The same way you interpret what I say to mean I am anti-gun.
I would be willing to modify my stance to consider locking guns in a suitable gun safe to meet my level of responsible gun ownership.
I think responsible gun owners do not leave their guns in the nightstand whan they are not home. If you feel you must defend your castle by having a loaded gun available at a moment’s notice, secure your weapon when you leave the house. That means don’t leave it in the nightstand or under the pillow. Of course, that imposes a duty to move the weapon from pillow to safe, and safe to pillow every time you leave and return. I expect some gun owners will protest that is too much trouble.
I have changed my position; will I see gun owners modify theirs?
Is that what you call compromise? Establishing a completely ludicrous and untenable argument and then rolling off of that position with smug superiority is not compromise.
If a gun rights advocate argued that we should provide toddlers with firearms for self defense and then backed off of that argument should we laud him also for being a great compromiser?
Do believe in any sort of accountability for “responsible gun ownership”? Anything?
Let’s see…. Fear Itself I never suggested anything that could in anyway be interpreted as wanting the Government to inspect gun owners homes. If I in anyway suggested that, please show me where.
You have said that you are not anti-gun, but would impose strict penalties on responsible gun owners for being the victim of a crime (having their guns stolen from a locked house or safe).
You are being completely dishonest in this discussion, and making things up from whole cloth. This is typical of the anti-gun crowd.
Do you believe there should be any accountability for “responsible gun ownership”?
You’re right AL; I was overly broad in my generalization. Every situation is unique, and some people desire accessibility while at home. I did, at one point in time (“salad years” in a rougher neighborhood).
I would hope that you keep them locked more securely for security when you’re not a home, though.
If I say no now, and then later say that maybe trigger locks should be required would you consider that an acceptable compromise?
I do not accept that, because trigger locks do not prevent gun theft.
Where is the accountability in gun locks?
That’s a pretty broad topic. But you won’t define accountability other than if you once owned the gun, it’s your fault.
As I said before, If it is in a locked home, that’s all that is necessary (unless children are involved [or cats with thumbs]). At that point, if someone breaks into your home and steals a gun, it is not the gun owners fault. How is that hard to understand?
You won’t answer a simple question will you? But you are perfectly happy to mis-represented my position. How did you get the idea that I want the government to inspect people’s homes? Of course you won’t answer that. But I would like you to give it a try.
You ask questions, yet answer none. Pretty typical for the anti-gun crowd. And yes, that includes you.
Oh, I understand it. I just disagree. I think there should be a higher standard than you do, that’s all.
Dude, Hebrew National Hot Dogs couldn’t hold themselves up to your standard. And they hold themselves to a Higher Authority.
It appears that there is no alternative. Gun owners have failed to suggest any accountability for “responsible gun ownership”, no matter what definition you use for that term. What happens if a gun owner fails to live up to that standard?
Perhaps it’s because you have offered fuck-all for what you consider responsible. I’m not interested in any dialogue with you because there is really none to be had. I wonder why others in this thread keep rising to your lure.
Ever play whack-a-mole? The arcade game, not the poster.
I’ll admit the appeal escapes me, (both the game and the poster), but some people do like it. The game, that is.
Trying to argue this point with him is kinda like playing whack-a-mole.
Or wrestling greased pigs.
Fear itself, How about meeting in the middle?
Suppose we say that to escape liability, A firearm owner must furnish some additional form of security for their property beyond the simple physical means of an exterior door lock. Gun safes, fast response security system alarms, lock boxes, maybe a reinforced door with a different key to the gun room, etc would be some ideas. Any of those would show that the person is both aware that their property could be used dangerously in the wrong hands and that they have taken steps to eliminate the issue.
I would feel better if there was some way to ensure that those precautions were actually used. A gun safe is only as good as the willingness to use it. But, I would be willing to overlook that if there were some accoutability for the owners of weapons stolen from houses with no such security measures. If this thread is any indicator though, I don’t think we will get much support from those gun owners who don’t want anybody telling them what “responsible gun ownership” is, or what what the consequences are for not securing their weapons.
So, what you want is the right for the gun-police to come and check on people’s houses, to make sure their guns are secured properly.
How often would you mandate this gun police check?
As was asked earlier regarding another idea, who would pay for these gun police?
No, actually it is much simpler than that. When a stolen gun is used in a crime, the gun owner would have to prove he had a gun safe or equivqlent security measures. Now, I suppose a gun owner could buy those after the gun was stolen to shield himself from prosecution, but nothing is perfect.