DescentBB

I leave this little news article to ponder, and wonder what YOU feel the penalty ought to be(if any) for the gun owner. Sure, this is a single gun, single incident, but repeated thousands of times annually(in some permutation) this is how illegal guns get on the streets. I feel this to be the sort of thing where the freedoms granted by the 2nd amendment come with personal responsibility and that there ought to be laws to enforce such responsibility.
http://www.unionleader.com/article/2015 ... /150619464

I’m confused, who broke the law here…the thief or the moron.

I have no problem with making it a crime to recklessly place a firearm where it can be easily stolen, but that gun could have just as easily been taken right from the owner in plain sight, so you are going to have to make the laws really really complicated.

First of all. I meant to reply in our other gun conversation, but I forgot about it. I still plan on answering it.

And as for your article, it appears to be two paragraphs long. Is there more of it or was that it?

First of all, that man didn't commit a crime under current U.S. law, so there'd be no penalty. So I assume you're asking what new law should be written that would penalize him to help prevent this.

Your gun should be in two places. Locked up or strapped to you. If either of those are too inconvenient, you shouldn't own a gun. If you carry a gun, you should carry it on you 100% of the time. Off-body carry of any kind should be done only for certain exceptions.

So to answer you question: He should be ticketed for not having a proper holster.

Well, this isn't any different than someone leaving the door to their house unlocked, allowing some thief to waltz in and takes that homeowner's unsecured weapon. It's not a crime to leave your doors unlocked. Stupid move, but not illegal. The thief is the criminal.

Well, Isaac that may be the case in Texas, but in many other states the law requires you to place your unloaded gun in a proper case, in the trunk, when going on a hunting trip, for example.

So that brings me back to my point, where do you draw the line between criminal neglect and ★■◆● happens…I mean that guy may have had his car stolen at the bait store*…then what.

*Assuming the gun was not stolen at the house.

The point…you can’t just make getting robbed a crime, so you must define the parameters, and that is where the trouble lies, because I never hear anyone who advocates these laws, spell it out.

Spidey wrote:I’m confused, who broke the law here…the thief or the moron.

under current law, only the thief. I am of the opinion that two people here broke the law.

I have no problem with making it a crime to recklessly place a firearm where it can be easily stolen, but that gun could have just as easily been taken right from the owner in plain sight, so you are going to have to make the laws really really complicated.

failure to secure a weapon at all times isn't complicated, or at least doesn't seem so to me.

So a guy is carrying his firearm with him when someone blind sides him and knocks him out. The attacker goes for the wallet while the gun owner is lying unconscious on the pavement. While searching he discovers the firearm and takes that also. So slick, should the firearm owner be arrested for a crime because the attacker took his pistol?

Sure, sounds simple, but life rarely plays out like that.

callmeslick wrote: failure to secure a weapon at all times isn't complicated, or at least doesn't seem so to me.

Generally, locking up a gun is what you do when you're not going to be using it for an extended period of time. If you're carrying a gun for protection it better be holstered. Carrying in a bag, glove box, or anything you can walk away from is how all kinds of accidents and theft happen. If we made it easier for people get their hands on good holsters we'd cut down on these problems.

While we're on this topic, bag carry is stupid and too many women do it. It's frustrating because there's a great alternative.

The Flash Bang holster is really good. My friend who is almost flat chested, is able to hide a 5 shot snubby completely in a Flash Bang style holster. When we experimented on her concealing a gun, she had a really thin and soft shirt that would have easily printed had she been carrying IWB. A five shot snubby revolver is bigger than the LCP, LC9, Glock 42, and even the Glock 26. At least mine is. If her chest can conceal a gun that big most women can conceal without resorting to a horrible 22lr mini-revolver.

Back on point, he shouldn't have locked it up if the gun's purpose was for self-defense. He should have pocketed that pistol. I'm assuming he had the Ruger LC9, which is pretty popular. That gun is thin and easy to conceal. He should of had it holstered.

