Jump to content

From my cold dead hands!


WWWTT

Recommended Posts

Guest American Woman

He walked in and stole it, not purchased it.......one is a legal method of obtaining firearms, and one isn't.......See the difference?

And to add, due to the store owner not having his firearms stored safely, he lost his firearms licence.

Yes, I do see the difference - but it wasn't stolen out of the back of a van. Do you see the difference? If not, so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 465
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Derek L

Yes, you have expectations - but that doesn't mean you are correct in your claim. It's like insisting that someone who got in a fatal car accident was driving too fast because you think the speed limit should be lower - when they weren't going over the speed limit.

Again. "Securely stored" doesn't have to meet your expectations; that they weren't securely stored is your opinion, not a fact.

Sure it’s my opinion, but the facts are the son obtained her firearms and killed a whole bunch of little kids, hence in retrospect, her storage arrangements were obviously insufficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Sure it’s my opinion, but the facts are the son obtained her firearms and killed a whole bunch of little kids, hence in retrospect, her storage arrangements were obviously insufficient.

In your opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

Yes, I do see the difference - but it wasn't stolen out of the back of a van. Do you see the difference? If not, so be it.

Yes I do, he obtained a firearm illegally as opposed to legally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

It's not my opinion that her son used her Bushmaster to kill a bunch of people.

Of course that's not your opinion. Nor did I say it was. It's your opinion that her guns were not securely stored. That is not a fact, even though you keep stating it as though it were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

Of course that's not your opinion. Nor did I say it was. It's your opinion that her guns were not securely stored. That is not a fact, even though you keep stating it as though it were.

Who's guns were used in the shooting again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure it’s my opinion, but the facts are the son obtained her firearms and killed a whole bunch of little kids, hence in retrospect, her storage arrangements were obviously insufficient.

I'll be able to say the same thing about how yours are stored if by chance......
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In your opinion.

20 dead kids and their teachers say he's right. You're hooped AW, as long as you let powerful interest groups spend more time and effort dreaming up reasons not to do anything than you do actually thinking about how to deal with the problem and acting on it.

Since 1968 more Americans have died from guns than were killed in action in all your country's wars combined. That's absolutely pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

20 dead kids and their teachers say he's right. You're hooped AW, as long as you let powerful interest groups spend more time and effort dreaming up reasons not to do anything than you do actually thinking about how to deal with the problem and acting on it.

Since 1968 more Americans have died from guns than were killed in action in all your country's wars combined. That's absolutely pathetic.

Ummm, no I'm not, Wilber. If someone were following the law for securely storing their firearms in Canada, and someone still got at them, they would not be guilty of not securely storing their firearms. The law doesn't read that 'firearms must be stored in such a way that no one can ever get at them, and if someone by chance does, the owner is guilty of not securely storing them will be charged and sent to jail.'

Throwing out your "more Americans...." claim is pretty pathetic, so I won't be going there - yet again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm, no I'm not, Wilber. If someone were following the law for securely storing their firearms in Canada, and someone still got at them, they would not be guilty of not securely storing their firearms. The law doesn't read that 'firearms must be stored in such a way that no one can ever get at them, and if someone by chance does, the owner is guilty of not securely storing them will be charged and sent to jail.'

Throwing out your "more Americans...." claim is pretty pathetic, so I won't be going there - yet again.

I you are going to own weapons, you are responsible for them, no one else.

You really should go there unless you just want to stick your head in the sand.

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 dead kids and their teachers say he's right. You're hooped AW, as long as you let powerful interest groups spend more time and effort dreaming up reasons not to do anything than you do actually thinking about how to deal with the problem and acting on it.

His dead mother also shows you something else. He killed her. And as AW pointed out, Lanza's mother seemed to have exceeded all storage requirements. By that measure, she had them stored quite well. Nothing is perfect.

Since 1968 more Americans have died from guns than were killed in action in all your country's wars combined. That's absolutely pathetic.

And a very small ratio killed by 'assault' weapons. Also most of the deaths I would argue are from criminal activity who don't give two sh!ts about anyone's gun laws.

Back ground checks and more restrictive laws do NOT address the illegal element that makes up the majority of this problem.

Let's say I am a criminal and have an extensive record. I go into a gun shop, as for a gun, the background check says .. nope can't have one. Minor set back for a criminal with the intent to acquire a firearm. Now how do you propose that issue gets addressed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

I'll be able to say the same thing about how yours are stored if by chance......

If something like that did occur, certainly……..but though I won’t say it’s impossible, the chances of such an occurrence well my wife or I are at home are next to nil, barring of course those wishing to steal my firearms are attempting it in numbers associated with a reinforced rifle squad………
Well we’re not home, I suppose a team of skilled thieves could gain entry into our house, defeat the home security system (including dogs), somehow defeat the safes internal wireless monitoring alarms, remove the safes with fridge dolly’s after jack hammering up the floor in the basement or cutting into the structural timbers they’re anchored to for the ones upstairs, cut out either the door frames with a chainsaw or make new holes through walls, then again with said fridge dolly, move them either up or down a flight of stairs and move them to a waiting 5 tonne truck with either a hiab or lift gate, for each loaded safe weighs over 1000 pounds all inside of the time it takes for the local police to respond…….Sure it’s possible I suppose, but I don’t loose any sleep over it, well also being of the mind that if such a group of thieves had such resources and skill, they’d get a much better score robbing either a gun store or a Army Reserve armoury…….
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

The fact that they were her guns is not proof of what you are claiming.

