"Fuck you, I like guns." - Page 3 - SLUniverse Forums
Navigation » SLUniverse Forums > Off Topic Discussion > Politics, Religion & Society » "Fuck you, I like guns."


Politics, Religion & Society Topics pertaining to politics, religion, philosophy, and social issues. Not for the faint of heart. Also, do not post while drunk, suffering from food poisoning, or while on a low carb diet. You have been warned.

Sponsor:
LIONHEART - We Have Your Land
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-20-2018, 06:29 AM   #51 (permalink)
Nasty Brit
 
Innula Zenovka's Avatar
Grande Cabalista
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 18,459
SL Join Date: 17 June 2007
Business: Something Spunky
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katheryne Helendale View Post
This actually makes a good bit of sense, especially given how data centers around here have become leaky sieves. A national database of gun owners (or, by omission, a registry of unarmed residents) would be a criminal's wet dream. And I'm sure he'd have no problem finding a hacker willing to get it for him.
I don't know how it is in the USA but certainly in the UK the typical domestic burglary is a completely opportunistic crime, committed by a drug addict looking to fund his next fix. All the typical burglar is likely to be worried about is whether the property appears to be unoccupied at the time.

Furthermore, if the guns are kept securely locked away in a gun safe when the property is unattended (which should, to my mind, be made a condition of keeping them) most burglars aren't going to waste time trying to open the safe. They want out of the property as soon as possible.
Innula Zenovka is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Agreed:
Old 02-20-2018, 07:07 AM   #52 (permalink)
Ginger Supremacist
 
Ramen Jedburgh's Avatar
Heya ^_^
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 6,947
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 3/9/2006
Client: Firestorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aribeth Zelin View Post
All guns are arms, not all arms are guns. Yet, there are plenty of laws about carrying swords, or axes, or any number of less massive-deadly weapons that ARE controlled. So, not this does not wash
.
You know, this is a good point.
__________________
--
Ramen Jedburgh

http://allaroundthegrid.blogspot.com/
Ramen Jedburgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2018, 07:13 AM   #53 (permalink)
Ginger Supremacist
 
Ramen Jedburgh's Avatar
Heya ^_^
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 6,947
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 3/9/2006
Client: Firestorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katheryne Helendale View Post
This actually makes a good bit of sense, especially given how data centers around here have become leaky sieves. A national database of gun owners (or, by omission, a registry of unarmed residents) would be a criminal's wet dream. And I'm sure he'd have no problem finding a hacker willing to get it for him.
Except its a problem that actually having and enforcing security practices would fix. Encryption, actual passwords, etc, are all things that something as large as the Government should be able to easily handle. Maybe with advances in bio security that we have now it might be worth taking another look at it.

Corporate data breeches are and aren't a good example. The corporation exists to make a profit over all else. This outlook breeds laxness because good security is a pain to work with. Its less efficient and this, "less profitable". Not to mention there would literally be a line item somewhere that says "cost of breech vs cost of security."

The Government is not a corporation, despite what the current regime wants/thinks. It doesn't exist to make a profit or be efficient, it exists to serve the people. If they have to pay extra for magic finger print data fobs to keep the database encryption locked up or something, then they can just do it, that sort of thing. They aren't trying to appease shareholders, they are serving the people, which in this case, is by keeping their data safe.
Ramen Jedburgh is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Said Thanks:
2 Users Agreed:
Old 02-20-2018, 07:22 AM   #54 (permalink)
Nasty Brit
 
Innula Zenovka's Avatar
Grande Cabalista
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 18,459
SL Join Date: 17 June 2007
Business: Something Spunky
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramen Jedburgh View Post
Except its a problem that actually having and enforcing security practices would fix. Encryption, actual passwords, etc, are all things that something as large as the Government should be able to easily handle. Maybe with advances in bio security that we have now it might be worth taking another look at it.

Corporate data breeches are and aren't a good example. The corporation exists to make a profit over all else. This outlook breeds laxness because good security is a pain to work with. Its less efficient and this, "less profitable". Not to mention there would literally be a line item somewhere that says "cost of breech vs cost of security."