And there you have it. I've managed to write about guns and boobs in the same post, but I can't figure out how to fit in beer and monster trucks.

Isaac wrote:And there you have it. I've managed to write about guns and boobs in the same post, but I can't figure out how to fit in beer and monster trucks.

you're still young. It will come with practice!

Isaac wrote:

If you're carrying a gun for protection it better be holstered. Carrying in a bag, glove box, or anything you can walk away from is how all kinds of accidents and theft happen. If we made it easier for people get their hands on good holsters we'd cut down on these problems.

One problem. Say during the course of the day, you are required to visit a gun free zone. You cannot carry into the building (even the local post office does not allow weapons) so you have to keep it in your vehicle. Want to cut down on theft? Make it so a CCW license holder can carry anywhere...period.

woodchip wrote:

Isaac wrote:

If you're carrying a gun for protection it better be holstered. Carrying in a bag, glove box, or anything you can walk away from is how all kinds of accidents and theft happen. If we made it easier for people get their hands on good holsters we'd cut down on these problems.

One problem. Say during the course of the day, you are required to visit a gun free zone. You cannot carry into the building (even the local post office does not allow weapons) so you have to keep it in your vehicle. Want to cut down on theft? Make it so a CCW license holder can carry anywhere...period.

or, make the amazing discovery that you can go into public sans gun once in a while.......

That's the one nice thing about the country that I live in; Canada.

We have a gun culture. I know at least two people that own guns. Yet we're at a point where no one needs to carry in public because we're not always thinking that a terrorist or a thug is going to get us at any time, day or night.

why we've developed that sort of thinking in the US(the need to carry at all times) eludes me. I've never felt the need, and haven't exactly restricted my travels in life to 'safe' places. I think we have a complex mix of popular media telling us to be afraid, with that notion reinforced by those with a vested interest.
Speaking of gun cultures, you folks in Canada are more likely to own a gun, yet Americans own close to twice as many guns per capita. In other words, less people here own them, but those that do are ardent about it.

callmeslick wrote:I think we have a complex mix of popular media telling us to be afraid, with that notion reinforced by those with a vested interest.

Gun culture in the US is much older than television or even radio.

Some of it ties in to the American Revolution itself. Can't become a "well organized militia" if the British government controls all the guns.

A big piece of it comes from racial minorities (particularly southern blacks) being on the receiving end of mob violence. The right to vote, following the civil war, relied heavily on the right to get safely to and from the polls -- and armed black men (many of whom fought for the Union army) made that possible.

There's also the "frontier" ethos -- settling westward, in territory occupied by hostile natives and/or hostile animals, using firearms for defense and hunting.

There are certainly those who stoke fear for their own ends, but the only reason it works is because the American relationship with guns is old and deep.

woodchip wrote:

Isaac wrote:

If you're carrying a gun for protection it better be holstered. Carrying in a bag, glove box, or anything you can walk away from is how all kinds of accidents and theft happen. If we made it easier for people get their hands on good holsters we'd cut down on these problems.

One problem. Say during the course of the day, you are required to visit a gun free zone. You cannot carry into the building (even the local post office does not allow weapons) so you have to keep it in your vehicle. Want to cut down on theft? Make it so a CCW license holder can carry anywhere...period.

Valid point and I agree with your last part too. Let me carry everywhere. The criminal will carry everywhere, why not CHL holders? Of course, I deal with gun free zones the same way I deal with bad restaurants: they don't need my business.

Ferno wrote:That's the one nice thing about the country that I live in; Canada.

We have a gun culture. I know at least two people that own guns. Yet we're at a point where no one needs to carry in public because we're not always thinking that a terrorist or a thug is going to get us at any time, day or night.

The Canadian gun community is the funniest bunch I've ever had the pleasure of interacting with. They have a gallows humor about their situation. There's also an interesting relationship between U.S. media effecting gun law in Canada. We have a mass shooting and Canada tries to push for a rifle registration. Or they try to increase the number of checks they do on registered gun owners. Meanwhile, Canadian gun owners are like, "just when I thought I couldn't take it more up the ass, they pass this ★■◆●". I'll always have respect for the Canadian gun owner. Those poor guys have more patients than I ever will.

callmeslick wrote:or, make the amazing discovery that you can go into public sans gun once in a while.......

There's nothing wrong with carrying a gun. There's a right way to do anything. There's many problems new gun owners cause for themselves and others, but it's easily preventable with a bit of teaching, which anti-gunners don't seem to be willing to do. And I don't know how to convey this better: If you focus more on teaching good gun etiquette than banning guns, you'd save more lives. I'm not saying this to you, but to those that want to ban guns.

I'd like to know/understand why you feel the NEED to carry.

callmeslick wrote:I'd like to know/understand why you feel the NEED to carry.

Don't know about Isaac but I certainly don't feel a "need". I do so because I can....and fear has nothing to do with it (I see you are labeling a whole group of people as being "fearful).

but WHY? Woody, 'because I can' is a feeble excuse, frankly. Unless you can justify it past that, it is simply lame. I can carry a baseball bat with me, but don't, because I don't anticipate a need for it. I can do a lot of things, but don't bother. It isn't like a handgun is some sort of accessory, like a man-bag, or a pair of shoes. WHY?

For your info slick, I didn't carry for as many years as you have lived. When relaxed carry came about i got the training and carried ever since. Besides, baseball bats are so redneck

so, after 60 years(the time I've been alive) of not carrying, what made you change your mind?

oh, and baseball bats may be redneck, but so VERY effective. Worked a couple times in New England that I can remember well. Quite nice for, um, crowd control. Helps to be tall, with long arms.

callmeslick wrote:I'd like to know/understand why you feel the NEED to carry.

Because a police officer is too big to fit in my pocket.

My need to carry it is the same need to keep a fire extinguisher around the house. I don't plan to use the fire extinguisher or gun. I hope I never have to. However, I can't just leave a gun laying around the same way I leave a fire extinguisher laying around. So I holster it.

not everyone can be bruce willis.

callmeslick wrote:so, after 60 years(the time I've been alive) of not carrying, what made you change your mind?

I'm afraid we are getting into the realm akin to a blind man asking you to describe the color of the sky.

woodchip wrote:I'm afraid we are getting into the realm akin to a blind man asking you to describe the color of the sky.

...which would be blue because someone told the blind man that the sky is blue.

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:I'm afraid we are getting into the realm akin to a blind man asking you to describe the color of the sky.

...which would be blue because someone told the blind man that the sky is blue.

I think you missed my point. Try describing that color to a man who has never seen colors.

woodchip wrote:

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:I'm afraid we are getting into the realm akin to a blind man asking you to describe the color of the sky.

...which would be blue because someone told the blind man that the sky is blue.

I think you missed my point. Try describing that color to a man who has never seen colors.

Actually, it's more difficult than that. People who only know about guns from TV and movies have really warped assumptions about guns (for people in general. not anyone specific here on this forum). If they see a gun they also attach an aura of danger around it. They’ve never been to the range. They haven’t practiced gun safety themselves.

So it would be like asking a colorblind person, who didn’t know they were colorblind, what color lime green was. I’ve done this. My brother is colorblind and calls me a liar when I say something’s a different color than another thing.

woodchip wrote:I think you missed my point. Try describing that color to a man who has never seen colors.

Nah, I got it. Anyone who has vision can't describe a color either. They just know what it is because someone told them what it is.

It's funny, really. Colors are about the only thing we can refer to without any supporting context. We're told what it is; and that's it. No descriptors, either.. just names. The only thing that we can tie to colors is emotions really. If one is angry, it's usually called 'seeing red'. If someone is down or sad, it's usually referred to as "being blue". If someone is jealous, it's "being green with envy".

Yeah it's weird. I think we sort of shot ourselves in the foot with that one.

well, we might not be able to use words, but that's when we resort to technology to show others what they can't see:

Man sees new colors for the first time:

well, the color sight analogy is amusing, but the truth be told, the both of you really are afraid.....either that, or you have a hightened sense of the danger around you rising to the need to possibly use a weapon in public places. As was alluded to in the Bruce Willis comment above, as I read it.I sort of feel for you all, as I couldn't go through life happily with such a mindset. Most of my fears, such as they are, are around folks who have your mindset without your seeming level of training and (hopefully) personal restraint. I figure I'm at more risk of those folks than actually encountering a life-threatening criminal. Then again, to date, I've encountered neither situation, except for those times in my youth when I knowingly sought them out.

callmeslick wrote:well, the color sight analogy is amusing, but the truth be told, the both of you really are afraid.....

There's no shame in being afraid, however, fear isn't what causes most people to buy a gun. Though there are some extreme exceptions. But for the most part, it's not out of fear.

Do you keep a fire extinguisher in your home because you’re in constant fear of fires? I’m horrified at the thought of a fire in my home, but I’m not in constant fear.

Do you use a seat belt when you drive because you’re in constant fear of crashing? Maybe more often than than other kinds of fear. But am I in a constant panic when I drive? No. Sometimes, yes, but mostly no.

So do you carry a small handgun because you’re in constant fear of being attacked? No. Sometimes I’m happy I’ve got the gun on me, like when my car stranded me at night and I had to walk to a gas station in the dark (clutch line broke open). But mostly it’s just on me in times I know I won’t need it. Or at least I assume won’t need it. It’s better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

edit:

Carry guns are mostly compromise guns. If you’re expecting to get into a gun fight, you’re not going to be carrying a small five shoot revolver in .38 special, like me. If gun fights were a regular thing, I’d be carrying a Mossberg 500 with steel shot. Come and take it.

I'm sorry, but you can't compare safety devices to a firearm. Mainly because they're not even in the same ballpark.

When was the last time you've heard of a fire extinguisher or a seatbelt used to subdue an assailant or stop one dead?

Your post is more important in this thread than you might think because it sheds light on an important difference.

Ferno wrote:they're not even in the same ballpark.

To some peope they are.

That weird difference might give you some insight on how us gun people think. And yeah, you probably think we’re all stupid for grouping those things like that. But at least that’s a good reference for understanding why some of us are ok with very few gun laws.

well, a fire extinguisher's job and a seatbelt's job is safety and only safety.

firearms are for defense, assault, and hunting.


Your thinking is illustrating and inferring what something is like. An expected perception; a cognitive stereotype. my thinking is illustrating something that is. A much more mechanical way of thinking.

Right, your perspective is more valid than mine from your perspective. I got that. That's completely fine and goes without say. I'm not going to try and say the same thing back to you. But in my last post, I was just pointing out why and how there's a difference, which, I guess, is more interesting to me than to you. Wasn't trying to call anyone wrong.

Isaac wrote:Come and take it.

Oh look, a predictively confrontational comment from a gun owner. What a surprise. Why is this kind of attitude a stereotype?

vision wrote:

Isaac wrote:Come and take it.

Oh look, a predictively confrontational comment from a gun owner. What a surprise. Why is this kind of attitude a stereotype?

Why the troll comment?

Ferno wrote:well, a fire extinguisher's job and a seatbelt's job is safety and only safety.

firearms are for defense, assault, and hunting.


Your thinking is illustrating and inferring what something is like. An expected perception; a cognitive stereotype. my thinking is illustrating something that is. A much more mechanical way of thinking.

Except you can take the fire extinguisher and spray it in someones face or a kidnapper could use the seatbelt to restrain his victim from making a rapid escape from his car.

And you are also forgetting firearms are used for sports as in trap shooting, sporting clays and are used in the Olympics (forget the name of the sport)