Giving photogs a bad name?

On 2014-05-28 17:20:44 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Wed, 28 May 2014 09:13:30 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-05-28 10:38:21 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

On Wednesday, 28 May 2014 05:49:59 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-05-28 04:23:14 +0000, "J. Clarke" said:


That said, no way am I giving up my guns!!

I'm curious as to why this is or why you feel that way.

First, my statement establishes my position that gun ownership, or the
right to gun ownership for US citizens is imbedded in our culture.
(...and there was a more subtle, and humorous poke at the rabid gun
lobby)

Confiscation of citizen owned guns is going to do nothing to alleviate
the real issue of a society where those with mental health issues can
slip through the cracks to cause death & mayhem. Guns are not the only
instrument of these individuals, as demonstrated by what happened in
the latest of these tragic events where three of the victims were
stabbed to death and three shot, yet the reactionary focus remains on
firearm ownership.

Every time someone is stabbed, people are quick to point out that guns
are not the only lethal weapons. True, but so are rocks, hammers, and
that bust of Darwin's monkey. Realistically, though, death by
stabbing an infinitesimal number compared to death by gunshot.

Surprisingly, the numbers of violent crimes with blades and weapons
other than firearms is alarmingly high and under stated. This I have
seen for myself in my career, I have seen and investigated some of the
most horrific crimes of violence and self destructive behavior where
other than firearms have been used. Stabbings and slashings are far
more common than you might think.

Our system should be refined to be able to deal with individual gun
owners with behavior issues which point to a need for care via some
sort of therapeutic intervention.

Criminality is a different issue, and no gun control is going to stop
those criminal who use mostly illegally obtained firearms.

I am not convinced that mental health is a sufficient factor. If
someone (except those in the military or law enforcement) shoots and
kills another human, that person is automatically mentally unstable.
However, being mentally unstable does not result in murder in the
overwhelming number of people with mental disorders.

Agreed. Not all violent acts are a result of mental health stability
issues. Criminally plays a big part. Just with gang violence in
California we have two factors which lead to these violent acts. The
running of criminal enterprises, and territorial conflict, neither of
which are precipitated by mental health issues.

I would like to see small steps to correct the problem.

Agreed. We have to start somewhere.

I am in favor of criminal prosecution of anyone who has their gun
stolen from their
house or vehicle. If the person has not secured or hidden that
weapon, the person is guilty of criminal negligence.

Agreed. All owners of firearms owe that much to the community. Gun
ownership bears a weighty responsibility, and there should be
consequences if that responsibility is not met.

I don't think that Wal-Mart, K-Mart and stores like that should have a
license to
sell guns. They don't have the type of employees or checks that they
should.

Agreed. However, that does not necessarily mean that all retailers
which deal in firearms do so irresponsibly. Also, those stores you
named operate differently in different States. For example In
California, K-Mart does not sell firearms or ammo. WalMart sells ammo,
but does not sell fire arms, mainly due to the California DOJ
registration procedures (which are not fool-proof). Big 5 Sports sells
rifles and shotguns, not pistols.
All of my arms & ammo transactions for the past 30 years have been
through a local family owned gun shop, Bridge Sportsmen's Center, owned
by the Bridge family.
http://www.bridgesportsmen.com

The bottom line is, of the millions of civilian owned firearms in the
USA, only a small percentage are fired in anger, and an even smaller
percentage are used in the headline making tragedies. However, when
these things happen the ant-un reaction is understandable.

True, but one cannot pick up the newspaper and not find an article
about a shooting. That "small percentage" is a significant number.

Today's newspaper carried reports of a man who robbed a woman at
gunpoint, another man who attempted to rob a woman at gunpoint, a man
who committed suicide in the process of being arrested for shooting
and killing three people, and the arrest of four people for a series
of shootings that resulted in two woundings. Just today's news.

....and I read similar stories out here, and I am sure that some of
those weapons were bought legally and some not so legally.

Those stories involve a very small percentage of the number of gun
owners in this city, but an unacceptable number of incidents.

As unacceptable as any of those events are, the numbers are small given
the level of gun ownership. The issue remains, what to do regarding
criminal use of firearms, and what to do with individuals who slip
through the cracks of the mental health system and end up being in a
position to harm themselves and/or others.