Well clearly the result is proof enough.........And if in Canada, and she lived of course, would result in her being charged with unsafe storage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm, no I'm not, Wilber. If someone were following the law for securely storing their firearms in Canada, and someone still got at them, they would not be guilty of not securely storing their firearms. The law doesn't read that 'firearms must be stored in such a way that no one can ever get at them, and if someone by chance does, the owner is guilty of not securely storing them will be charged and sent to jail.'

Throwing out your "more Americans...." claim is pretty pathetic, so I won't be going there - yet again.

Ontario laws. Both my dad and a good friend of mine have the guns stored in the same fashion. My dad no longer owns any, and his reason were the laws. Makes it very difficult for a legal gun owner to remain legal within the law. So trigger locks on all the rifles. ammo stored in a separate box inside the heavy duty combo lock cabinet. I could not get that safe open with any of those guns in my hands. I would say he even exceeds Ontario storage laws.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

Ummm, no I'm not, Wilber. If someone were following the law for securely storing their firearms in Canada, and someone still got at them, they would not be guilty of not securely storing their firearms. The law doesn't read that 'firearms must be stored in such a way that no one can ever get at them, and if someone by chance does, the owner is guilty of not securely storing them will be charged and sent to jail.'

Throwing out your "more Americans...." claim is pretty pathetic, so I won't be going there - yet again.

Yes they would.........It happens, people then lose their PAL and get charged.........A recent Ontario man that retrieved a revolver from his safe and then used it to deter two people firebombing his home by firing warning shots was charged with unsafe storage and went to trial, and had to prove (at great personal expense) that he was able to retrieve his gun and confront the fire bombers in such a short timeframe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

Ontario laws. Both my dad and a good friend of mine have the guns stored in the same fashion. My dad no longer owns any, and his reason were the laws. Makes it very difficult for a legal gun owner to remain legal within the law. So trigger locks on all the rifles. ammo stored in a separate box inside the heavy duty combo lock cabinet. I could not get that safe open with any of those guns in my hands. I would say he even exceeds Ontario storage laws.

They're Federal laws...........Easiest way to remember, non-restricted firearms require one form of lock, be it a trigger lock or a lock on the safe or cabinet or the removal of the bolt and it stored in a locked container, and restricted firearms require two forms of locking devices, mine for example are trigger locked inside a safe…………And there is no requirement to lock-up ammo if stored separately from the firearms, for instance, I will have a certain amount of ammo inside my safes, but the bulk of it is in a locked room in the basement that also contains a gun safe, hence firearms and ammo are stored separately…………..

To stay within the law, your father could have kept non-restricted firearms kept inside a cheapo Canadian Tire safe alongside the ammo…….Restricted firearms are more extensive, but kept within a safe and trigger locked inside said safe, can be stored with the ammo.
And of course, it’s perfectly legal to store ammo inside magazines separated from their parent firearm, stripper clips, speed loaders and bandoliers.
Those of course are the minimum requirements and any responsible gun owner will exceed them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're Federal laws...........Easiest way to remember, non-restricted firearms require one form of lock, be it a trigger lock or a lock on the safe or cabinet or the removal of the bolt and it stored in a locked container, and restricted firearms require two forms of locking devices, mine for example are trigger locked inside a safe…………And there is no requirement to lock-up ammo if stored separately from the firearms, for instance, I will have a certain amount of ammo inside my safes, but the bulk of it is in a locked room in the basement that also contains a gun safe, hence firearms and ammo are stored separately…………..

To stay within the law, your father could have kept non-restricted firearms kept inside a cheapo Canadian Tire safe alongside the ammo…….Restricted firearms are more extensive, but kept within a safe and trigger locked inside said safe, can be stored with the ammo.

And of course, it’s perfectly legal to store ammo inside magazines separated from their parent firearm, stripper clips, speed loaders and bandoliers.

Those of course are the minimum requirements and any responsible gun owner will exceed them.

My father stayed within the limits of the law every step of the way. It just got to be a pain in the ass with keeping up with the new laws. It simply makes responsible gun owners frustrated.

And if that man was able to ward off people firebombing his house, then he should not be charged in any fashion. But that is just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

My father stayed within the limits of the law every step of the way. It just got to be a pain in the ass with keeping up with the new laws. It simply makes responsible gun owners frustrated.

And if that man was able to ward off people firebombing his house, then he should not be charged in any fashion. But that is just my opinion.

Oh I agree......and he was later acquitted.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/04/matt-gurney-after-two-years-judge-acquits-man-who-defended-himself-with-a-gun/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That shows the other aspect of this debate in which people would not be able to protect themselves in a situation like this if these restrictive gun laws come into play. Has to be a balance somewhere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

That shows the other aspect of this debate in which people would not be able to protect themselves in a situation like this if these restrictive gun laws come into play. Has to be a balance somewhere.

Again, I agree, but still regarding safe storage, there are biometric quick release safes on the market that can be programmed to multiple users and still go over and above safe storage laws well allowing a owner the option of defence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I agree, but still regarding safe storage, there are biometric quick release safes on the market that can be programmed to multiple users and still go over and above safe storage laws well allowing a owner the option of defence.

But your argument still seems to be that even if someone broke into your safe, you failed to store them properly. If Lanza's mother had stored them correctly and exceeded the laws of the state, but Lanza found a way in, I fail to see how the blame should be on his mother and take the stance that she did not store them properly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

But your argument still seems to be that even if someone broke into your safe, you failed to store them properly. If Lanza's mother had stored them correctly and exceeded the laws of the state, but Lanza found a way in, I fail to see how the blame should be on his mother and take the stance that she did not store them properly.

That’s correct………..And here in Canada I would be charged with unsafe storage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
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.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...