Thank goodness
The violence began with an argument inside a sports bar that escalated into a fight and culminated in a shootout
Prime example of why you shouldn't be allowed to carry guns in public.
Prime example of why you shouldn't be allowed to carry guns in public.
He was legally able to carry a firearm into a bar in Sacramento, California?
Spoiler (highlight to read):
I have a feeling the man broke many laws, none of which prevented him from committing murder. I guess one more law would have prevented it. I mean one more law is something.
Spoiler (highlight to read):
I have a feeling the man broke many laws, none of which prevented him from committing murder. I guess one more law would have prevented it. I mean one more law is something.
Last edited by west-phoenix-az (2013-01-02 08:03:43)
Please post an example of what is an acceptable 'gun safe', to you, for someone who has one handgun and one long gun.Adams_BJ wrote:
If you cant afford an actual gun safe (internal locks, bolted to the wall/floor/both) you shouldnt have a firearm.
Also what is the point , to you, of the acceptable 'gun safe'?
NRA: every bar and night venue in america needs several armed guards.Macbeth wrote:
Thank god there was a good guy with a gun there.A 22-year-old man was in custody as a suspect in a shooting during a New Year's Eve fireworks show in Sacramento, California, where two people were fatally shot and three were wounded, police said Tuesday.
The suspect, whose name wasn't released, is being treated at a Sacramento hospital, police said.
The shooting occurred in Old Sacramento, where 40,000 people, including families with young children, had gathered for the 9 p.m. fireworks show, CNN affiliate KOVR reported. Witnesses reported hearing the shots and running for cover.
Police canceled the next fireworks show, which was scheduled for midnight.
The violence began with an argument inside a sports bar that escalated into a fight and culminated in a shootout between the suspect and an armed security guard, police said.
An employee tried to break up the fight, and the suspect fired several rounds toward the subjects he was fighting with, police said.
The two people fatally wounded were the employee, who was in his 20s, and a 35-year-old man, police said. They suffered multiple gunshot wounds and died at the scene, police said.
By Australian laws?west-phoenix-az wrote:
Please post an example of what is an acceptable 'gun safe', to you, for someone who has one handgun and one long gun.Adams_BJ wrote:
If you cant afford an actual gun safe (internal locks, bolted to the wall/floor/both) you shouldnt have a firearm.
Also what is the point , to you, of the acceptable 'gun safe'?
http://www.buyasafe.com.au/index.php?cPath=32
thats just a quick google search. Obviously price a quality will vary.
e: removed second link, I believe the first one covers most categories here.
Last edited by Adams_BJ (2013-01-02 16:27:43)
Switzerland gunman 'kills three' in Daillon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18773158
i blame the usa
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18773158
i blame the usa
Last edited by m3thod (2013-01-02 18:37:21)
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Actually this is really interesting, (I though it was anyway.)m3thod wrote:
Switzerland gunman 'kills three' in Daillon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18773158
i blame the usa
Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, (23% of households have guns, still a lot less than the US rate of about 43%.) The reason for the rate of ownership is put down to the fact that Switzerland doesn't have a standing army as such, its more of a militia. Personnel, (the majority of the male citizenry between the ages of 20 and 30,) undergo military training including weapons training and are then given their weapon to keep at their homes. This means that there are a lot of firearms in circulation and not a great deal of regulation.
It's basically the wet dream of some pro-gun advocates who believe you should arm and train every member of the citizenry.
The interesting part is that the western nations with the highest amount of private gun ownership per capita, (USA and Switzerland,) are also the two counties where most people get killed and injured by guns.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Swiss can also buy whatever they like, besides their issued firearms.
They're just more responsible, and have a functioning representative democracy so are generally less angry.
They're just more responsible, and have a functioning representative democracy so are generally less angry.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Fascinating.
Baba Booey
Well it's not really is it. Relaxed attitudes towards firearms plus large number of firearms in circulation means more gun violence. Switzerland and the US may have different approaches but the result is the same.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
What is more important, in my opinion, is overall violent crime rates. If a person still gets assaulted or murdered, the fact that the assailant didn't use a particular weapon isn't very comforting. (Yes, I know the US has relatively high crime rates compared to much of western Europe.)