There is a failure in the system both pre and post gun purchase that
needs to be fixed. For now neither Congress, nor the NRA is going to do
that.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Wed, 28 May 2014 13:51:55 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/28/2014 2:04 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2014 21:49:59 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

...and at this time I believe any substantive Constitutional change to
the Second Amendment is just wishful thinking.
There are very philosophically opposite sectors of the public involved
here and I seriously doubt that there will be a meeting of minds to fix
the real problem of gun violence and unnecessary deaths and injuries.
That is a completely different issue to the right to bear arms and the
Second Amendment.

That said, no way am I giving up my guns!!

I'm an advocate of gun control, but I don't harbor any desire or hopes
of a change in the Constitution or the Second Amendment. Nor do I
wish to take away your guns.

There are some who think that gun control advocates want to confiscate
all the guns, and some who think that anyone who owns a gun and hasn't
shot and killed someone is just a person who hasn't had a chance. I
don't think either is the case with the majority of either group.


That thought is implanted through a campaign of disinformation,
sponsored by the NRA.

Exactly. Case in point: Ted Nugent. He threatened the president's
life, and nobody took his weapons. If ever they had a case, that was
it. And they left him alone.

The NRA, who once fought for gun control in the 60s, has sunk to
levels that are incredibly low.

In article 2014052721495950530-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2014-05-28 04:23:14 +0000, "J. Clarke" said:

In article 201405271527557555-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, savageduck1
@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...

On 2014-05-27 22:05:33 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Tue, 27 May 2014 16:13:05 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:



Someone might convince me of the gun grab. What the administration is doing
is unprecedented. Pressuring banks to not provide service to gun dealers?
They would strictly reduce our 2nd amendment rights if they could,

First, one has to accept that the Second Amendment was written with
the concept in mind that rights accorded in the Amendment are the
rights that the NRA is so staunchly defending.

Not all of us accept this.

Second, one has to accept that something written in the 1700s should
be maintained in effect in a completely different society that the
society that existed at the time.

The Constitution, and the Amendments, have been revised many times
since then, but the Second Amendment seems to be bullet-proof against
change.

Not all of us accept this, either.

Retired Justice John Paul Stevens has an interesting fix for the Second
Amendment, with the addition of five words;


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...tml?tid=pm_pop



http://tinyurl.com/ptjgbqu

I'd be fine with that if it also mandated that a militia exist and that
its members be forbidden to swear loyalty to the Federal government.

Now that is an interesting concept which raises several questions
regarding leadership and regional loyalty of members of any State
militia.
My first thought is that any State employed Law Enforcement and Health
& Safety officers would be primary members of the State Militia, with
the State Governor as the regional CIC.
Then the various County agencies would be tapped in the event of mutual
aid demands.
...but the big question raised is, where does the State National Guard
& Air National Guard fall. It is understood that they have split
loyalties between a State Governor as CIC, and POTUS as CIC.
They are a State resource theoretically commanded by the office of the
Governor, yet they remain under the wing of the DOD, which leads back
to POTUS.

The National Guard is sworn to Federal service, its loyalty is not
split--it takes orders from the Governor unless the President tells it
to do otherwise. It is essentially a Federal reserve rented to the
states. That makes it part of the standing army and not the check on
that army that the founders intended.

Regardless, there is a procedure for amending the Constitution. If gun
control advocates want it amended they are welcome to try to sell that
idea to enough of the public to get it amended.

...and at this time I believe any substantive Constitutional change to
the Second Amendment is just wishful thinking.
There are very philosophically opposite sectors of the public involved
here and I seriously doubt that there will be a meeting of minds to fix
the real problem of gun violence and unnecessary deaths and injuries.
That is a completely different issue to the right to bear arms and the
Second Amendment.

That said, no way am I giving up my guns!!

In article 2014052811455515305-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2014-05-28 17:20:44 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Wed, 28 May 2014 09:13:30 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-05-28 10:38:21 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

On Wednesday, 28 May 2014 05:49:59 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-05-28 04:23:14 +0000, "J. Clarke" said:


That said, no way am I giving up my guns!!

I'm curious as to why this is or why you feel that way.

