-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
Leominster - Followup on 2 kids arrested with name list, gun - dad gets bagged now.
- Thread starter drgrant
- Start date
The news article, amazingly, is far more accurate than your post.![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
Scriv's fully back!
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
We have good reasons to be concerned when someone that owns weapons does not keep them controlled. Its an excuse for the boobs on the hill to pack one more set of rules and regulations on top of what we already have. We like to say as lawful gun owners we are responsible and have a history of being just that and this guy didnt sound very responsible.
I did read a story some time ago where a guy locked his weapons in a wooden case and just happened to have a mentally deranged son. Long story short, the kid easily got the weapons and the guy was found negligent.
I did read a story some time ago where a guy locked his weapons in a wooden case and just happened to have a mentally deranged son. Long story short, the kid easily got the weapons and the guy was found negligent.
I agree that the guy was an idiot to a large extent; but it's also
hard to avoid the fact that in like 30+ other states this same
thing might have been a 0-2 charge incident (at the most, eg,
delinquency of a minor or some crap, or allowing a minor access)
instead of like 6.... In most of the rest of the US, firearms are
not "special" until/unless you commit a violent crime with one!
-Mike
hard to avoid the fact that in like 30+ other states this same
thing might have been a 0-2 charge incident (at the most, eg,
delinquency of a minor or some crap, or allowing a minor access)
instead of like 6.... In most of the rest of the US, firearms are
not "special" until/unless you commit a violent crime with one!
-Mike
Should you be held resonsible when someone steals your car and t-bones a mini-van full of babies?
A gun left on your night stand is as harmfull as the teddy bear next to it.
IMO they don't even need "legitimate" excuses, they simply will
invent them if needed to support their agenda, or take a handful of
incidents and blow them out of proportion. The old federal
assault weapons ban was prime example of this- a gargantuan law
which arose out of the cumulative whining about a handful of
incidents, which even in the realm of deaths by firearms, amounted
to a very small number of the total.
The antis are NOTORIOUS for making things up- look at the CA .50
BMG ban for example; not ONE incident, but they were able to
pass it simply by making things up- no incidents by lawful gun
owners required. Same thing like the handgun compliance
regs in MA... I don't even remember seeing any cumulative
whining about intrinsic gun safety in MA, the antis just invented
a problem that simply was nearly nonexistant. (eg, for starters, is
the MA gun accident rate any different now, than what it was
before those regs came along?)
I guess my point is.... is this guy a boob? Yeah... but on the other
hand even without TSTL's like him around, the antis seem to have
no problem at all coming up with "gun problems" that have no or
very little basis from reality. Antis feel no compelling reason to
have to justify their concerns- they just try to sell things based on
fluff and hyperbole.
-Mike
+1- even in most legal circles in normal places there are semi-hard
limits to vicarious liability- eg, while one might be found liable if
you handed a loaded gun to a guy that openly stated he was going
to murder someone, most states would not say the same when
someone broke into an individuals home and stole the weapon.
It's functionally no different than them stealing the keys to your
sportscar in the garage, stealing it, and then mowing down
children with it on a sidewalk.
Hell in most states when a gun is stolen, under 99.9% of the
circumstances, it's not much different than a car, an axe, or any
other property being stolen. Most states do not go around
pretending a firearm is some kind of nuclear weapon. Most
states also treat someone who has a firearm stolen from them
(under all but the most negligent circumstances, like leaving it
on their dashboard with the window open) as a VICTIM of a
crime instead of a criminal. A lot of people from MA don't
"get" this perspective because all they're used to is MA's fascist
tendencies.
-Mike
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
So if I'm bringing in my groceries, and someone steals my car...I'm criminally negligent. Seems kinda bass-ackward to me. Holding someone responsible for what they didn't do is the platform for gun control.
The sad irony with that is that in this state if a person was charged and found guilty of criminal negligence, they'd retain their drivers license and most likely have their firearms license revoked (assuming they have one), or denied at renewal time. [sad2]
Last edited:
NO, that's your thinking.
YOU left the keys in the car. Ergo, it was indeed something you did.
The operative words in the scenario being "leaving the keys in the car", changes things.
I know that in some states (I have no idea if MA is one of them), it's illegal to leave your keys in an unattended vehicle (I'm not certain if the law also states while the engine is running or not).
pdm
NES Member
The intervening act of stealing should negate any latent dumbassery on the part of the person leaving the keys behind. While it is kinda dumb to leave your keys in your car, it's not illegal. And you shouldn't go poking about in a car that isn't yours anyway.
pdm
NES Member
![[hmmm]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/009.gif "Hmm [hmmm]")
How far back do you take the blame? If a person is negligent with their vehicle, was it negligent for the person who sold said vehicle to sell it to a negligent person?
You ask me, the blame starts and stops with the person who committed the crime. You shouldn't be held responsible for the criminal actions of another person if you yourself did not instigate the situation with a criminal act. Leaving your keys in your car is stupid, but I fail to see how it is criminally negligent.
If you left your keys in the car and nothing happened, but a cop noticed, could he arrest you?
You ask me, the blame starts and stops with the person who committed the crime. You shouldn't be held responsible for the criminal actions of another person if you yourself did not instigate the situation with a criminal act. Leaving your keys in your car is stupid, but I fail to see how it is criminally negligent.
If you left your keys in the car and nothing happened, but a cop noticed, could he arrest you?
Again blame the victim because he warmed up his car in his driveway and some criminal stole it. Great logic.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
I suppose you'll blame my father for teaching me how to play hockey after I get another set of stitches to my face.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
Under that pathetic excuse for rational thought, you must not:
1. Lock your house;
2. Carry a gun, knife or spray;
3. Be aware of your surroundings;
4. Keep your PIN secure;
5. Be alert using an ATM; or
6. Secure your wallet, check book or credit cards.
Don't get spiked by the unicorns or trampled by the pink elephants while you wander around Fantasy Island.....
Again blame the victim because he warmed up his car in his driveway and some criminal stole it. Great logic.
I suppose you'll blame my father for teaching me how to play hockey after I get another set of stitches to my face.
If you choose to play hockey, expect stitches.
If you choose to leave a running motor vehicle unattended, expect it to be stolen.
So much for your insightful analogy.........