Adams_BJ wrote:
If you cant afford an actual gun safe (internal locks, bolted to the wall/floor/both) you shouldnt have a firearm.
Based on that the cheapest is $430US. Thats the cost of a pistol or rifle. That just doubled the cost of firearm ownership and the safe isn't even installed. Some people can't move these themselves or have the tools or knowledge to install them. I don't know what you guys have out there, but a lot of houses here have concrete slabs, which many have never drilled or installed anchors in. Some are post tension slabs, which you need to have knowledge about before drilling. Even simply anchoring to the wall (correctly), which isn't as secure as concrete, is beyond many people. So they have to pay for install too. With purchase, delivery, and install their cost has tripled or quadrupled. They still haven't got any ammo or items so they can practice, take a class, or get training. Lets say they get that cheapest safe, but don't get it anchored, which is pretty damn common. The weight is about 100 lbs. Now thats enough for a woman, weak man, disabled, or elderly to not be able to move on their own. But a criminal could probably carry or drag it out. That's assuming its not easy to defeat on site, which many lockers are. So the firearms are still not that difficult to steal.Adams_BJ wrote:
http://www.buyasafe.com.au/index.php?cPath=32
thats just a quick google search. Obviously price a quality will vary.
It did work for keeping guns away from kids in the house though, but so would a lock that was included with the gun. Both lockers/safes and gun locks require someone who has enough responsibility to use them. Without use they're still worthless. The kids that are getting their hands on guns here are guns that most likely already came with locks, yet the parents or gun owner didn't use it. Requiring a safe would be the same thing.
I believe everyone, who hasn't proven themselves a threat to others, has a right to firearms for self defense or other legal activities. It is the best tool for self defense. I don't believe in making people jump through hoops, pay fees, pay additional costs, or go through a waiting period. The harder, more expensive, or more confusing you make it, the less people will do it, and I don't think thats right. I do believe its a good idea to secure firearms in a locker or safe and properly anchor it, but it shouldn't be required. Just because someone can't afford or justify the additional costs doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to own a firearm. For many just making the decision, mentally and financially, to purchase a handgun is a big deal. Having to get or do a lot of other stuff can be too much. These requirements scare or turn people away, which can leave them defenseless. Some of these people need them the most.
Last edited by west-phoenix-az (2013-01-03 08:08:22)
I have a Buffalo River safe. Can't remember if it's the two-gun or four-gun model but currently it holds five rifles two shotguns and a handgun so I don't think it matters. From memory it cost about $400. That's New Zealand dollars so cut roughly $100 off that to get the US price. That's not unreasonable.
I can't understand this determination to portray a requirement for the safe storage of firearms as a bad thing. Especially when you yourself agree that it's a good idea to have safes and locks. The arguments just don't cut it.
Like cost. Take this for example. $260 for a suitable solid safe - and hey look, free delivery so I guess that's that expense gone too. It's not the most secure looking thing, more of a cabinet really, but you can lock it and bolt it to the wall and it will make it difficult for anyone who breaks into your house to get at your firearms. But that's a rifle safe, I imagine most people who wanted a firearm for home defence would opt for a handgun - $40. Easy enough to bolt onto a shelf, and certainly not too difficult for an elderly or disabled person to handle.
Remember most gun thefts are opportune rather than targeted; a criminal finds a gun in a house or car they're rummaging through and takes it. Even a locked rack would be enough to deter most thefts even though it would only take a few minutes with a hacksaw to get around it. I've seen the argument frequently that a determined criminal can get around a gun safe or steal the safe itself - and sure they can. Does that mean the adequate response is to not bother? Do you not lock the front door of your house because a criminal could get in through a broken window?
A gun is something that comes with some costs - you noted some yourself; ammunition, classes/training - so I fail to understand how requiring adequate storage equipment or locks is a bridge too far. Gun safes are of benefit to the gun owner, it means it's less likely their weapon's going to be stolen. More importantly it means it's less likely their weapon is going to be used against them or accessed and used by young children. All it requires is a pretty insignificant one-time cost.
