• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:616]Tennessee toddler found gun, shot himself

Wayne Jr said:
Hmm, how are laws enforced? You honestly don't know this? An injury that could only have happened if your gun had no lock, like OP. Or, witnesses, literally anyone you let into your home from the repairman to friends and family.

The better you are at getting away with ignoring such a law, the less I'm worried about you, because you're taking steps to keep your gun secure, which is the whole point in the first place.
Click to expand...

Again this makes no sense, there is already a law on the books that takes care of the same problem, why make multiple laws for the exact same thing? This is why most people who want these laws should really stop and think for a minuet before they go off on these tangents.
If you leave your gun out and someones kid, your kid or anyone else who's kid you let in your home. gets hurt because of it then you will be prosecuted. You want to make another law that says if you don't have a trigger lock and some one's kid gets hurt you will get prosecuted. Do you notice how those are the same thing? what is really the point of the second one? The only one that benefits from the second one are the makers of trigger locks.
 
daeler said:
Again this makes no sense, there is already a law on the books that takes care of the same problem, why make multiple laws for the exact same thing? This is why most people who want these laws should really stop and think for a minuet before they go off on these tangents.
If you leave your gun out and someones kid, your kid or anyone else who's kid you let in your home. gets hurt because of it then you will be prosecuted. You want to make another law that says if you don't have a trigger lock and some one's kid gets hurt you will get prosecuted. Do you notice how those are the same thing? what is really the point of the second one? The only one that benefits from the second one are the makers of trigger locks.
Click to expand...

I literally JUST explained this. It's not about punishing offenders, as you say we already have a law for that. It's about modifying behavior.

The goal is to get gun owners to secure their arms. Punishing offenders is just a tool to get that done, punishing offenders is not the goal. A general rule on negligent homicide doesn't send a message gun owners in particular, it's too broad of a rule to get gun owners to secure their arms. A safe storage law works by getting gun owners to either comply with the law and lock up their guns, OR defy the law and secure their guns in other ways so they don't get caught. Either way, compliance or defiance, the guns are secured, which is IS the goal.
 
Last edited:
Wayne Jr said:
I literally JUST explained this. It's not about punishing offenders, as you say we already have a law for that. It's about modifying behavior.

The goal is to get gun owners to secure their arms. Punishing offenders is just a tool to get that done, punishing offenders is not the goal. A general rule on negligent homicide doesn't send a message gun owners in particular, it's too broad of a rule to get gun owners to secure their arms. A safe storage law works by getting gun owners to either comply with the law and lock up their guns, OR defy the law and secure their guns in other ways so they don't get caught. Either way, compliance or defiance, the guns are secured, which is IS the goal.
Click to expand...

That would just be government overreach. Do you want the government to pass laws to modify your behavior in ways that don't pertain to guns?
See what we need is for laws that are already on the books to be enforced, you don't need to make new laws that say the same thing with basically the same or lesser punishments.
 
Wayne Jr said:
I literally JUST explained this. It's not about punishing offenders, as you say we already have a law for that. It's about modifying behavior.

The goal is to get gun owners to secure their arms. Punishing offenders is just a tool to get that done, punishing offenders is not the goal. A general rule on negligent homicide doesn't send a message gun owners in particular, it's too broad of a rule to get gun owners to secure their arms. A safe storage law works by getting gun owners to either comply with the law and lock up their guns, OR defy the law and secure their guns in other ways so they don't get caught. Either way, compliance or defiance, the guns are secured, which is IS the goal.
Click to expand...

If it's not really enforceable, how does it modify behavior any more than education?
 
Wayne Jr said:
No, that's the 'mirror technique' for debate, when you make their own argument back at them. This thread has died anyway so there's no point.
Click to expand...

Translation: You're correct, RS.

Interesting you clipped out the proof. Don't like being proven wrong, do ya?
 
daeler said:
That would just be government overreach.
Click to expand...
Not in the slightest. A safe storage law does not undermine your RKBA.

daeler said:
Do you want the government to pass laws to modify your behavior in ways that don't pertain to guns?
Click to expand...
Depends on the specific policy and behavior desired.

daeler said:
See what we need is for laws that are already on the books to be enforced...
Click to expand...
Read the OP, the current laws ARE being enforced. The current laws do not perform the behavioral modification needed, so enforcing them does not accomplish the goal.

daeler said:
...you don't need to make new laws that say the same thing with basically the same or lesser punishments.
Click to expand...
A safe storage law does not do the same thing. You haven't been paying attention.
 
Lursa said:
If it's not really enforceable, how does it modify behavior any more than education?
Click to expand...
It is enforceable. You did not see me post otherwise and so should not be asking "if it's not enforceable".
 
Rising Sun said:
Translation: You're correct, RS.

Interesting you clipped out the proof. Don't like being proven wrong, do ya?
Click to expand...
That 'proof' being your quote of me?

I didn't clip that out, the forum software does not include quote boxes when you go to compose a post. Quote THIS post and note that my quote of you is not present on the reply screen. Same thing. Talk to the forum admin if you would like that changed, I have no control over it.

Please embarrass yourself with more false accusations.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Not in the slightest. A safe storage law does not undermine your RKBA.


Depends on the specific policy and behavior desired.


Read the OP, the current laws ARE being enforced. The current laws do not perform the behavioral modification needed, so enforcing them does not accomplish the goal.


A safe storage law does not do the same thing. You haven't been paying attention.
Click to expand...

It is actually the same thing just with different wording, the problem is with people. You think if you tell them specifically what they need to do that will change things. People don't change because of new laws, they change with education. They change with new environments. Stupid people are going to do stupid things laws wont change that. The only thing a law that says you have to have a trigger lock on your gun does is make life more difficult for the people who already follow the laws. It doesn't change a thing for the people who break the law that is already there.
 
Wayne Jr said:
This is why I support safe storage laws. A simple trigger lock would have prevented this.
Click to expand...

Never give an inch. Who needs trigger locks? Obviously this kid could have used one. Never give an inch.
 
bongsaway said:
Never give an inch. Who needs trigger locks? Obviously this kid could have used one. Never give an inch.
Click to expand...

Based on the known information and the laws the parents were already breaking what leads you to believe they would follow a safe storage law?
 
Chillfolks said:
Based on the known information and the laws the parents were already breaking what leads you to believe they would follow a safe storage law?
Click to expand...

Nothing. Good a reason as any to not make trigger lock laws the law of the land.
 
bongsaway said:
Nothing. Good a reason as any to not make trigger lock laws the law of the land.
Click to expand...
I am ok with requiring trigger locks/safes for households with children under 16. 16 seems to be the age many states require a hunting licence. But oppose any law requiring locks on any and all guns.
 
Chillfolks said:
I am ok with requiring trigger locks/safes for households with children under 16. 16 seems to be the age many states require a hunting licence. But oppose any law requiring locks on any and all guns.
Click to expand...

Most people also opposed seat belts when they were first being introduced. I wouldn't even think about driving without one now and I'm in my mid sixties. I seriously doubt if a sixteen year old person has the same life outlook as me. I'm not against gun ownership but I see trigger locks as a step forward into at least a few life saving situations like this kid's. I would rather err on the side of safety.
 
bongsaway said:
Most people also opposed seat belts when they were first being introduced. I wouldn't even think about driving without one now and I'm in my mid sixties. I seriously doubt if a sixteen year old person has the same life outlook as me. I'm not against gun ownership but I see trigger locks as a step forward into at least a few life saving situations like this kid's. I would rather err on the side of safety.
Click to expand...

I understand your point even if I disagree. Someone reckless enough to keep a loaded gun within easy access od kids are not going to suddenly find responsibility and use trigger locks. Someone wanting to use a gun for nephariois reasons isn't going to be stopped by a trigger lock. When I lost the keys to one i had it took my longer to get a screwdriver and hammer than it did busting it loose. It seems hypocritical to me thinking someone is responsible enough to go hunting but not responsible enough to keep that same gun at home without a trigger lock on it.
 