The Government is not a corporation, despite what the current regime wants/thinks. It doesn't exist to make a profit or be efficient, it exists to serve the people. If they have to pay extra for magic finger print data fobs to keep the database encryption locked up or something, then they can just do it, that sort of thing. They aren't trying to appease shareholders, they are serving the people, which in this case, is by keeping their data safe.
To my mind, it's a bit pointless to argue that, because a solution brings with it some potential disadvantages, it should not therefore be implemented.

Rather, the question should be, "do the disadvantages of not maintaining such a database outweigh the disadvantages of having one, bearing in mind the advantages it brings?"
Innula Zenovka is offline   Reply With Quote
3 Users Agreed:
Old 02-20-2018, 07:50 AM   #55 (permalink)
Ginger Supremacist
 
Ramen Jedburgh's Avatar
Heya ^_^
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 6,947
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 3/9/2006
Client: Firestorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innula Zenovka View Post
To my mind, it's a bit pointless to argue that, because a solution brings with it some potential disadvantages, it should not therefore be implemented.

Rather, the question should be, "do the disadvantages of not maintaining such a database outweigh the disadvantages of having one, bearing in mind the advantages it brings?"
Also it would be easier to just obfuscate the data itself with some sort of code or something, though thats effectively what the encryption is doing.

Don't make it

Smith Home - 1 guns
Michaels Home - 0 guns
Richards Home - 12 guns
Dawson Home - 0 guns

Make it
Smith Home - 100 guns
Michaels Home - 237guns
Richards Home - 1200 guns
Dawson Home - 578 guns

Or something, so it obfuscates if there are any guns or not via some sort of algorythm that only the program knows. And since its centralized, nothing else outside of the government network needs to know the code and it can be updated monthly or weekly by some AI system.
Ramen Jedburgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2018, 08:06 AM   #56 (permalink)
Senior Discount
 
Casey Pelous's Avatar
Jesus is coming. Look busy!
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USA, Upper Left
Posts: 10,461
My Mood:
SL Join Date: August 21, 2007
Client: Anything But 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramen Jedburgh View Post
The "argument" I have heard is that making a database of gun owners would create a database of targets.

Who is the target is debatable, either its gun owners, because guns have a high resale value on the street, or non gun owners, because they are un protected.

Not saying this is justified, just putting it out there.
I say the odds are at least 3:1 the concerned citizens making that argument are the very same stealthy masters of spycraft who plaster their truck with pro-gun bumper stickers and park it in front of their house.

__________________
"I am not more than a lossy Human being, and think that we all are equals..." - Wasted Engineer


U.S. Only
Casey Pelous is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Likes This:
Old 02-20-2018, 09:23 AM   #57 (permalink)
OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
 
Kara Spengler's Avatar
Hail Woz, the great and powerful!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SL: November RL: DC
Posts: 23,289
SL Join Date: March, 2006
Client: Phoenix & Firestorm
Send a message via Skype™ to Kara Spengler
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innula Zenovka View Post
Furthermore, if the guns are kept securely locked away in a gun safe when the property is unattended (which should, to my mind, be made a condition of keeping them) most burglars aren't going to waste time trying to open the safe. They want out of the property as soon as possible.
Who cares about opening it at the scene? Some safes are small for pistols. Just grab it and open it later. Not to mention that not everyone keeps their guns in a safe.
__________________
"The debug setting for Gender in SL (AvatarSex) is an unsigned 32bit integer value. Not a boolean. I'm still waiting to see what our other options will be. =^-^=" Imnotgoing Sideways

"Ok, I have to ask, WTF is this thread even about and why is it hundreds of posts? I am out of vodka so I don't feel like reading it to find out." Cristiano

"Why? Don't like me ban me" Cathiee
Kara Spengler is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Agreed:
Old 02-20-2018, 09:27 AM   #58 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Tigger's Avatar
lesser spotted swivel eyed loon
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Disunited kingdom of wales and little england
Posts: 2,553
My Mood:
Business: The Tiggerworks
A proper gun safe isn't just a box, its bolted to the wall/floor/something solid that would take significant time to break enough to remove it.
Tigger is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Agreed:
Old 02-20-2018, 09:30 AM   #59 (permalink)
OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
 
Kara Spengler's Avatar
Hail Woz, the great and powerful!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SL: November RL: DC
Posts: 23,289
SL Join Date: March, 2006
Client: Phoenix & Firestorm
Send a message via Skype™ to Kara Spengler
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
A proper gun safe isn't just a box, its bolted to the wall/floor/something solid that would take significant time to break enough to remove it.
Who said anything about proper? I am sure most privately owned guns are not even in a lockbox. When I was a kid in a rural area I saw more guns than secure lockboxes.
Kara Spengler is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Agreed:
Old 02-20-2018, 09:32 AM   #60 (permalink)
Crazy Cat Lady
 
Rose Karuna's Avatar
Flor-i-duh
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 2,162
My Mood:
Honestly, I don't now and never have seen a need for any US citizen not in law enforcement or the military to own a semi-automatic or automatic weapon.

The gun serves one purpose; killing people.

Why is an AR-15 or an AR-47 easier to buy than a hand gun?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/19/us/fl...ing/index.html

Quote:
A law enforcement source briefed on the investigation told CNN that Cruz had obtained at least 10 firearms, all of them rifles. Investigators are trying to track the purchases, which Cruz appears to have made in the past year or so, the source said.

Cruz bought two weapons from Gun World of South Florida in Deerfield Beach, said Kim Waltuch, the store's CEO. She would not provide details on the types of guns he purchased or on the time frame, but said the sales followed normal protocol for Florida firearms purchases.
__________________
“True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.”
—Kurt Vonnegut
Rose Karuna is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Said Thanks :
Old 02-20-2018, 10:17 AM   #61 (permalink)
Emergency Mustelid
 
Argent Stonecutter's Avatar
Please State the Nature of the Mustelid Emergency
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 20,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rose Karuna View Post
Honestly, I don't now and never have seen a need for any US citizen not in law enforcement or the military to own a semi-automatic or automatic weapon.
I assume you mean a semi-auto or auto long gun. Or do you really mean all handguns should be revolvers?
__________________
Argent Stonecutter -- Skyhook Station -- Coonspiracy Store

"And now I'm going to show you something really cool."


The previous is a cybernetic datum published - in direct contravention of DoD Regulation #229RR3X3 - as being conducive to the physical, psychological and/or social well-being of the population.
Argent Stonecutter is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Laughed:
Old 02-20-2018, 10:23 AM   #62 (permalink)
Crazy Cat Lady
 
Rose Karuna's Avatar
Flor-i-duh
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 2,162
My Mood:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argent Stonecutter View Post
I assume you mean a semi-auto or auto long gun. Or do you really mean all handguns should be revolvers?

Your assumption is correct. Although honestly, we should have a conversation in this country about the need for hand guns too. Since we can't even begin a conversation about banning assault weapons in this country, I don't hold out much hope for restricting hand guns any further or even enforcing what restrictions we do have.
Rose Karuna is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Said Thanks:
2 Users Agreed:
Old 02-20-2018, 10:25 AM   #63 (permalink)
Nasty Brit
 
Innula Zenovka's Avatar
Grande Cabalista
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 18,459
SL Join Date: 17 June 2007
Business: Something Spunky
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kara Spengler View Post
Who cares about opening it at the scene? Some safes are small for pistols. Just grab it and open it later. Not to mention that not everyone keeps their guns in a safe.
In most countries, there are laws specifying how firearms and ammunition are to be kept secured, and the police regularly carry out inspections to ensure that these laws are being complied with.

Get caught breaking the law and you risk a fine and losing your firearms.

It's not difficult.
Innula Zenovka is offline   Reply With Quote
3 Users Said Thanks :
3 Users Agreed:
1 User Likes This:
Old 02-20-2018, 11:04 AM   #64 (permalink)
Ginger Supremacist
 
Ramen Jedburgh's Avatar
Heya ^_^
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 6,947
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 3/9/2006
Client: Firestorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innula Zenovka View Post
In most countries, there are laws specifying how firearms and ammunition are to be kept secured, and the police regularly carry out inspections to ensure that these laws are being complied with.

Get caught breaking the law and you risk a fine and losing your firearms.

It's not difficult.
The difficulty comes in how people interperate the 2nd amendment.

I think I have argue before its outdated at best, from a time when you could be days from the nearest person and attacked by bears, or Native Americans, or Redcoats, or whatever, not to mention the need to hunt to survive out in the wilderness.
Ramen Jedburgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2018, 11:17 AM   #65 (permalink)
Lost Bird
 
WolfEyes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 14,044
SL Join Date: April 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
A proper gun safe isn't just a box, its bolted to the wall/floor/something solid that would take significant time to break enough to remove it.
They are also quite heavy. Not easily picked up and carried, if it is a real gun safe and not the boxes that pass for one these days.
__________________
This is the truth.
Mitakuye oyasin.
To all my relations, keep dancing.
Believe or you will not see.
WolfEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2018, 11:20 AM   #66 (permalink)
Lost Bird
 
WolfEyes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 14,044
SL Join Date: April 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramen Jedburgh View Post
The difficulty comes in how people interperate the 2nd amendment.

I think I have argue before its outdated at best, from a time when you could be days from the nearest person and attacked by bears, or Native Americans, or Redcoats, or whatever, not to mention the need to hunt to survive out in the wilderness.
What the fuck is wrong with you?

*PLONK*
WolfEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Groaned:
Old 02-20-2018, 11:26 AM   #67 (permalink)
Ginger Supremacist
 
Ramen Jedburgh's Avatar
Heya ^_^
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 6,947
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 3/9/2006
Client: Firestorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by WolfEyes View Post
What the fuck is wrong with you?

*PLONK*
I was talking about 1776 and such time periods....

IE, when the 2nd amendment was written.
Ramen Jedburgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2018, 11:57 AM   #68 (permalink)
Senior Discount
 
Casey Pelous's Avatar
Jesus is coming. Look busy!
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USA, Upper Left
Posts: 10,461
My Mood:
SL Join Date: August 21, 2007
Client: Anything But 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rose Karuna View Post
Honestly, I don't now and never have seen a need for any US citizen not in law enforcement or the military to own a semi-automatic or automatic weapon.

The gun serves one purpose; killing people.

Why is an AR-15 or an AR-47 easier to buy than a hand gun?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/19/us/fl...ing/index.html
Automatic weapons are banned, though it's not too difficult for a reasonably skilled and knowledgeable person to turn some semi-auto weapons into autos -- still illegal, though.

Semi-automatic, in and of itself, is somewhat irrelevant, to be honest. I was a pretty good shooter of shotguns -- a semi-auto toward the end, as a matter of fact, because they kick less and I was shooting 200 rounds a week -- and I promise, were I to run amok, I could do a truly horrible amount of damage with a tactical shotgun, which is an inexpensive manual pump shotgun with an oversize ammo chamber.

There's a reason that's what all the cops carry.

One very sensible restriction would be on ammunition capacity. Even with that oversized capacity, you "only" get eight or nine shots with that shotgun, or 16 with some of the more exotic double-barreled crap out there. If someone NEEDS 8 shots to "defend yer family", with a shotgun, they really would be better served by, I dunno, maybe learning to shoot, rather than fapping to some jive Rambo fantasy?

Shooters have known this was the key to limiting the damage a gun could do forever. Most states place a limit on the ammunition capacity of shotguns used for hunting -- why? Simple. So fewer birds get killed. It's a solution that works!

Unless one is planning on going to war, one simply has no excuse for owning a weapon capable of more than 10 shots before reloading, and I'm being extremely generous to the ammosexual crowd at 10.
Casey Pelous is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Said Thanks :
2 Users Agreed:
Old 02-20-2018, 12:44 PM   #69 (permalink)
Emergency Mustelid
 
Argent Stonecutter's Avatar
Please State the Nature of the Mustelid Emergency
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 20,779
Personal protection: revolver or automatic handgun, maximum 8 shots, one shot per trigger pull.

Hunting: non-automatic long gun, maximum 2 shots.

Sport: anything you want, kept locked in your personal locker at the range.

What else?
Argent Stonecutter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2018, 05:21 PM   #70 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gadget Portal View Post
I've said this for years, that gun licenses (I have one) should be more like car licenses. Nobody on either side actually wants that though. One side just wants the restrictions of a license, the other side wants the benefits. Nobody seems to want to actually compromise.
The problem is that you are comparing apples to oranges. First off, driver's licenses are not licenses to own vehicles. They are licenses to operate vehicles and there are different licenses for different classes of vehicles (in general - motorcycle, domestic, and commercial). There are also special licenses to operate special vehicles, such as fork lifts and heavy machinery.

So that's where your argument first fails. Gun licenses are generally used to certify that a person can legally OWN a gun. A lot of states don't have any operational training requirements for gun usage, much less a gun license specifically for certifying that a person is qualified to operate a specific class of firearm. Hell, quite a few states allow a completely blind person to buy and use a gun... Seriously how lacking on common sense can you get to advocate for 100% blind people to buy and use guns?!

In addition, as people have already pointed out, gun ownership requirements vary greatly from state to state. In order for there to be reciprocity, all states would need to agree on a minimum standard requirement. Considering that there are states lacking basic common sense and let completely blind people buy and use guns...I can't see (pun intended) reciprocity happening anytime soon.
Tranquility too is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Agreed:
1 User Likes This:
Old 02-20-2018, 06:39 PM   #71 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Wrong Weatherwax's Avatar
Getting Back There
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,748
My Mood:
Client: Exodus

Awards: 1
SLU Creepy Avatar Competition 2014 Participant 
I'm prepared to get my head bitten off for this but I'm a gun owner and I carry everyday and realistically, the only way to reduce the overall incidence in gun violence is by banning all guns. Its not my preferred solution of course but I'm realistic in the outlook on this issue and I'm aware of the legal backing on the most recent decisions at the Supreme Court. You are going to need full confiscation and full ban under a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish this goal.

A few issues with some of the proposed solutions.

1. Extended magazines and restrictions on magazine limitations in general. The issue here is that the sheer amount of 30 round AR-platform clips is astronomical in the US. Nor do these degrade at any appreciable rate. Plus you have to consider that the functional upper limit for a handgun, say like a .45 is something like 1500 rounds in 7 minutes meaning that in close proximity, I can actually be more effective with a handgun. Getting rid of 30 round mags on an AR isn't going to change. A ten round mag just gets taped to two other ten round mags. And considering how fast a trained user can flip a mag means the mythical "reload delay" is just that, mythical.

2. Licensing/Background Checks/Insurance: The issue on these measures runs afoul of human fallibility in every case. Yes, NICS could be tightened up, it could be nationalized, it could be "any number of things" to make it appear to be more secure but its mostly an issue of security theater. The major fallibility issues becomes that most gun owners are law abiding citizens up until the very moment that they go on a rampage and kill people. Now granted, this doesn't address the issue of those who aren't supposed to have guns due to legal circumstances but even then, a secondary market purchaser by and large isn't an issue, up until the point that they are an issue.

3. Variant bans or the "assault weapon ban approach": While this may seem like a feel good approach overall, functionally there is little mechanical difference between an AR platform firearm and many, many, many other available firearms. What makes the AR notable is the fact that its cheap. Mine cost me something like $400. Sure, I could afford an FN PS90 but that thing runs close to $2000. And functionally, while very similar in scope, a mere stock change on the same weapon and removal of floating sights would have made it legal to own under the original ban.

4. Functionally Different: Again, I won't bore you too much with the mechanical details but did you know you can buy an item classified as a handgun that fires multiple shotgun slugs? Or a bolt action rifle that will carry a 30 round clip? There are many such variants that while it may impede some of the speed by which a bullet my be slung down range, someone who is looking merely to make as many bodies as they can aren't going to be impeded too much.

