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

[Lursa]

TrueFacts: Todlers cannot be charged with a crime because toddlers are literally incapable of forming criminal intent. If a toddler gets ahold of your gun, it's always YOUR fault.

I was discussing adults as well, if you didnt notice.

And if that kid snuck into my house...good luck with the law holding me accountable. I live on rural, gated property. I'll counter-sue for parental negligence.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Control your own kids.

Control your own guns.

 

[Lursa]

Control your own guns.

Are you saying that things in my locked house are not under my control? If not, nothing is.

 

[Wayne Jr]

I was discussing adults as well, if you didnt notice.

And if that kid snuck into my house...good luck with the law holding me accountable. I live on rural, gated property. I'll counter-sue for parental negligence.

We live in a world where burgers win lawsuits against their victims when injured during the robbery. I'm absolutely certain the law would throw your negligent butt in prison over a strey toddler getting ahold of your gun.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Are you saying that things in my locked house are not under my control? If not, nothing is.

How are toddlers getting into your house if it's locked up? Make sense, please.

 

[Lursa]

We live in a world where burgers win lawsuits against their victims when injured during the robbery. I'm absolutely cerian the law would throw your negligent butt in prison over a story toddler getting ahold of your gun.

I realize the law would not always be on my side, depends on the state. That doesnt change my answer. If a toddler breaks into my house and gets my gun, I'll worry about that then. How far out to the ridiculous do you want to take this?

When I wrote this, I guess I needed to spell it out further:

No. I'll accept "civil" liability IF a child or other person in "I invited into my home harms themself or another IN my home" (because if they take it out, they stole it).

I put them away in those circumstances :roll:

 

[Lursa]

How are toddlers getting into your house if it's locked up? Make sense, please.

Post 156.

Use a little more reading comprehension. the "IF I invited them in".

Completely different circumstances than you imagining toddlers breaking into my home.

 

[Wayne Jr]

No, my competition ones live in my gun bag, ready to go (not loaded). The others...in place, as appropriate, loaded. Nightstand, carry, etc.

I dont have alot of guns, I only have ones that specifically fit a purpose but I could use a couple more.

Yeah, any gun not on your person or within arm's reach needs to be locked up. Kids or not, strey ninja todlers using stealth diapers to somehow sneak into your supposedly locked up compound or not.

 

[Lursa]

Yeah, any gun not on your person or within arm's reach needs to be locked up. Kids or not, strey ninja todlers using stealth diapers to somehow sneak into your supposedly locked up compound or not.

No, they dont. Not unless I've invited them into the house, "in which case they are put away."


But thanks, you write out how ridiculous it is all on your own.

 

[Wayne Jr]

I put them away in those circumstances

You put them away, other's do not, and it's the behavior of those people whom safe storage laws are meant to change.

 

[Wayne Jr]

No, they dont. Not unless I've invited them into the house, "in which case they are put away."


But thanks, you write out how ridiculous it is all on your own.

You're the one who brought in all this nonsense about strey toddlers in your house. Given the time, I expect you're just drunk.

 

[Lursa]

You put them away, other's do not, and it's the behavior of those people whom safe storage laws are meant to change.

Now I care even less what they do, since you now seem to represent a bunch of people that dont give a crap about my personal safety.

You never did answer if you believe a toddler's life is more valuable than mine?

Because that's what forcing me, by law, to make the same compromises parent's do implies.

 

[Lursa]

You're the one who brought in all this nonsense about strey toddlers in your house. Given the time, I expect you're just drunk.

No, I never did. You did that. I only referred to toddlers and persons "I invited in".

Then I mentioned someone leaving the house with one...stealing. It's you that somehow imagined it was a toddler.

Dont lie.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Now I care even less what they do since you now seem to represent a bunch of people that don't give a crap about my personal safety.

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.

You never did answer if you believe a toddler's life is more valuable than mine?

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, but lives don't have value. 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.

Because that's what forcing me, by law, to make the same compromises parent's do implies.

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.

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

 

[Wayne Jr]

No, I never did. You did that. I only referred to toddlers and persons "I invited in".

Then I mentioned someone leaving the house with one...stealing. It's you that somehow imagined it was a toddler.

Dont lie.

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.

 

[Port & Starboard]

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.


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, but lives don't have value. 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.


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.

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

You really think that drug addicted parents give a **** about a gun lock? That money could go towards getting high.

 

[TurtleDude]

It's called safe STORAGE. If you have a gun out for immediate use, that's not STORAGE, that's CARRY, you put that gun in a holster and keep it on or about your person. Safe storage laws and trigger locks are for the guns you aren't using at the moment.

Feel free to accept civil liability for all these kids killed by you blocking safe storage laws, though.

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? Safe storage laws are often victim disarmament laws.

 

[TurtleDude]

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.

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

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm confused. I literally asked which of the two things you want me to talk about, and you literally didn't tell me. How do I make this more simple?

WHICH ONE DO YOU WANT ME TO TALK ABOUT?

What I want you to talk about is what you want done since you are clearly complaining about the rate of gun deaths in the USA.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

What I want you to talk about is what you want done since you are clearly complaining about the rate of gun deaths in the USA.

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.

 

[bongsaway]

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.

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.

 

[ttwtt78640]

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.

Are you kidding me? How, exactly, is someone who does not obey the law "law abiding"?

 

[bongsaway]

Are you kidding me? How, exactly, is someone who does not obey the law "law abiding"?

Well I guess they wouldn't be would they?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Well I guess they wouldn't be would they?

Nope, so why post such nonsense?

 

[bongsaway]

Nope, so why post such nonsense?

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.