• 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

bongsaway said:
To make the point that law abiding gun owners would no longer be law abiding, although they would claim they still are because they won't follow such a stupid law.
Click to expand...

Hmm... do you wish to pass "such a stupid law" so that, otherwise law abiding, folks could be charged with a new crime?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... do you wish to pass "such a stupid law" so that, otherwise law abiding, folks could be charged with a new crime?
Click to expand...

I would rather err on the side of safety. Yes, such a law would prevent some unwanted deaths of people. I don't think it's stupid, I'm just repeating what some gun owners think of such a law.
 
bongsaway said:
I would rather err on the side of safety. Yes, such a law would prevent some unwanted deaths of people. I don't think it's stupid, I'm just repeating what some gun owners think of such a law.
Click to expand...

Folks that would leave a loaded gun easily accessible to a toddler are highly unlikely to obey such a law. After all, cars are equipped with locks yet are often left unlocked or with the keys left easily available for unauthorized access. People even leave toddlers to be cooked inside them - you just can't prevent stupid or negligent behavior.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Folks that would leave a loaded gun easily accessible to a toddler are highly unlikely to obey such a law. After all, cars are equipped with locks yet are often left unlocked or with the keys left easily available for unauthorized access. People even leave toddlers to be cooked inside them - you just can't prevent stupid or negligent behavior.
Click to expand...

My overall point isn't really even about guns. It's about we obey the laws we want to obey and discard the ones we don't like. All of us.
 
bongsaway said:
My overall point isn't really even about guns. It's about we obey the laws we want to obey and discard the ones we don't like. All of us.
Click to expand...

Folks tend to obey the laws which are more rigorously enforced. Other than that, they tend to be treated as mere suggestions.
 
Wayne Jr said:
I don't expect you to put a lock on a gun you're carrying for self-defense. This is about the guns you aren't using.
Click to expand...

I've been clear on this. No, I dont. My house is locked. If you break in, I am not responsible for criminal acts like robbery. That's ludicrous. They are secured if people are over.


Because that's a moral question, morals cannot be the basis for law, and this is about the law.

Value is subjective, meaning lives can be valued verb, but lives don't have value noun . No one's life has more or less value than anyone else's life because nothing, not a single thing in the whole world, has value intrinsically.
Click to expand...
Then why do you want to save lives?

You are just trying to avoid the question. I call complete BS on your claim here but I'll ask this...why is it ok to put me at risk rather than other people?

But here, I can play your game, see red above: I used it as a verb too btw, which you said is valid...so here it is again: Why should other people's lives be valued more than mine? Answer please.

Why should I have to make the same concessions, compromises that parents do/should, which put me more at risk?


A safe storage law isn't forcing you to do a damn thing. The only way a safe storage law could force you to safely store your guns is if we had random unannounced inspections, and no one's even proposing that.
Click to expand...

That's a lie. There is a legal penalty if I dont. Dont even bother with that garbage. Not only that, it puts my life at risk. It's like a law demanding I keep my doors and windows unlocked when I'm at home to enable myself or a family to escape faster, in a fire, all the while leaving myself or a family vulnerable to robbery, rape, invasion.

It's a trade off being safe...and in the case of unlocked up guns, one CLEARLY puts ME more at risk. And we still havent seen why you value (verb) other people's lives are more important than mine.

Safe storage laws advance awareness. That's it. Through this awareness, more people take steps to secure their guns than otherwise would have.
Click to expand...

That is an outright, black and white lie. There are penalties if you dont do it.

Spend more $$ on education.
 
Last edited:
Wayne Jr said:
If someone is able to take a gun you failed to lock up, that should lead to criminal charges against you both; them for taking it, and you for leaving it out. Firearms should be secured at all times, either on your person or locked up. No exceptions. No excuses.
Click to expand...

I should never be liable for a consenting adult stealing my property. Ever. A firearm in my car or home IS locked up. I am not a criminal and am not responsible for other's criminal behavior.

No exceptions, no excuses.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Are you kidding me? How, exactly, is someone who does not obey the law "law abiding"?
Click to expand...

There are many gun laws that make 'law abiding citizens' criminals. But yes I do recognize your point.