First, my statement establishes my position that gun ownership, or the
right to gun ownership for US citizens is imbedded in our culture.
(...and there was a more subtle, and humorous poke at the rabid gun
lobby)

Confiscation of citizen owned guns is going to do nothing to alleviate
the real issue of a society where those with mental health issues can
slip through the cracks to cause death & mayhem. Guns are not the only
instrument of these individuals, as demonstrated by what happened in
the latest of these tragic events where three of the victims were
stabbed to death and three shot, yet the reactionary focus remains on
firearm ownership.

Every time someone is stabbed, people are quick to point out that guns
are not the only lethal weapons. True, but so are rocks, hammers, and
that bust of Darwin's monkey. Realistically, though, death by
stabbing an infinitesimal number compared to death by gunshot.

Surprisingly, the numbers of violent crimes with blades and weapons
other than firearms is alarmingly high and under stated. This I have
seen for myself in my career, I have seen and investigated some of the
most horrific crimes of violence and self destructive behavior where
other than firearms have been used. Stabbings and slashings are far
more common than you might think.

Our system should be refined to be able to deal with individual gun
owners with behavior issues which point to a need for care via some
sort of therapeutic intervention.

Criminality is a different issue, and no gun control is going to stop
those criminal who use mostly illegally obtained firearms.

I am not convinced that mental health is a sufficient factor. If
someone (except those in the military or law enforcement) shoots and
kills another human, that person is automatically mentally unstable.
However, being mentally unstable does not result in murder in the
overwhelming number of people with mental disorders.

Agreed. Not all violent acts are a result of mental health stability
issues. Criminally plays a big part. Just with gang violence in
California we have two factors which lead to these violent acts. The
running of criminal enterprises, and territorial conflict, neither of
which are precipitated by mental health issues.

I would like to see small steps to correct the problem.

Agreed. We have to start somewhere.

I am in favor of criminal prosecution of anyone who has their gun
stolen from their
house or vehicle. If the person has not secured or hidden that
weapon, the person is guilty of criminal negligence.

Agreed. All owners of firearms owe that much to the community. Gun
ownership bears a weighty responsibility, and there should be
consequences if that responsibility is not met.

So, just to be clear, someone keeps his firearms disassembled with the
parts in three different safety deposit boxes in different banks,
someone manages to steal all the parts, and put them together and make a
firearm, and so the response is to prosecute the gun owner? What's
wrong with this picture?

If you want to define "reasonable precautions" at a level achievable to
a normal person with a modest income, and prosecute anybody who failed
to take those precautions that's one thing, but prosecuting anybody
whose firearms are stolen no matter what precautions they took is
ludicrous.

I don't think that Wal-Mart, K-Mart and stores like that should have a
license to
sell guns. They don't have the type of employees or checks that they
should.

Agreed. However, that does not necessarily mean that all retailers
which deal in firearms do so irresponsibly. Also, those stores you
named operate differently in different States. For example In
California, K-Mart does not sell firearms or ammo. WalMart sells ammo,
but does not sell fire arms, mainly due to the California DOJ
registration procedures (which are not fool-proof). Big 5 Sports sells
rifles and shotguns, not pistols.

However is there any evidence that Wal-Mar, K-Mart, etc are common
sources of firearms used in the commission of crimes?

All of my arms & ammo transactions for the past 30 years have been
through a local family owned gun shop, Bridge Sportsmen's Center, owned
by the Bridge family.
http://www.bridgesportsmen.com

The bottom line is, of the millions of civilian owned firearms in the
USA, only a small percentage are fired in anger, and an even smaller
percentage are used in the headline making tragedies. However, when
these things happen the ant-un reaction is understandable.

True, but one cannot pick up the newspaper and not find an article
about a shooting. That "small percentage" is a significant number.

Today's newspaper carried reports of a man who robbed a woman at
gunpoint, another man who attempted to rob a woman at gunpoint, a man
who committed suicide in the process of being arrested for shooting
and killing three people, and the arrest of four people for a series
of shootings that resulted in two woundings. Just today's news.

...and I read similar stories out here, and I am sure that some of
those weapons were bought legally and some not so legally.

Those stories involve a very small percentage of the number of gun
owners in this city, but an unacceptable number of incidents.

As unacceptable as any of those events are, the numbers are small given
the level of gun ownership. The issue remains, what to do regarding
criminal use of firearms, and what to do with individuals who slip
through the cracks of the mental health system and end up being in a
position to harm themselves and/or others.

There is a failure in the system both pre and post gun purchase that
needs to be fixed. For now neither Congress, nor the NRA is going to do
that.

A problem with any "fix" is that it has to pass Supreme Court muster,
and the Court has been taking a dim view of any deprivation of rights
that does not involve at least a judge and usually a jury. If you are
going to disarm someone because he is crazy you are going to have to
define "crazy" in a way that the courts will accept and put a procedure
in place for making the determination that the courts will accept.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 28 May 2014 13:51:55 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/28/2014 2:04 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2014 21:49:59 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

...and at this time I believe any substantive Constitutional change to
the Second Amendment is just wishful thinking.
There are very philosophically opposite sectors of the public involved
here and I seriously doubt that there will be a meeting of minds to fix
the real problem of gun violence and unnecessary deaths and injuries.
That is a completely different issue to the right to bear arms and the
Second Amendment.

That said, no way am I giving up my guns!!

I'm an advocate of gun control, but I don't harbor any desire or hopes
of a change in the Constitution or the Second Amendment. Nor do I
wish to take away your guns.

There are some who think that gun control advocates want to confiscate
all the guns, and some who think that anyone who owns a gun and hasn't
shot and killed someone is just a person who hasn't had a chance. I
don't think either is the case with the majority of either group.


That thought is implanted through a campaign of disinformation,
sponsored by the NRA.

Exactly. Case in point: Ted Nugent. He threatened the president's
life, and nobody took his weapons. If ever they had a case, that was
it. And they left him alone.

The NRA, who once fought for gun control in the 60s, has sunk to
levels that are incredibly low.

What "gun control" did the NRA "fight for"?

On 2014-05-29 02:24:18 +0000, "J. Clarke" said:

In article 2014052811455515305-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2014-05-28 17:20:44 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Wed, 28 May 2014 09:13:30 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-05-28 10:38:21 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

On Wednesday, 28 May 2014 05:49:59 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-05-28 04:23:14 +0000, "J. Clarke" said:


That said, no way am I giving up my guns!!

I'm curious as to why this is or why you feel that way.

First, my statement establishes my position that gun ownership, or the
right to gun ownership for US citizens is imbedded in our culture.
(...and there was a more subtle, and humorous poke at the rabid gun
lobby)

Confiscation of citizen owned guns is going to do nothing to alleviate
the real issue of a society where those with mental health issues can
slip through the cracks to cause death & mayhem. Guns are not the only
instrument of these individuals, as demonstrated by what happened in
the latest of these tragic events where three of the victims were
stabbed to death and three shot, yet the reactionary focus remains on
firearm ownership.

Every time someone is stabbed, people are quick to point out that guns
are not the only lethal weapons. True, but so are rocks, hammers, and
that bust of Darwin's monkey. Realistically, though, death by
stabbing an infinitesimal number compared to death by gunshot.

Surprisingly, the numbers of violent crimes with blades and weapons
other than firearms is alarmingly high and under stated. This I have
seen for myself in my career, I have seen and investigated some of the
most horrific crimes of violence and self destructive behavior where
other than firearms have been used. Stabbings and slashings are far
more common than you might think.

Our system should be refined to be able to deal with individual gun
owners with behavior issues which point to a need for care via some
sort of therapeutic intervention.

Criminality is a different issue, and no gun control is going to stop
those criminal who use mostly illegally obtained firearms.

I am not convinced that mental health is a sufficient factor. If
someone (except those in the military or law enforcement) shoots and
kills another human, that person is automatically mentally unstable.
However, being mentally unstable does not result in murder in the
overwhelming number of people with mental disorders.

Agreed. Not all violent acts are a result of mental health stability
issues. Criminally plays a big part. Just with gang violence in
California we have two factors which lead to these violent acts. The
running of criminal enterprises, and territorial conflict, neither of
which are precipitated by mental health issues.

I would like to see small steps to correct the problem.

Agreed. We have to start somewhere.

I am in favor of criminal prosecution of anyone who has their gun
stolen from their
house or vehicle. If the person has not secured or hidden that
weapon, the person is guilty of criminal negligence.

Agreed. All owners of firearms owe that much to the community. Gun
ownership bears a weighty responsibility, and there should be
consequences if that responsibility is not met.

So, just to be clear, someone keeps his firearms disassembled with the
parts in three different safety deposit boxes in different banks,
someone manages to steal all the parts, and put them together and make a
firearm, and so the response is to prosecute the gun owner? What's
wrong with this picture?

That is drawing a ridiculous and impractical conclusion, from an
unlikely scenario. Certainly not one I would ever propose.

If you want to define "reasonable precautions" at a level achievable to
a normal person with a modest income, and prosecute anybody who failed
to take those precautions that's one thing, but prosecuting anybody
whose firearms are stolen no matter what precautions they took is
ludicrous.

A gun owner SHOULD have the responsibility to reasonably secure any of
his weapons not directly under his/her control. All of my weapons are
in a safe, with the exception of my Kimber CDP 1911, which I will just
say is readily at hand.

The concept of prosecution of a firearms owner for theft of his guns
was Tony’s not mine. That said, the gun owner should be able to
demonstrate that they had taken reasonable precautions to deter, or
prevent any such weapons theft. In not there is a responsibility for
them to bear.

I don't think that Wal-Mart, K-Mart and stores like that should have a
license to
sell guns. They don't have the type of employees or checks that they
should.

Agreed. However, that does not necessarily mean that all retailers
which deal in firearms do so irresponsibly. Also, those stores you
named operate differently in different States. For example In
California, K-Mart does not sell firearms or ammo. WalMart sells ammo,
but does not sell fire arms, mainly due to the California DOJ
registration procedures (which are not fool-proof). Big 5 Sports sells
rifles and shotguns, not pistols.

However is there any evidence that Wal-Mar, K-Mart, etc are common
sources of firearms used in the commission of crimes?

No.

All of my arms & ammo transactions for the past 30 years have been
through a local family owned gun shop, Bridge Sportsmen's Center, owned
by the Bridge family.
http://www.bridgesportsmen.com

The bottom line is, of the millions of civilian owned firearms in the
USA, only a small percentage are fired in anger, and an even smaller
percentage are used in the headline making tragedies. However, when
these things happen the ant-un reaction is understandable.

True, but one cannot pick up the newspaper and not find an article
about a shooting. That "small percentage" is a significant number.

Today's newspaper carried reports of a man who robbed a woman at
gunpoint, another man who attempted to rob a woman at gunpoint, a man
who committed suicide in the process of being arrested for shooting
and killing three people, and the arrest of four people for a series
of shootings that resulted in two woundings. Just today's news.

...and I read similar stories out here, and I am sure that some of
those weapons were bought legally and some not so legally.

Those stories involve a very small percentage of the number of gun
owners in this city, but an unacceptable number of incidents.

As unacceptable as any of those events are, the numbers are small given
the level of gun ownership. The issue remains, what to do regarding
criminal use of firearms, and what to do with individuals who slip
through the cracks of the mental health system and end up being in a
position to harm themselves and/or others.

There is a failure in the system both pre and post gun purchase that
needs to be fixed. For now neither Congress, nor the NRA is going to do
that.

A problem with any "fix" is that it has to pass Supreme Court muster,
and the Court has been taking a dim view of any deprivation of rights
that does not involve at least a judge and usually a jury. If you are
going to disarm someone because he is crazy you are going to have to
define "crazy" in a way that the courts will accept and put a procedure
in place for making the determination that the courts will accept.

Actually it has to pass Congressional muster before the Supreme Court
will have to deal with the fall out.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-05-29 02:44:46 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
Le Snip

True, but one cannot pick up the newspaper and not find an article
about a shooting. That "small percentage" is a significant number.

Today's newspaper carried reports of a man who robbed a woman at
gunpoint, another man who attempted to rob a woman at gunpoint, a man
who committed suicide in the process of being arrested for shooting
and killing three people, and the arrest of four people for a series
of shootings that resulted in two woundings. Just today's news.

...and I read similar stories out here, and I am sure that some of
those weapons were bought legally and some not so legally.

It isn't always about whether or not the gun was purchased legally,
it's also about what happens to the gun after the purchase.

Note: I said, "some" for both classes of acquisition.

There is a fair degree of certainty that those obtained illegally (that
includes those stolen from legitimate owners) are going to have a
future in criminal acts.

There is a far lower probability that those bought legally are going to
be used in criminal acts, head line generating tragedies, or personal
tragedies such as suicide, or murder/suicide.

....and I know of many cases of murder/suicide which have been due to a
societal lack care and support for the elderly, not a criminal, or
mental disorder motivation. Another one of our national disgraces.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 10:26:09 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
says...
The NRA, who once fought for gun control in the 60s, has sunk to
levels that are incredibly low.

What "gun control" did the NRA "fight for"?

I'd have to go verify with the history books, but my recollection is that
it was prompted by the Black Panthers(?) who did an 'Open Carry' in
California ... to peacefully sit in the public's section of their legislature??

Thus, that first round of gun control was to suppress Blacks.

And FYI, the "Saturday Night Special" laws were similarly motivated by class divisions.


-hh

Savageduck wrote:
Tony Cooper said:
Savageduck wrote:

Confiscation of citizen owned guns is going to do nothing to alleviate
the real issue of a society where those with mental health issues can
slip through the cracks to cause death & mayhem...

Nice to see acknowledgement of 'root cause'. Of course, the challenge is
in identifying the economic expense of 'curing the disease' versus merely
treating its symptoms.


Every time someone is stabbed, people are quick to point out that guns
are not the only lethal weapons. True, but so are rocks, hammers, and
that bust of Darwin's monkey. Realistically, though, death by
stabbing an infinitesimal number compared to death by gunshot.

Surprisingly, the numbers of violent crimes with blades and weapons
other than firearms is alarmingly high and under stated. This I have
seen for myself in my career, I have seen and investigated some of the
most horrific crimes of violence and self destructive behavior where
other than firearms have been used. Stabbings and slashings are far
more common than you might think.

Similarly, the statistics are also at risk of being artificially slanted if we
choose to only at 'deaths' instead of 'violence'. And even so, from a
statistical perspective, when one realizes that the horror of IIRC ~20K
deaths per year from firearms ... from the perspective that there's over
200M of them in the USA, it means that (200M-20K)/(200M) = 99.99%
of them are _not_ used each year.


Our system should be refined to be able to deal with individual gun
owners with behavior issues which point to a need for care via some
sort of therapeutic intervention.
[...]
I would like to see small steps to correct the problem.
Agreed. We have to start somewhere.

Yes, although let's also recognize that it merely just costs money; the
question becomes if Society has the will to allocate resources to pay for it?
Particularly if we're talking about doing it the right way, instead of a lame band-aid.


I am in favor of criminal prosecution of anyone who has their gun
stolen from their house or vehicle. If the person has not secured
or hidden that weapon, the person is guilty of criminal negligence.

Agreed. All owners of firearms owe that much to the community.

There's a slippery slope we need to be careful of. Are we going to
expect the same level of Duty of Care for people to secure their
automobiles, and hold them similarly responsible for negligence
if a car thief steals their car and kills someone with it?

True, but one cannot pick up the newspaper and not find an article
about a shooting. That "small percentage" is a significant number.

The problem with media reports is that they've already been filtered.
For example, that kid who just shot up his college campus - - how many
of the casualties were because he also ran people over with his car?
FYI, the number's not zero.


Today's newspaper carried reports of a man who robbed a woman at
gunpoint, another ...

As unacceptable as any of those events are, the numbers are small given
the level of gun ownership. The issue remains, what to do ...

And to illustrate my point of filtered news, there's also many tragic reports of
kids getting run over by their own parents in their home driveway, which as
per online statistics ...

http://www.kidsandcars.org/userfiles/dangers/backovers-fact-sheet.pdf

....occurs at a rate of ~7 per day, with at least two fatalities per week. What's
being discussed to try to reduce that casualty rate is more regulation on new
cars, to mandate rear backup cameras which (depending on who you believe)
may add up to $500 to the cost of every new vehicle going forward. This would
be an example of how Society would be choosing to invest its resources to
address what it sees as an actionable problem....however, this does not
necessarily mean that the proposed approach will be cost effective for Society;
it may end up merely being more 'feel good' stuff.


-hh

On 2014-05-29 11:45:08 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Wed, 28 May 2014 20:27:05 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

If you want to define "reasonable precautions" at a level achievable to
a normal person with a modest income, and prosecute anybody who failed
to take those precautions that's one thing, but prosecuting anybody
whose firearms are stolen no matter what precautions they took is
ludicrous.

A gun owner SHOULD have the responsibility to reasonably secure any of
his weapons not directly under his/her control. All of my weapons are
in a safe, with the exception of my Kimber CDP 1911, which I will just
say is readily at hand.

The concept of prosecution of a firearms owner for theft of his guns
was TonyÂ’s not mine. That said, the gun owner should be able to
demonstrate that they had taken reasonable precautions to deter, or
prevent any such weapons theft. In not there is a responsibility for
them to bear.

What are the options other than prosecution? If you feel that the gun
owner should take responsibility, but the gun owner doesn't, then what
options are there other than prosecution?

True. However, in the 11 individual States where there are laws which
dictate some form prosecution in cases negligent storage of firearms
(typically homes with children present) the local D.A.s seem to have a
case-by-case discretionary card to play, so many worthy cases never
make it to Court.
http://smartgunlaws.org/safe-storage...olicy-summary/

California has had such gun control laws in the Penal Code since 2001,
effective in 2002, and further beefed up in 2008, and January 2014.

I have seen several cases where obvious negligent storage of firearms
has lead to death or injury of a child, and only one of those led to a
prosecution and conviction.

Here is the California position in this regard:
"Effective January 1, 2002, raises the age of persons who are
considered "children" for purposes of criminal storage of a firearm
from a person under 16 years of age to a person under 18 years of age.
Provides that a person who is guilty of criminal storage of a firearm
shall be guilty of an additional misdemeanor and subject to a $5,000
fine if the child took the firearm to a school or specified
school-sponsored activity (PC §§ 12035, 12036).

Effective January 1, 2002, makes changes to two of the warnings
required to be posted by firearms dealers pursuant to Penal Code
sections 12071(b)(7)(A) and 12071(b)(7)(B). The revised warnings, which
must be in block letters of not less than one (1) inch, are as follows:
YOU KEEP A LOADED FIREARM WITHIN ANY PREMISES UNDER YOUR CUSTODY OR
CONTROL, AND A PERSON UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE OBTAINS IT AND USES IT,
RESULTING IN INJURY OR DEATH, OR CARRIES IT TO A PUBLIC PLACE, YOU MAY
BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR OR A FELONY UNLESS YOU STORED THE FIREARM IN
A LOCKED CONTAINER OR LOCKED THE FIREARM WITH A LOCKING DEVICE, TO KEEP
IT FROM TEMPORARILY FUNCTIONING.
IF YOU KEEP A PISTOL, REVOLVER, OR OTHER FIREARM CAPABLE OF BEING
CONCEALED UPON THE PERSON, WITHIN ANY PREMISES UNDER YOUR CUSTODY OR
CONTROL, AND A PERSON UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE GAINS ACCESS TO THE
FIREARM, AND CARRIES IT OFF-PREMISES, YOU MAY BE GUILTY OF A
MISDEMEANOR, UNLESS YOU STORED THE FIREARM IN A LOCKED CONTAINER, OR
LOCKED THE FIREARM WITH A LOCKING DEVICE, TO KEEP IT FROM TEMPORARILY
FUNCTIONING.

Commencing January 1, 2002, revises PC section 12071(b)(7)(C) to
require firearms dealers to post the following new sign in block
letters of not less than one (1) inch: IF YOU KEEP ANY FIREARM WITHIN
ANY PREMISES UNDER YOUR CUSTODY OR CONTROL, AND A PERSON UNDER 18 YEARS
OF AGE GAINS ACCESS TO THE FIREARM, AND CARRIES IT OFF-PREMISES TO A
SCHOOL OR SCHOOL-SPONSORED EVENT, YOU MAY BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR,
INCLUDING A FINE OF UP TO FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,000), UNLESS YOU
STORED THE FIREARM IN A LOCKED CONTAINER, OR LOCKED THE FIREARM WITH A
LOCKING DEVICE."


--
Regards,

Savageduck