Mass Murder by Blade, you Vast Idiots

[NoDrama]

Or state level, doesn't really matter.

What?

most of the states already have some form of gun storage laws. http://statelaws.findlaw.com/criminal-laws/gun-control.html

Don't be ignorant.

 

[Beefbisquit]

I am talking about the Laws. You are just trolling.

Ok, Golmer...

You said;

]If all gun have to be in safes or other impediment, how is that secure for personal protection?[/B]

No mention of laws, you asked a specific question and I answered;

Guns don't always have to be in safes or some other impediment.

Do you have split-personality disorder or something?

You write something, then I answer, then you claimed to have not asked that question... Is another person inside your head responding to some of this?

 

[NoDrama]

Try again, junior.

Your analogies and responses are baby-town frolics.

Your constant retorts many times end with childish name calling and are filled with ad hominems. They must have taught you this in your Philo classes?

Is ASU your Alama Mater?

This type of behavior is usually an indication of a poor argument.

 

[Beefbisquit]

What?

most of the states already have some form of gun storage laws. http://statelaws.findlaw.com/criminal-laws/gun-control.html

Don't be ignorant.

MOST states have gun storage laws? This site says nothing about storage laws, not sure why you're referencing it whatsoever.

I,(with literally 10 seconds of google time) however, did find this;

State	Firearms Must Be Kept Locked	Locks Must Accompany Dealer Sales	Locks Must Accompany Private Sales	Locks Must Meet Standards or Be Approved
California[SUP]19[/SUP]	Sometimes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Connecticut[SUP]20[/SUP]	Sometimes	Handguns only	Handguns only	Yes
Illinois[SUP]21[/SUP]		Handguns only
Maryland[SUP]22[/SUP]		Handguns only		Yes
Massachusetts[SUP]23[/SUP]	Yes	Handguns and assault weapons only[SUP]24[/SUP]	Handguns and assault weapons only	Yes
Michigan[SUP]25[/SUP]		Yes
New Jersey[SUP]26[/SUP]		Handguns only	Handguns only
New York[SUP]27[/SUP]	Sometimes	Yes		Yes
Ohio[SUP]28[/SUP]		Offer only
Pennsylvania[SUP]29[/SUP]		Handguns only
Rhode Island[SUP]30[/SUP]		Handguns only

Your math skills suck as bad as your debate skills. 4 states =/= 'most', and 3/4 of those only require safe-storage sometimes.

Go home.

 

[Beefbisquit]

Your constant retorts many times end with childish name calling and are filled with ad hominems. They must have taught you this in your Philo classes?

Is ASU your Alama Mater?

This type of behavior is usually an indication of a poor argument.

It might be usually, but not in my case.

See above for a poor argument getting debunked. ^^^

 

[NoDrama]

MOST states have gun storage laws? This site says nothing about storage laws, not sure why you're referencing it whatsoever.


Your math skills suck as bad as your debate skills. 4 states =/= 'most', and 3/4 of those only require safe-storage sometimes.

Go home.

MOST states already have gun storage laws on the books, you cannot refute that so you bring up a strawman argument that only disproves your earlier argument that states and federal laws have no difference.

Now, just go back to that link I gave you and do a bit of research and you will indeed come to find out that MOST of the states have gun storage laws on the books. You cannot refute that because it is fact, all you can do is poke at google and hope that the first link you cite is a credible and knowledgeable resource that lists every state with a gun storage law. But you didn't do that at all.

 

[Beefbisquit]

MOST states already have gun storage laws on the books, you cannot refute that so you bring up a strawman argument that only disproves your earlier argument that states and federal laws have no difference.

Now, just go back to that link I gave you and do a bit of research and you will indeed come to find out that MOST of the states have gun storage laws on the books. You cannot refute that because it is fact, all you can do is poke at google and hope that the first link you cite is a credible and knowledgeable resource that lists every state with a gun storage law. But you didn't do that at all.

I already did research. It shows that only 4 states have storage laws, 'on the books'.

Some states have laws regarding minors accessing firearms.
I'm not going to poke around a site to look for stats that aren't there, to make you look good. Why would you think that was reasonable, or a good way to defend your position in any way, shape or form?