So the inside scoop, from a gun owner's perspective and from the many, many gun owners I know is that we know that the only way you are really going to stop this is for a full ban and full confiscation. Its something that's talked about pretty openly and you can search out plenty of gun forums for the acknowledgment. Anything else is only a half-measure and really isn't going to do what you think its going to do. Either we go full Australia, or we watch the industry do what it did the last time a ban happened. Dick around with the letter of the law to put forth their arms with nary a hiccup.
Wrong Weatherwax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2018, 07:34 PM   #72 (permalink)
Emergency Mustelid
 
Argent Stonecutter's Avatar
Please State the Nature of the Mustelid Emergency
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 20,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrong Weatherwax View Post
2. Licensing/Background Checks/Insurance: The issue on these measures runs afoul of human fallibility in every case. Yes, NICS could be tightened up, it could be nationalized, it could be "any number of things" to make it appear to be more secure but its mostly an issue of security theater. The major fallibility issues becomes that most gun owners are law abiding citizens up until the very moment that they go on a rampage and kill people. Now granted, this doesn't address the issue of those who aren't supposed to have guns due to legal circumstances but even then, a secondary market purchaser by and large isn't an issue, up until the point that they are an issue.
Insurance companies are scarily effective at finding reasons to cancel or refuse insurance based on things the government hasn't a hope in hell of keeping track of, and a huge incentive to sell policies to people who are good risks rather than bad risks.

An insurance law that had teeth that kept insurance companies from just invalidating policies after the fact, and requiring insured guns to be surrendered when they cancelled a policy (ie, if the gun isn't surrendered the policy is still in force), would make it way harder for people who shouldn't have guns from getting them.
Argent Stonecutter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2018, 07:44 PM   #73 (permalink)
子猫女王
 
Katheryne Helendale's Avatar
(Loading...)
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Right... behind... you...
Posts: 7,573
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 5/20/2008
Client: LL Viewer V3

Awards: 1
SLU Creepy Avatar Competition 2014 Participant 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innula Zenovka View Post
I don't know how it is in the USA but certainly in the UK the typical domestic burglary is a completely opportunistic crime, committed by a drug addict looking to fund his next fix. All the typical burglar is likely to be worried about is whether the property appears to be unoccupied at the time.

Furthermore, if the guns are kept securely locked away in a gun safe when the property is unattended (which should, to my mind, be made a condition of keeping them) most burglars aren't going to waste time trying to open the safe. They want out of the property as soon as possible.
For the most part, that's true here as well. But the US has a bit of a street gang problem (certainly in my area, we do). And gang members are generally armed with stolen weapons. It wouldn't be too outlandish an idea that these gangs would specifically target houses known to have guns if they knew where they were, especially in neighborhoods where owners are not likely to own a gun safe (or they'd just steal the safe and crack it open later).
__________________
When the power of love overcomes the love of power,
the world will know peace.
-J. Hendrix

Katheryne Helendale is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Agreed:
Old 02-20-2018, 08:53 PM   #74 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Wrong Weatherwax's Avatar
Getting Back There
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,748
My Mood:
Client: Exodus

Awards: 1
SLU Creepy Avatar Competition 2014 Participant 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argent Stonecutter View Post
Insurance companies are scarily effective at finding reasons to cancel or refuse insurance based on things the government hasn't a hope in hell of keeping track of, and a huge incentive to sell policies to people who are good risks rather than bad risks.

An insurance law that had teeth that kept insurance companies from just invalidating policies after the fact, and requiring insured guns to be surrendered when they cancelled a policy (ie, if the gun isn't surrendered the policy is still in force), would make it way harder for people who shouldn't have guns from getting them.
"What gun? I'm sorry, I lost that gun in a tragic boating accident last week."

It sounds like a joke but this is an oft-repeated joke/comment that's bandied about on gun boards a lot about registered firearms. A gun is a lot easier to lose than a car and while its a little harder to scrub serial numbers, its not impossible.
Wrong Weatherwax is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Agreed:
Old 02-20-2018, 08:56 PM   #75 (permalink)
OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
 
Kara Spengler's Avatar
Hail Woz, the great and powerful!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SL: November RL: DC
Posts: 23,289
SL Join Date: March, 2006
Client: Phoenix & Firestorm
Send a message via Skype™ to Kara Spengler
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innula Zenovka View Post
In most countries, there are laws specifying how firearms and ammunition are to be kept secured, and the police regularly carry out inspections to ensure that these laws are being complied with.

Get caught breaking the law and you risk a fine and losing your firearms.

It's not difficult.
The key words are 'most countries'.
Kara Spengler is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




SEO by vBSEO