ANOTHER School shooting....

[cbelt3]

well.. more chaotic good. But definitely not chaotic evil. :mullet:

[Avenger]

mattkime wrote:

what about locking them up when not in use?

You mean before the scheduled home invasion/burglary?

[Lemon Drop]

Sad case all around. The young man has been charged as an adult with attempted murder.
Stepdad, with whom he lived, kept guns illegally and has been charged too. Had a sign at the house that said "we don't call 911."
How shocking that the kid would get the idea of solving his problems with a gun.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/breakin...ory?page=2

[Speedy]

Avenger wrote:
[quote=mattkime]

what about locking them up when not in use?

You mean before the scheduled home invasion/burglary?
I have Auto Owners insurance. Great company! Much better than a gun for a burglary.

[Avenger]

What are you gonna do? Wave your policy at them? You'll turn over your 401K to get your hands on a 38 Special when you are cowering under the bed. Get outta here.

[Mac-A-Matic]

mattkime wrote:
what about locking them up when not in use? It seems like a reasonable thing to do.

Nobody said anything about police visiting homes to check for unlocked weapons. that bit is imagined.

Securing weapons when not in use is a reasonable thing to do. Agreed. However, to pass a law as Gutenberg posited implies that there must be some measure of checking (and prosecuting) those who do not "lock up" their weapons. The only way to "check" that kind of measure is to intrude into the privacy of the citizen.

[Speedy]

Avenger wrote:
What are you gonna do? Wave your policy at them? You'll turn over your 401K to get your hands on a 38 Special when you are cowering under the bed. Get outta here.

Just like a convenience store clerk, I will give up the loot (and let Auto Owners reimburse me.)

[Gutenberg]

Mac-A-Matic wrote:
[quote=mattkime]
what about locking them up when not in use? It seems like a reasonable thing to do.

Nobody said anything about police visiting homes to check for unlocked weapons. that bit is imagined.

Securing weapons when not in use is a reasonable thing to do. Agreed. However, to pass a law as Gutenberg posited implies that there must be some measure of checking (and prosecuting) those who do not "lock up" their weapons. The only way to "check" that kind of measure is to intrude into the privacy of the citizen.
Wrong, Mac. If a kid goes and shoots up the school and with guns he picked up off the coffee table at home, Dad and Mom can pack a little light reading and a toothbrush and present themselves at MCI Hagerstown along with Junior. I never said I wanted the cops to bust into people's homes looking for guns.

[Mac-A-Matic]

Gutenberg wrote:
Wrong, Mac. If a kid goes and shoots up the school and with guns he picked up off the coffee table at home, Dad and Mom can pack a little light reading and a toothbrush and present themselves at MCI Hagerstown along with Junior. I never said I wanted the cops to bust into people's homes looking for guns.

I will recap what you posted:

Gutenberg wrote:
We vigorously prosecute those who do not lock up their guns at night.

How exactly are you proposing the government "know" that owners did not "lock up their guns at night"? Are we talking about self-reporting? Because the only way to enforce this kind of measure would be for some level of personal intrusion into the home.

Now, if you're talking this in some reference to the Perry Hall High School shooting then the laws are already in place for A) a minor to be prohibited from owning firearms, and B) a convict prohibited from owning/possessing firearms. Then there's the issue of bringing a firearm into a school and shooting people (which I'm also pretty sure is covered under the Annotated Code of Maryland).

And BTW, I never said anything about cops busting into people's homes, but I'm glad you realize how intrusive and invasive that would be.

[RgrF]

If gun locks were mandatory and a registered unlocked gun was then used to commit a crime the registered owner could be held culpable. What do you find intrusive about that?