In MD (NJ?), you are a criminal if you dont keep your gun locked up in your vehicle and the ammo separate in the trunk. That makes you a 'criminal' all the while

I believe there's some state, you can only cc with your gun unloaded and carrying ammo separately :doh


There are many such laws in the US and they are complete garbage. But if there is a criminal charge (some laws like storage laws incur civil penalties in most cases, at least initially)...then yes, you're breaking the law, no longer 'law abiding.' I'd love to come up with another phrase that would work better.

IMO it's arbitrary garbage tho...just like pot laws. You are still a 'criminal' in some states if you have it, and not in others.
 
bongsaway said:
I would rather err on the side of safety. Yes, such a law would prevent some unwanted deaths of people. I don't think it's stupid, I'm just repeating what some gun owners think of such a law.
Click to expand...

Who's safety?

Again, are the lives of 'other' people to be more valued than gun owner's lives and their families?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Folks that would leave a loaded gun easily accessible to a toddler are highly unlikely to obey such a law. After all, cars are equipped with locks yet are often left unlocked or with the keys left easily available for unauthorized access. People even leave toddlers to be cooked inside them - you just can't prevent stupid or negligent behavior.
Click to expand...

And laws dont fix stupid and negligent. Education 'may.'

My story about the off-duty cop that left the loaded gun in his van with his kids was ignored.

As was the hypocrisy that he wasnt even charged initially, while 2 hrs away, a Hispanic couple that did the same thing were charged immediately.
 
Lursa said:
There are many gun laws that make 'law abiding citizens' criminals. But yes I do recognize your point.

In MD (NJ?), you are a criminal if you dont keep your gun locked up in your vehicle and the ammo separate in the trunk. That makes you a 'criminal' all the while

I believe there's some state, you can only cc with your gun unloaded and carrying ammo separately :doh


There are many such laws in the US and they are complete garbage. But if there is a criminal charge (some laws like storage laws incur civil penalties in most cases, at least initially)...then yes, you're breaking the law, no longer 'law abiding.' I'd love to come up with another phrase that would work better.

IMO it's arbitrary garbage tho...just like pot laws. You are still a 'criminal' in some states if you have it, and not in others.
Click to expand...

I tried, unseccessfully, while living in MD to find out how to legally carry a gun while riding a motorcycle. Texas has a law stating that one can legally carry a loaded handgun (w/o a LTC) while enroute to their home, RV, boat or vehicle yet the sheriff could not explain how one legally left that home, RV, boat or vehicle while carrying that loaded handgun.
 
TurtleDude said:
You think people -such as my wife and I, who have no minor children in our homes, should have to keep trigger locks on guns?
Click to expand...
Yes, because rather or not you have children of your own is irrelevant.
 
TurtleDude said:
If you have locked doors in your home, with an alarm system, and someone breaks in and steals a gun from you =no you should not be liable. That gun is LOCKED up
Click to expand...
Merely being inside a locked home or locked car is does not count since your home or car is not rated against forced entry.
 
Lursa said:
I've been clear on this. No, I dont. My house is locked. If you break in, I am not responsible for criminal acts like robbery. That's ludicrous. They are secured if people are over.
Click to expand...
Your house is not rated against forced entry so no, your guns are not locked up.

Lursa said:
Then why do you want to save lives?
Click to expand...
Because I value them.

Lursa said:
why is it ok to put me at risk rather than other people?
Click to expand...
You're not at risk because no one expects you to lock up the gun you're using for self-defense. It's the guns you aren't using that should be locked up.

Lursa said:
Why should other people's lives be valued more than mine? Answer please.
Click to expand...
As I don't know any of you I don't value any of you more than any of the rest of you.

Lursa said:
Why should I have to make the same concessions, compromises that parents do/should, which put me more at risk?
Click to expand...
Because if you don't then we'll Red Flag you and have all your guns confiscated.

Lursa said:
That's a lie. There is a legal penalty if I dont.
Click to expand...
No, there's a legal penalty if you get caught. Don't get caught. Safe Storage law works even when it's disobeyed because you will still take steps when potential access by others is available.
 
Last edited:
Frigidweirdo said:
So, how damn hard was it to say that the first time?

What can be done about the problems with gun crime.

1) Change the way people vote. Right now the FPTP system is destroying the US, politicians are often in it only for the money, and they're taking the money and representing money. People don't have a real choice, people don't have a chance to say what they think. If you don't support the Republicans or Democrats you're doomed to fail, no matter the outcome of the election.

In Germany, with PR, the third party didn't exist 10 years ago. While the US has flirted with Libertarians, Socialists, Tea Party and the like, Germans actually get to vote for what they want, instead of it being like a mole in their face. The AfD got 12.6% of the vote, because people felt they could vote for them, unlike in the US. And the AfD will have an impact on the policies that come out of the government, even if they're not in it.

2) Change the "can't do" mentality in the US. Change the lack of desire to solve problems.

3) If you want to be more specific about guns, then there are plenty of things that could be done. A lot of them would have people screaming and shouting about their right to own weapons.

4) Change education, make education something that can change communities, change people's lives.


Without number one, nothing else is going to happen. No change will happen. Number one isn't going to happen because the rich control the government and really don't want to lose their ability to do so. Do they care if a one year old kills himself? No, they've got a massive yacht, loads of houses, enough money that they only need to worry about getting some disease that can't be cured.
Click to expand...

I don't see an answer. I really don't.
 
bongsaway said:
And just when was the last time you heard/read/saw that happen? Let's face it, if I'm a gun owner and my main concern is keeping my family safe with my firearm, it's loaded at all times. Trigger locks have zero effect if they are not used and I'm also guessing law abiding gun owners would not obey that law if passed, for the most part. Guns are more important to gun owners than all the people killed with them combined. We are a nation of law breakers and one doesn't have to look any further than the white house for proof.
Click to expand...

Ah the Trump hate oozes into the anti gun comments. The fact is, gun owners are very responsible people. If they weren't, the body counts would be astronomical.
 
bongsaway said:
To make the point that law abiding gun owners would no longer be law abiding, although they would claim they still are because they won't follow such a stupid law.
Click to expand...

You raise an interesting point-I suspect-by accident. One of the main schemes or tactics of the anti gun left-is to pass stupid laws that are designed merely to harass honest gun owners, and when honest gun owners don't obey such stupid laws, the gun banners can scream the gun owners are criminals and demand they be punished with felonies (and thus can never legally own guns again).
 
Almost every night we have reports of some shooting, the rare occasion being that nothing happened.
Something (guess coming up) most have in common is that these guns are being used by those who are, by law, not allowed to own a gun.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Yes, because rather or not you have children of your own is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

That's really silly. Are you saying I have children I have no clue about coming into my home without my knowledge>
 
Wayne Jr said:
Merely being inside a locked home or locked car is does not count since your home or car is not rated against forced entry.
Click to expand...

Define forced entry. You are guessing without having a clue.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Yes, because rather or not you have children of your own is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

So my husband and I are childless. We have a doors. Why would we secure weapons?
 
TurtleDude said:
Define forced entry. You are guessing without having a clue.
Click to expand...

It means that the dudes who break into your house are committing a crime. He/she is playing out a scenario that makes no sense. Reasonably securing your weapon vs illegal entry.
 
TurtleDude said:
That's really silly. Are you saying I have children I have no clue about coming into my home without my knowledge>
Click to expand...
I'm saying children could be in your home at some point, with or without your knowledge.
 
Wayne Jr said:
They are NOT being prosecuted 'for negligence'. Someone had to die in order for them to be charged with 'negligent homicide'. No one would have to die for them to be charged with negligence respecting a Safe Storage law.

A parent picks up a kid from the sitter, and while in that home, the parent looks through a bedroom door and sees a sidearm resting on a nightstand. *BOOB* Class A or B Misdemeanor. No one has to die first.


These particular people didn't change their behavior due to the law. Most people would. There's always going to be that bottom 1% in any group who are just total ****bags. Make an example out that 1% and you don't end up with 2% or 50%.
Click to expand...

This was in Tennessee, correct? Are you a citizen of Tennessee?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom