapons, making them LOOK ‘military’ to folks without a clue as to functionality, right? Naw, must be some sort of power trip by ‘gun aficionados’, holding the scary over poor liberal heads instead of the fact that the ban was stupid, and arbitrary, and those defending it are defending something stupid and arbitrary. And folks wonder why they get laughed at on this subject. 
Thanks for a good laugh though, Hentor…needed it after yesterday.
XT further exemplifies the point. Look at the needs this clearly serves for him just in this one post.
Definitely…the need to laugh, especially at you Hentor, clearly does serve my need, especially after what happened in Boston yesterday. You provide a public service man, and I thank you for it.
And if someone broke into your car and stole them out of your trunk, or stole the entire car, should you be held liable for having your guns in such an unsecure location?
is contradicted by
It’s like we’re trying to discuss a physics problem and YogSosoth chimes in with “gravity is friction is inertia”
:rolleyes:
It’s particularly funny because the ATF treats each of those things so differently.
“assault weapon” is a term that has different definitions based on which state you’re currently in or which decade you’re asking Feinstein about them in.
And YogoSosoth has no clue about any of that.
I
It isn’t that necessary and I think you are just trying to be sarcastic? One locks up their valuables, or tries to keep them in a safe place away from thieves, They do what they can to keep a child from falling into their pool. the same could be done for a fire arm; of course it is impossible to stop all crime or accidents but the idea is to try to prevent the use by a person who is not responsible. That is why the law in many states require a drivers license and Insurance for automobiles or Motorcycles.
You’re the one who brought up people having complete control over their firearms and poisons.
Just to jump to your pool example, some people do take precautions with their pools for children. Some people don’t, just like some people take precautions with their firearms and some don’t.
Of course that is a possibility, but it would be a rather rare occasion and I would be doing the most responsible thing I could do. If someone came into my house and killed me with my gun ( like in the Lanza case) it would mean it was easy to get at my weapon and I would never have the ammunition where it was available
If every one has a weapon, like a gun that can shoot 30 people with out re-loading, there would come down to who was the best shot, Perhaps more people will be killed than there is now. If every one is armed, going to a theater or anyplace would not be any safer than it is now. Look to Boston, one doesn’t need a gun when cowards make bombs. How much good would a gun do anyone then? The bomber was probably not even anywhere around!
One should be as responsible as they can be.
I don’t think anyone ever claimed, or ever believed, that a gun is the solution to all dangers or problems one might encounter.