And you know what, if it really became an issue where it kept people from exercising their right to own firearms, wouldn't it be cool if the gun lobby and groups like the NRA or even shooting clubs worked out a system to subsidise gun safes for those who needed the help. That would be something wouldn't it? Seems like a pretty good move for them; they promote safe gun ownership, get a lot of good press, and at the end of the day more people are encouraged to own guns and use them safely.
There will always be reasons not to do something but they're not hard to get around.
I can't understand this determination to portray a requirement for the safe storage of firearms as a bad thing. Especially when you yourself agree that it's a good idea to have safes and locks. The arguments just don't cut it.
Like cost. Take this for example. $260 for a suitable solid safe - and hey look, free delivery so I guess that's that expense gone too. It's not the most secure looking thing, more of a cabinet really, but you can lock it and bolt it to the wall and it will make it difficult for anyone who breaks into your house to get at your firearms. But that's a rifle safe, I imagine most people who wanted a firearm for home defence would opt for a handgun - $40. Easy enough to bolt onto a shelf, and certainly not too difficult for an elderly or disabled person to handle.
Remember most gun thefts are opportune rather than targeted; a criminal finds a gun in a house or car they're rummaging through and takes it. Even a locked rack would be enough to deter most thefts even though it would only take a few minutes with a hacksaw to get around it. I've seen the argument frequently that a determined criminal can get around a gun safe or steal the safe itself - and sure they can. Does that mean the adequate response is to not bother? Do you not lock the front door of your house because a criminal could get in through a broken window?
A gun is something that comes with some costs - you noted some yourself; ammunition, classes/training - so I fail to understand how requiring adequate storage equipment or locks is a bridge too far. Gun safes are of benefit to the gun owner, it means it's less likely their weapon's going to be stolen. More importantly it means it's less likely their weapon is going to be used against them or accessed and used by young children. All it requires is a pretty insignificant one-time cost.
And you know what, if it really became an issue where it kept people from exercising their right to own firearms, wouldn't it be cool if the gun lobby and groups like the NRA or even shooting clubs worked out a system to subsidise gun safes for those who needed the help. That would be something wouldn't it? Seems like a pretty good move for them; they promote safe gun ownership, get a lot of good press, and at the end of the day more people are encouraged to own guns and use them safely.
There will always be reasons not to do something but they're not hard to get around.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
A one of expense that is completely necessary. You would agree that most firearms on the black market are stolen. And in order to protect yourself from these illegals with guns you protect yourself with your own, however you are bringing in another potential black market weapon into your community. It should be your responsibility to prevent this from happening. Imagine if everybody did this, how few illegal weapons there would be in circulation. There, you may now have your cake and eat it too.west-phoenix-az wrote:
Adams_BJ wrote:
If you cant afford an actual gun safe (internal locks, bolted to the wall/floor/both) you shouldnt have a firearm.Based on that the cheapest is $430US. Thats the cost of a pistol or rifle. That just doubled the cost of firearm ownership and the safe isn't even installed. Some people can't move these themselves or have the tools or knowledge to install them. I don't know what you guys have out there, but a lot of houses here have concrete slabs, which many have never drilled or installed anchors in. Some are post tension slabs, which you need to have knowledge about before drilling. Even simply anchoring to the wall (correctly), which isn't as secure as concrete, is beyond many people. So they have to pay for install too. With purchase, delivery, and install their cost has tripled or quadrupled. They still haven't got any ammo or items so they can practice, take a class, or get training. Lets say they get that cheapest safe, but don't get it anchored, which is pretty damn common. The weight is about 100 lbs. Now thats enough for a woman, weak man, disabled, or elderly to not be able to move on their own. But a criminal could probably carry or drag it out. That's assuming its not easy to defeat on site, which many lockers are. So the firearms are still not that difficult to steal.Adams_BJ wrote:
http://www.buyasafe.com.au/index.php?cPath=32
thats just a quick google search. Obviously price a quality will vary.
It did work for keeping guns away from kids in the house though, but so would a lock that was included with the gun. Both lockers/safes and gun locks require someone who has enough responsibility to use them. Without use they're still worthless. The kids that are getting their hands on guns here are guns that most likely already came with locks, yet the parents or gun owner didn't use it. Requiring a safe would be the same thing.
I believe everyone, who hasn't proven themselves a threat to others, has a right to firearms for self defense or other legal activities. It is the best tool for self defense. I don't believe in making people jump through hoops, pay fees, pay additional costs, or go through a waiting period. The harder, more expensive, or more confusing you make it, the less people will do it, and I don't think thats right. I do believe its a good idea to secure firearms in a locker or safe and properly anchor it, but it shouldn't be required. Just because someone can't afford or justify the additional costs doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to own a firearm. For many just making the decision, mentally and financially, to purchase a handgun is a big deal. Having to get or do a lot of other stuff can be too much. These requirements scare or turn people away, which can leave them defenseless. Some of these people need them the most.
You might agree, but the stats in the US don't support that idea.Adams_BJ wrote:
You would agree that most firearms on the black market are stolen.
You might agree, but the stats in the US show that most guns used in crimes were not stolen by the criminal. A large percentage were bought or given by a friend or relative.Adams_BJ wrote:
You would agree that most firearms on the black market are stolen.
This may come to a surprise to a lot of people since I spend a good chunk of my bf2s time trolling gun people but I think the NRA president was right about a lot of things. Of course people are zeroing in on the every cop in a school comment (which to be fair isn't a bad idea). We do live in a society that glorifies violence and death. Guns in and of themselves are nothing more than pieces of metal. Pieces of metal don't drive people to kill.
I like the fact that the NRA president decided to throw it back at America. If Muslims were committing these crimes people would freak out about Islam. If blacks were doing everyone would be rattling on about black crime. But since an American did this we have to deflect it the blame onto something else. In this case the mentally ill and guns.
I like the fact that the NRA president decided to throw it back at America. If Muslims were committing these crimes people would freak out about Islam. If blacks were doing everyone would be rattling on about black crime. But since an American did this we have to deflect it the blame onto something else. In this case the mentally ill and guns.
Oh, well then do what the rest of the civilised world does, and make all firearm sales or transfers be done through a gun store. Simple solutions guys but 'hurrr duurr freddoms'RAIMIUS wrote:
You might agree, but the stats in the US show that most guns used in crimes were not stolen by the criminal. A large percentage were bought or given by a friend or relative.Adams_BJ wrote:
You would agree that most firearms on the black market are stolen.
Then 100% registration would solve that - or require a background check and make it a serious felony to sell a firearm without doing so.RAIMIUS wrote:
You might agree, but the stats in the US show that most guns used in crimes were not stolen by the criminal. A large percentage were bought or given by a friend or relative.
Here the Police do it all for ~$20.
Then any crazy can get hold of a gun instantly - brilliant.WPA wrote:
I don't believe in making people jump through hoops, pay fees, pay additional costs, or go through a waiting period.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
But dilbutt, FREEDOMS! If I have to submit to being looked at by a government body and sign a form implying that I have some sort of responsibility over this lethal tool my freedoms are being impeached on!Dilbert_X wrote:
Then 100% registration would solve that - or require a background check and make it a serious felony to sell a firearm without doing so.RAIMIUS wrote:
You might agree, but the stats in the US show that most guns used in crimes were not stolen by the criminal. A large percentage were bought or given by a friend or relative.
Here the Police do it all for ~$20.Then any crazy can get hold of a gun instantly - brilliant.WPA wrote:
I don't believe in making people jump through hoops, pay fees, pay additional costs, or go through a waiting period.
How are you not responsible without registration? How does it really change anything? You're not allowed to kill people whether it's registered or not.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I believe you have an ethical responsibility, but not legal responsibility. Not very scary is it. Since you may not be familiar with what I am talking about here I will run you through the process of initially getting your first firearm her in AU.Jay wrote:
How are you not responsible without registration? How does it really change anything? You're not allowed to kill people whether it's registered or not.
Do a long arm safety course, and get a piece of paper saying that you have completed it. Fill out a licence application, with some proof of ID, your safety certificate, genuine reason etc etc. Once you have been approved you get a permit to acquire. This is a form that you would fill to let the relevant folks know what you intend to buy, they make sure you have the relevant licences to have it, and approve it. Then you take that to the gun dealer and buy your gun. Sometime between getting your licence and your PTA, the police may book in to see your site for safe keeping. They book in advance, and when they turn up you take them directly to the safe (they don't poke around your whole house). If everything is in order they say "cool" and leave you alone. Now you have your gun, and when not in use you put it in your safe. You generally get left alone unless your firearm is reported stolen or it is used in a crime. In some cases they may book to check periodically, however it's likely to be once every 5 or so years.
In the event that it is stolen, they will check your site of safe keeping. If it is apparent that someone has broken into your safe, they will file a report as normal, and there is no repercussions for you. If it is apparent that there was no tampering for the safe, then it is was not safely and properly stored (no kept in the safe, safe not locked etc) and then you may be issued with a fine or something similar to demerit point for a drivers licence. This may impede on your ability to purchase another firearm. Same if it gets stolen and you don't report it.
Long story short, it is your responsibility to keep the gun stored safely when not in use. You are free to not do so if you wish, however if you do not and it is stolen or used in a crime, you will bear some of the responsibility. I believe the repercussions only go as far as your ability to purchase firearms, not jail time or our equivalent of a 'felony'.
The whole process isn't that hard or that long.
But you can legally sell a gun to a convicted felon who has just come out of a mental hospital.Jay wrote:
How are you not responsible without registration? How does it really change anything? You're not allowed to kill people whether it's registered or not.
Thats a freedom too far IMO.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
You're forced to jump through a bunch of hoops to own something, and it doesn't even make you any safer. What a bunch of idiocy. If they made me go through that process I would just buy one of the millions of illegal firearms located in your country and be done with it. Who wants to be nannied?Adams_BJ wrote:
I believe you have an ethical responsibility, but not legal responsibility. Not very scary is it. Since you may not be familiar with what I am talking about here I will run you through the process of initially getting your first firearm her in AU.Jay wrote:
How are you not responsible without registration? How does it really change anything? You're not allowed to kill people whether it's registered or not.
Do a long arm safety course, and get a piece of paper saying that you have completed it. Fill out a licence application, with some proof of ID, your safety certificate, genuine reason etc etc. Once you have been approved you get a permit to acquire. This is a form that you would fill to let the relevant folks know what you intend to buy, they make sure you have the relevant licences to have it, and approve it. Then you take that to the gun dealer and buy your gun. Sometime between getting your licence and your PTA, the police may book in to see your site for safe keeping. They book in advance, and when they turn up you take them directly to the safe (they don't poke around your whole house). If everything is in order they say "cool" and leave you alone. Now you have your gun, and when not in use you put it in your safe. You generally get left alone unless your firearm is reported stolen or it is used in a crime. In some cases they may book to check periodically, however it's likely to be once every 5 or so years.
In the event that it is stolen, they will check your site of safe keeping. If it is apparent that someone has broken into your safe, they will file a report as normal, and there is no repercussions for you. If it is apparent that there was no tampering for the safe, then it is was not safely and properly stored (no kept in the safe, safe not locked etc) and then you may be issued with a fine or something similar to demerit point for a drivers licence. This may impede on your ability to purchase another firearm. Same if it gets stolen and you don't report it.
Long story short, it is your responsibility to keep the gun stored safely when not in use. You are free to not do so if you wish, however if you do not and it is stolen or used in a crime, you will bear some of the responsibility. I believe the repercussions only go as far as your ability to purchase firearms, not jail time or our equivalent of a 'felony'.
The whole process isn't that hard or that long.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat