Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesus H Christ
Who defines how secure a weapon is in your home?
|
That's why you can't write legislation requiring a certain level of security. If the law said 'the gun must be kept in a locked gun locker' those who 'lose' their guns would simply claim it was somehow taken from their gun locker whether it was in one or not. The litmus test should be very simple. If your gun has become lost or stolen, you failed to properly secure it. If you do not want to accept that responsibility... don't own a gun.
Quote:
|
What if I knocked on a gun owners door and then pointed a gun at his head to unlock his gun safe. Then took his gun and shot him and his neighbor?
|
The person doing the shooting goes to jail for murder, the person failing to secure their gun is punished severely as well. The only person in your example who is injured and innocent is the neighbor. Had you not chosen to own the gun which was taken from you and failed to secure it, he would not have been shot by a gun you owned.
Quote:
|
In short, it's people like you who flood our court system positioning stupid laws, causing more bureaucracy because you're common sense can't grasp self responsibility wanting a government entity to manage your life due to your flawed thinking.
|
Actually my method would immediately reduce the case load in courts from what it is presently. You would very quickly see less guns on the streets, would have less people choosing to own guns and would have those who do choose to own guns taking their care and security more seriously. There would be no lengthy trial or bureaucracy. If you 'lose' a gun, you are punished. If your gun is used in the commission of a subsequent crime you share in the blame for that incident as well.
The
current system is what creates bureaucracy, protects incompetent gun owners and perpetuates the black market nexus between 'lost legal guns' and crimes committed by people with 'illegal guns' which are the same exact firearms in different hands.