Background

Child access prevention (CAP) laws impose criminal liability on adults who give children unsupervised access to firearms. Researchers have found that millions of children live in homes with easily accessible guns. Approximately one of three handguns is kept loaded and unlocked and most children know where their parents keep their guns.[SUP]1[/SUP] In one 2006 study, 73% of children under age 10 living in homes with guns reported knowing the location of their parents’ firearms, and 36% admitted they had handled the weapons; 39% of parents who reported that their children did not know the storage location of household guns and 22% of parents who reported that their children had never handled a household gun were contradicted by their children’s reports.[SUP]2[/SUP]
The presence of unlocked guns in the home increases the risk of both unintentional gun injuries and intentional shootings. A 1999 study found that more than 75% of the guns used in youth suicide attempts and unintentional injuries were stored in the residence of the victim, a relative,or a friend.[SUP]3[/SUP] At least two studies have found that the risk of suicide increases in homes where guns are kept loaded and/or unlocked.[SUP]4[/SUP]
In July 2004, the U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education published a study examining 37 school shootings from 1974-2000. That study found that in more than 65% of the cases, the attacker got the gun from his or her own home or that of a relative.[SUP]5[/SUP]
For more information about the storage of firearms, see our summary on Safe Storage & Gun Locks .
Child access prevention laws have been shown to be effective at reducing unintentional firearm deaths among children.

• One study found that in twelve states where such laws had been in effect for at least one year, unintentional firearm deaths fell by 23% from 1990-94 among children under 15 years of age.[SUP]6[/SUP]
• A 2004 study evaluating the association between CAP laws and suicides among youth found that such laws were associated with an 8.3% decrease in suicides among 14-17 year olds.[SUP]7[/SUP]
• A 2005 study found that the practices of keeping firearms locked, unloaded, and storing ammunition in a locked location separate from firearms serves as a protective measure to reduce youth suicide and unintentional injury in homes with children and teenagers where guns are stored.[SUP]8[/SUP]

Summary of Federal Law
There are no child access prevention laws at the federal level.[SUP]9[/SUP] Federal and state laws imposing a minimum age for the purchase and possession of firearms are discussed in our summary on the Minimum Age to Purchase and Possess Firearms.

SUMMARY OF STATE CHILD ACCESS PREVENTION LAWS​

Twenty-eight states and D.C. have enacted child access prevention laws.
States with Child Access Prevention Laws
California[SUP]10[/SUP]
Colorado[SUP]11[/SUP]
Connecticut[SUP]12[/SUP]
Delaware[SUP]13[/SUP]
District of Columbia[SUP]14[/SUP]
Florida[SUP]15[/SUP]
Georgia[SUP]16[/SUP]
Hawaii[SUP]17[/SUP]
Illinois[SUP]18[/SUP]
Indiana[SUP]19[/SUP]
Iowa[SUP]20[/SUP]
Kentucky[SUP]21[/SUP]
Maryland[SUP]22[/SUP]
Massachusetts[SUP]23[/SUP]

Minnesota[SUP]24[/SUP]
Mississippi[SUP]25[/SUP]
Missouri[SUP]26[/SUP]
Nevada[SUP]27[/SUP]
New Hampshire[SUP]28[/SUP]
New Jersey[SUP]29[/SUP]
North Carolina[SUP]30[/SUP]
Oklahoma[SUP]31[/SUP]
Pennsylvania[SUP]32[/SUP]
Rhode Island[SUP]33[/SUP]
Tennessee[SUP]34[/SUP]
Texas[SUP]35[/SUP]
Utah[SUP]36[/SUP]
Virginia[SUP]37[/SUP]
Wisconsin[SUP]38[/SUP]

Description of State Child Access Prevention Laws
Child access prevention laws take a variety of forms. The strongest laws impose criminal liability when a minor gains access to a negligently stored firearm. The weakest merely prohibit persons from directly providing a firearm to a minor. There is a wide range of laws that fall somewhere between these extremes, including laws that impose criminal liability for negligently stored firearms, but only where the child uses the firearm and causes death or serious injury. Weaker laws impose penalties only in the event of reckless, knowing or intentional conduct by the adult. States also differ on the definition of “minor” for purposes of preventing access to firearms by children.
1.Laws Imposing Criminal Liability when a Child Gains Access as a Result of Negligent Storage of a Firearm: Fourteen states and the District of Columbia, have laws that impose criminal liability on persons who negligently store firearms, where minors could or do gain access to the firearm. Typically, these laws apply whenever the person “knows or reasonably should know” that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm.
State Laws Based on Negligent Storage
California
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa
Maryland

Massachusetts
Minnesota
New Hampshire
New Jersey
North Carolina
Rhode Island
Texas

There are a number of variations in these types of laws, including whether the child must use the firearm, and whether the firearm must be loaded. The most significant variations are described below:
a. States Imposing Criminal Liability for Allowing a Child to Gain Access: The broadest laws apply regardless of whether the child even gains possession of the firearm. California, Massachusetts, Minnesota and the District of Columbia impose criminal liability in circumstances where a child may (Massachusetts) or is likely to (California, Minnesota, District of Columbia) gain access to a firearm. The laws in Hawaii,[SUP]39[/SUP] Maryland, New Jersey, and Texas apply whenever a child gains access to an improperly stored firearm. In these states, it is not necessary for the child to use the firearm or cause any injury.
States Imposing Criminal Liability When a Child “May” or “Is Likely To” Gain Access to the Firearm
California
District of Columbia
Massachusetts
Minnesota
States Imposing Criminal Liability for Allowing a Child to Gain Access to the Firearm, Regardless of Whether the Child Uses the Firearm or Causes Injury
California
District of Columbia
Hawaii
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
New Jersey
Texas
b. States Imposing Criminal Liability Only if Child Uses or Carries the Firearm: Seven states require that the child carry or use the firearm in some way before criminal liability attaches. In Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, and Rhode Island, the statute applies when the child uses the firearm to cause death or serious injury. Iowa, Florida, New Hampshire and North Carolina also impose criminal liability when the minor takes the firearm to a public place, and/or uses the firearm in a threatening manner. The New Hampshire and North Carolina statutes also impose criminal liability when the child uses the firearm in the commission of a crime.
States Imposing Criminal Liability Only if a Child Uses or Carries the Firearm
Connecticut
Florida
Illinois
Iowa
New Hampshire
North Carolina[SUP]40[/SUP]
Rhode Island
c. States Imposing Criminal Liability for Negligent Storage of Unloaded Firearms: Hawaii, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia impose criminal liability even if the firearm is unloaded. In the case of handguns only, California imposes criminal liability when the child carries a loaded or unloaded handgun off-premises. All other states only impose criminal liability if the firearm is loaded.
States Imposing Criminal Liability for Negligent Storage of Unloaded Firearms
California
District of Columbia
Hawaii
Massachusetts
d. Common Exceptions: States allow several exceptions to their child access prevention laws. The most common exception applies where the firearm is stored in a locked container (California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina,[SUP]41[/SUP] Rhode Island, Texas). Another common exception applies where the minor gains access to the firearm via illegal entry of the premises (California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Texas). Other exceptions include cases where the firearm is used for hunting, sport shooting or agricultural purposes, where the minor uses the gun in defense of self or others, where the firearm is used to aid law enforcement, or where the child has completed a firearm safety course.
2.States Preventing Persons from Intentionally, Knowingly and/or Recklessly Providing Firearms to Minors: Several states impose a weaker standard for criminal liability when a child is allowed to access a firearm. Fourteen prohibit persons from intentionally, knowingly, and/or recklessly providing some or all firearms to children.
State Laws Prohibiting Intentional, Knowing or Reckless Provision of Firearms to Minors
Colorado
Delaware
Georgia
Indiana
Kentucky
Mississippi
Missouri

Nevada
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Utah
Virginia
Wisconsin

a.All firearms: Indiana, Missouri, Nevada,[SUP]42[/SUP] Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Utah[SUP]43[/SUP] laws apply to all firearms.
b. All loaded firearms: Delaware,[SUP]44[/SUP] Wisconsin[SUP]45[/SUP] and Virginia[SUP]46[/SUP] prohibit persons from providing loaded firearms to children.
c. Handguns only: Colorado,[SUP]47[/SUP] Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi[SUP]48[/SUP] and Tennessee laws only prohibit providing handguns to minors.
d. Lesser standard for parents or guardians: Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah impose a lesser standard on parents and guardians, providing that parents may be guilty for providing firearms to children only where they know of a substantial risk that the minor will use the firearm to commit a crime.
3.Definition of “Minor”: The age which triggers a state’s child access prevention law varies, ranging from children under 14 to those under 18.
Under 18: California, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah
Under 17: Texas
Under 16: Connecticut,[SUP]49[/SUP] Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island
Under 14: Illinois, Iowa, Virginia, Wisconsin
4.States Requiring that All Firearms be Stored with a Locking Device in Place: Massachusetts requires that all firearms be stored with locking devices in place to prevent accidental discharge. This type of law is another important means to protect children from gaining unauthorized access to firearms and causing death or injury.[SUP]50[/SUP] Additional information about these kinds of laws is contained in our summary on Safe Storage & Gun Locks.
5. States Imposing Civil Liability on Persons Who Fail to Store Firearms Properly:[SUP]51[/SUP] California imposes civil liability on the parent or guardian of a minor for damages resulting from the minor’s discharge of a firearm, where the parent or guardian permitted the minor to have the firearm or left it accessible to the minor. Connecticut imposes strict liability in civil actions on persons who fail to store firearms securely, where a minor gains access and causes injury or death. In Illinois, when a minor under the age of 21 legally acquires a firearms license by obtaining the permission of a parent or guardian, that parent or guardian becomes liable for civil claims for damages resulting from the minor’s use of firearms or ammunition. In Nevada, a parent or guardian is jointly and severally liable with the minor for civil damages caused by permitting the minor to possess a firearm, where the parent or guardian knows that the minor has a propensity to commit violent acts or has been previously adjudicated delinquent or has been convicted of a criminal offense, or knows or has reason to know that the minor intends to use the firearm for an unlawful purpose.[SUP]52[/SUP]

FEATURES OF COMPREHENSIVE CHILD ACCESS PREVENTION LAW​

The features listed below are intended to provide a framework from which policy options may be considered. A jurisdiction considering new legislation should consult with counsel.

• Criminal liability is imposed on persons who negligently store firearms under circumstances where minors could gain access to the firearm, regardless of whether the minor actually gains access to or uses the firearm (California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, District of Columbia)
• Criminal liability is imposed on persons who negligently store firearms even when the firearm is unloaded (Hawaii, Massachusetts, District of Columbia)
• Civil liability for damages resulting from the discharge of a firearm is imposed on persons who negligently store firearms when a minor gains access
• “Minor” is defined as a child under the age of 18 for long guns (Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Utah), and a person under the age of 21 for handguns, for purposes of the child access prevention law
• All firearms are required to be stored with a locking device in place (Massachusetts)

 

[NoDrama]

MOST states have gun storage laws? This site says nothing about storage laws, not sure why you're referencing it whatsoever.

For those of you who are too lazy to click a link because doing so destroys your argument totally and completely.

Here is another one with every gun storage law on the books for each and every state, its much easier to try and find the states WITHOUT some kind of storage law than actually counting all the ones that do.

http://smartgunlaws.org/category/state-child-access-prevention-to-guns/


Now lets talk about debunked arguments shall we?

 

[NoDrama]

I already did research. It shows that only 4 states have storage laws, 'on the books'.

Some states have laws regarding minors accessing firearms.

Storage laws are storage laws whether they are intended to protect minors or not. Lets not try and move the goal posts so obviously and now try to make the argument merely about having a law that says you have to keep all of your firearms under lock and key at all times.

A law that says that you can't have a firearm where a minor can get to it, is the same law that says you can't have a thief be able to get to it, just reworded so that we use the child as the basis of what we are protecting, the law does the same thing, makes the owner have the responsibility for someone elses actions.

 

[Doer]

Ok, Golmer...

You said;


No mention of laws, you asked a specific question and I answered;



Do you have split-personality disorder or something?

You write something, then I answer, then you claimed to have not asked that question... Is another person inside your head responding to some of this?

Well, really when I say, "have to" that does not mean law.?

And Mr Perfect Author, this is munged.

See you do make mistakes...you just won't admit you are making stuff up.

Originally Posted by Doer;10322204[B
]If all guns have to be in safes or other impediment, how is that secure for personal protection?

[/B]

 

[Beefbisquit]

Storage laws are storage laws whether they are intended to protect minors or not.

Lets not try and move the goal posts so obviously and now try to make the argument merely about having a law that says you have to keep all of your firearms under lock and key at all times.

Move the goal posts? We were talking about general storage laws and how they could stop theft, and now you've changed it to laws specifically protecting minors (not keeping firearms away form criminals), and you accuse me of moving the goal posts? Nice.

Have you READ any of those laws? If you did you'd STFU.... lol A lot of states have zero regulation, and some states 'laws on the books' state things like

South Dakota prohibits any person from selling, transferring, giving, loaning, furnishing, or delivering a firearm or firearm ammunition to any person under age 18 if that person knows or reasonably believes the minor intended, at the time of transfer, to use the firearm or ammunition in a crime of violence.[SUP]1[/SUP] South Dakota has no other law penalizing those who provide children access to firearms.

Tennessee prohibits a parent or guardian from intentionally, knowingly or recklessly providing a handgun to a juvenile[SUP]1[/SUP] or permitting a juvenile to possess a handgun, if such parent or guardian knows of a substantial risk that such juvenile will use the handgun to commit a felony.[SUP]2[/SUP]

[SUP]

Utah does not penalize an adult who recklessly or negligently allows a minor access to a firearm.

[/SUP]You should actually read the links you post.

A law that says that you can't have a firearm where a minor can get to it, is the same law that says you can't have a thief be able to get to it, just reworded so that we use the child as the basis of what we are protecting,

Not even close to the same thing. In the states that DO have child laws regarding storage, it only counts if there are children present, or reasonably expected to be present. No one is obligated to store their firearm securely when no children are present. Your comparison is shit.

the law does the same thing, makes the owner have the responsibility for someone elses actions.

I don't think it's reasonable to make gun owners responsible for the actions of criminals, which is what you're saying I'm suggesting. I'm not. Gun owners are only responsible for securing their firearms when not readied e.g. storing them properly, the actions of the criminal, e.g. the theft, are the thief's responsibility. Nothing the thief does with the gun should be reflect upon the owner of the gun.

REGARDLESS of all of this, your point is only regarding children, which is NOT WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING.

So, back to the topic at hand before NoDrama pulled a non sequitur topic change.

General storage laws.

 

[twostrokenut]

The word is infringed.
There is no short supply of ppl from within or outsiders that wish to ammend this.

 

[Doer]

Our Rights shall not be in fringe....all the time.

 

[Beefbisquit]

The word is infringed.
There is no short supply of ppl from within or outsiders that wish to ammend this.

Everyone has their own idea of what infringed means....

It could easily be argued that requiring proper storage doesn't infringe upon your right to procure, own, or use weapons for your self defense, or against a tyrannical government.

The only time the devices would need to be stored would be when no one is there to use them, I'm not sure how that infringes upon anyone.

 

[twostrokenut]

Everyone has their own idea of what infringed means....

It could easily be argued that requiring proper storage doesn't infringe upon your right to procure, own, or use weapons for your self defense, or against a tyrannical government.

The only time the devices would need to be stored would be when no one is there to use them, I'm not sure how that infringes upon anyone.

No. Infringed only has ONE meaning and you know it.
You argue a restriction doesn't tweek the meaning. It does....but not really....its a matter of jurisdiction.
Superseding contracts may diminish the original right but may not alter it....jurisdiction that is.
Criminals claim their right to this original jurisdiction but we contract it away for SECURITY.

Then we argue the legal details defacto as if they had any bearing of original
cognizance...they do not. Even the collective must obey the law but they are
very dishonest in not publicly distinguishing the elements of Law that allow
statutory law of society to be confused with Law.

Competing jurisdictions.

Case in point is you thinking storage "laws" could have anything to do with "infringe" whatsoever.

This is why the wording will not change.

 

[Beefbisquit]

No. Infringed only has ONE meaning and you know it.
You argue a restriction tweeks the meaning. It does not.
Superseding contracts may diminish the original right but may not alter it.
Criminals claim their right to this but we contract it away for SECURITY.

Then we argue the legal details defacto as if they had any bearing of original
cognizance...they do not. Even the collective must obey the law but they are
very dishonest in not publicly distinguishing the elements of Law that allow
statutory law of society to be confused with Law.

Case in point is you thinking storage "laws" could have anything to do with "infringe" whatsoever.

This is why the wording will not change.

I don't think it'd be that hard to make laws regarding storage, they made laws regarding storage in the vicinity of minors.

If you'd like to use 'infringe' in its broadest sense, it would also fit the child safety laws. Background checks infringe on your ability to get firearms too, they passed....

Requiring a class III license and registration infringes as well.

California goes bat-shit crazy, and infringes all over the place.

It wouldn't be that difficult to get a state level, standardized, storage law in place.

 

[UncleBuck]

Infringed only has ONE meaning and you know it.

maybe check the heller decision before removing all doubt next time.

 

[twostrokenut]

You're missing the point.....Ithink its the same in canada too overall.

Infringe is part of the original contract.
You may contract to infringe yourself, thus creating a new contract, new deal so to speak.

After all the original contract preserves your right to contract.

I am quite sure you are right...it would be easy to get those laws passed.
They have nothing to do with the original contract though....that part is very relevant to discussion.

Society has statutory "laws"....good example is a corporation...let's use starbucks.
You have a right to contract to work at starbucks and conform to their statutory laws.

Getting laws passed to change the dress code is akin to these storage law discussions.

The customer patroning nor the criminal robbing starbucks has a dress code eh?

 

[Doer]

Heller said modern battle rifles "...such as AR-15.." are within the meaning of Arms to keep.

It says, a Governance may not ban the sale and ownership of firearms.

What are you refering to, specifically, in Heller about limits? I know there are some but, what do you mean?

 

[UncleBuck]

What are you refering to, specifically, in Heller about limits? I know there are some

that's exactly what i mean.

some may call those limits an "infringement". these literalists are idiots.

be proud that you are not counted among them.