0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

[Drew S.]

If the gun is reported stolen, it absolves the registered gun owner. If it's not reported stolen, then they're not careful enough with their weapons around their children.

The insurance of the car's owner travels with the car. If Jr. takes the car without permission, mommy and daddy are still on the hook, along with their State Farm account, for the damages that might be incurred.

If people really want to take the gun/car analogy to its end, let's really do it. The gun owner's responsibility travels with the gun, unless it's reported stolen.

You didn’t answer the question...if the police know a specific gun is stolen what can they do to prevent it from being used in a crime?

The car example doesn’t work in your scenario. If jr took the car and ran over someone with the intern to kill I doubt insurance would cover it. Jr taking the car is a lot different than some random person breaking into your house and stealing stuff too.

[BassAle]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

Make the robbery victims responsible instead of the murderers, makes a lot of sense. If the cops know that a gun is stolen what can they do to prevent someone from using it in a crime?

no dummy, the owner isn't responsible if it's stolen, they are responsible if their kid takes their gun and shoots up a school.

[First Time, Long Time]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

https://idahostatejournal.com/news/l...309a4.amp.html

[rufus]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

https://idahostatejournal.com/news/l...309a4.amp.html

Ah, flyover country. Real 'Murica.

[Kepler]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

https://idahostatejournal.com/news/l...309a4.amp.html

No, no; encourage them to show up. We have a real opportunity here.

[rufus]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

No, no; encourage them to show up. We have a real opportunity here.

Car backfiring in the parking lot, and half the herd is eliminated.

[St. Clown]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

You didn’t answer the question...if the police know a specific gun is stolen what can they do to prevent it from being used in a crime?

The car example doesn’t work in your scenario. If jr took the car and ran over someone with the intern to kill I doubt insurance would cover it. Jr taking the car is a lot different than some random person breaking into your house and stealing stuff too.

The wording I used pertains to a family member (or lodger) using a gun from the house in the commission of the crime, not some random stranger who's broken into a house and stolen the gun. You're changing the situation because you're not fully reading the post.

[Drew S.]

The wording I used pertains to a family member (or lodger) using a gun from the house in the commission of the crime, not some random stranger who's broken into a house and stolen the gun. You're changing the situation because you're not fully reading the post.

Ah, I see what you’re saying. It’s not the worst idea in the world but I’m not sure how many deaths it would prevent. Is locking the parents up after the fact a good use of resources? One thing that makes it tough to prevent kids from getting at things is they basically have all your info.

[rufus]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

It's the "threat" of locking them up, dumbass.

Lots of history of behavior being influenced if there are repercussions to be had for doing it.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

Ah, I see what you’re saying. It’s not the worst idea in the world but I’m not sure how many deaths it would prevent. Is locking the parents up after the fact a good use of resources? One thing that makes it tough to prevent kids from getting at things is they basically have all your info.

Then you do not deserve to own a gun. Period.

[Drew S.]

It's the "threat" of locking them up, dumbass.

Lots of history of behavior being influenced if there are repercussions to be had for doing it.

A good way to encourage more people to have kids, make the parents responsible for their behavior. I don’t have kids yet so perhaps I’m mistaken, but I think I would worry much more about my kids killing a bunch of other kids and potentially themselves than I would be to go to jail.

[Kepler]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

Car backfiring in the parking lot, and half the herd is eliminated.

It's why I don't want guns banned. I want them to bring their guns to school, church, parties, child support hearings, marriage counseling, ...

For, sniff, freedom.

[St. Clown]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

Ah, I see what you’re saying. It’s not the worst idea in the world but I’m not sure how many deaths it would prevent. Is locking the parents up after the fact a good use of resources? One thing that makes it tough to prevent kids from getting at things is they basically have all your info.

What it does is it causes parents to get trigger locks, and gun safes, and adding biometric locking mechanisms, and all the other things that will keep kids from walking into the basement and grabbing the guns before heading off to school on a rampage, or to showoff to their friends.

[Kepler]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

A good way to encourage more people to have kids, make the parents responsible for their behavior. I don’t have kids yet so perhaps I’m mistaken, but I think I would worry much more about my kids killing a bunch of other kids and potentially themselves than I would be to go to jail.

You would think, yes, but then again these jackwagons aren't worried about their kids killing a bunch of other kids right now.

Parents with guns lying around the house within reach of their kids aren't going to respond to any deterrent, monetary, rational, or blatantly coercive. The guy leaving his gun where his kid can reach it is prima facie evidence he should be prohibited from having a gun. It's like drunk driving: if you do it you should lose your license even if you don't actually kill anybody, because doing it is proof you can't be trusted with a car.

[Drew S.]

What it does is it causes parents to get trigger locks, and gun safes, and adding biometric locking mechanisms, and all the other things that will keep kids from walking into the basement and grabbing the guns before heading off to school on a rampage, or to showoff to their friends.

Perhaps a better way of phrasing your law could be that if parents don’t take some basic protections they could get in trouble. I’d be okay with that even though I doubt it would be very effective.