This seems reasonable to me. Also the requirement that guns be locked up when not in use. I would not go around looking to see of folks had unsecured guns but if your gun was used in a crime I would be inclined to charge you with something similar to accessory (or a similar term) to the crime.

You want to keep your shotgun loaded under the bed then you risk a lot if it is stolen and used in a robbery or worse.

I have a number of guns myself, all unlocked but none are loaded. The ammo is nearby but not immdiately adjacent to the weapons. If required by law or by my insurance I would lock them up without complaint.

how many times have you used that shotgun to defend the home? serious question. Do you need it is where im going with this.

Tom, sadly it's not. Buy tin-foil stock now!

"I believe our GOVERNMENT shot those kids and teachers and used Adam Lanza and his family to pull it off."

forehead slap.:eek:

We should enact laws because they might work. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

My home is your castle to decide how I should live in it.

You're not kidding.

As a gun-owning (although I don't keep them in the house), pro-2nd Amendment, government mis-trusting (maybe "not entirely trusting" would be more apropos) Libertarian I've had a lot of internal mental turmoil this past week but even I can't even begin to conceive crafting a plot like that! :confused:

Seriously? Why wouldn't you? I cited a perfect example of unintended consequences above.

with other countries with far lower rates of gun violence, once of them our incredibly similar neighbor to the north, whats the difficulty at looking at what laws they have, and why it seems to work, then tailoring laws to increase public safety in our own country.

Easy to scoff, harder to find a solution to what is apparently large numbers of us have simply just decided are the breaks of the game.

As said very early in the thread, the spirit of not talking about it because everyone has an entrenched opinion is the one that will ultimately make this an all or nothing issue.

I think we have numerous weak compromise laws on the books that are not particularly effective. I think we need stronger ones. I agree when we point to these weak compromises that they don't work too well, thats true. They were flawed to begin with since this is such a knee jerk issue for most.

You know, the whole point of federalism is so that states can enact laws that reflect the social interests of the various states. I'm perfectly okay with a majoritarian approach to guns within states.

But if we have to make it an issue of federal law, let's impose my state's laws on everybody. Yeah, that's fair.

the problem with that is loopholes.

Couple years ago, went up to a gun show with a known idiot friend of mine in VT. in 15 minutes, he walked out with two Russian Mosin-Nagants, one a carbine, both with bayonets.

He then brought them back to our state, which has pretty lax laws itself, but does have some time limits.

i ended up removing and keeping one of the bolts to prevent him from firing off one of the rifles in the middle of the city when a girl he was sweet on went for his cousin. He also was caught pointing it out the window of his 4th story apartment tracking people on the street to work out the sights.

I don't have a problem with this type of bolt action weapon, but i do have a problem with them being sold to idiots with no real checks on how they intend to store and use them.

We have to close loopholes like that if we intend to actually do any long term good, so the only solution is federal regulation, not state regulation. Id be happy with federal guidelines, and states fill them in, similar to vehicle regulations being generally similar in all states, but possessing differences tailored to the states in question

interesting link, thanks.

I would love harder numbers, or numbers at all though, I wonder in the survey itself?

"The results of this survey, as well as an analysis of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), indicate that defensive gun use is very common in the United States and that it is probably substantially more common than criminal gun use."

That seems very foggy to me. A lot of things are probably something or other with greater or lesser levels of truth in the statement. I want to see definitively.

When did correlation become causation? Maybe an act of Congress.

Well gee, why not get the paper and read it rather than drawing conclusions from an abstract? Is that how lawyers do it?

The above linked article stands alone in terms of providing actual data. Unless you have something more than your bare-azzed opinion.