Chillfolks said:
I understand your point even if I disagree. Someone reckless enough to keep a loaded gun within easy access od kids are not going to suddenly find responsibility and use trigger locks. Someone wanting to use a gun for nephariois reasons isn't going to be stopped by a trigger lock. When I lost the keys to one i had it took my longer to get a screwdriver and hammer than it did busting it loose. It seems hypocritical to me thinking someone is responsible enough to go hunting but not responsible enough to keep that same gun at home without a trigger lock on it.
Click to expand...

if you conclusion were right that toddler would still be alive today
 
bongsaway said:
Most people also opposed seat belts when they were first being introduced. I wouldn't even think about driving without one now and I'm in my mid sixties. I seriously doubt if a sixteen year old person has the same life outlook as me. I'm not against gun ownership but I see trigger locks as a step forward into at least a few life saving situations like this kid's. I would rather err on the side of safety.
Click to expand...

Would those who demand trigger locks on guns in homes without children be willing to stand civilly liable if a homeowner dies during a criminal assault because they could not defend themselves.?

Demanding trigger locks on guns in such homes is idiocy and if pursued, is clearly designed to harass honest gun owners. Now when untrained or small children are present-yes, guns should be locked up or completely under adult control.
 
justabubba said:
if you conclusion were right that toddler would still be alive today
Click to expand...

My conclusion that someone who keeps a loaded gun within easy reach of a child isn't going to use a trigger lock would of kept the kid alive? My conclusion someone wanting to do bad things with a gun wouldn't be swayed by a trigger lock would of kept the kid alive
 
Wayne Jr said:
It is enforceable. You did not see me post otherwise and so should not be asking "if it's not enforceable".
Click to expand...

THen I just read the post above this.

It's not working. So why are more laws of the same going to work?

And why should I be punished...my life at risk...when I dont have kids and I believe it's important to me to have my 9mm on my nightstand shelf in my bedroom/safe room where I can get to it before a rapist, intruder, home invader, gets to me?
 
Wayne Jr said:
This is why I support safe storage laws. A simple trigger lock would have prevented this.
Click to expand...

AFAIK, most or all handguns in the US are sold with a lock. Why isnt that sufficient?
 
Chillfolks said:
I am ok with requiring trigger locks/safes for households with children under 16. 16 seems to be the age many states require a hunting licence. But oppose any law requiring locks on any and all guns.
Click to expand...

I have those things. I only use them *when I want to secure my firearms*, like going on vacation, or in a vehicle, etc.

Also, safes, properly installed (bolted down) for more than just a couple of hand guns are very expensive.

We start getting into the realm of making it cost prohibitive to exercise a right and excluding economically-challenged citizens. Who may, more even than others, need that immediate protection.
 
Lursa said:
I have those things. I only use them *when I want to secure my firearms*, like going on vacation, or in a vehicle, etc.

Also, safes, properly installed (bolted down) for more than just a couple of hand guns are very expensive.

We start getting into the realm of making it cost prohibitive to exercise a right and excluding economically-challenged citizens. Who may, more even than others, need that immediate protection.
Click to expand...

When I said locks/safes I meant it as an either/or not both. If you don't have kids under 16 neither is required. The last gun show I went to had a booth giving away the cable style trigger locks and they are pretty cheap online under 10 bucks.
 
Lursa said:
AFAIK, most or all handguns in the US are sold with a lock. Why isnt that sufficient?
Click to expand...

I have a box of them-=anyone want 5-10 PM me!
 
Chillfolks said:
When I said locks/safes I meant it as an either/or not both. If you don't have kids under 16 neither is required. The last gun show I went to had a booth giving away the cable style trigger locks and they are pretty cheap online under 10 bucks.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

If there is proper education, I dont see how people will use them if they feel they have needs that outweigh that. People weigh ALL the risks...in this case protection vs getting caught.

We are all familiar with one of those cliches: "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

Just IMO, the fingerprint safes seem faster and more accessible in need but again...$$$
 
Lursa said:
Thank you.

If there is proper education, I dont see how people will use them if they feel they have needs that outweigh that. People weigh ALL the risks...in this case protection vs getting caught.

We are all familiar with one of those cliches: "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

Just IMO, the fingerprint safes seem faster and more accessible in need but again...$$$
Click to expand...

I agree it's a peraonal choice. Just don't give me a sob story if you choose not to use one with an under 16 child in the home that accidentally shoots himself, sibling, friend, or parent and then face an increased sentence for neglagence as a result of not using one. That was your choice live with it.

By you I mean anyone not peraonal you btw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom