On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 22:04:06 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
news
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 18:23:26 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:55:01 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
om:

If there was [a gun registration system], and if the original
owners were legally responsbible to control their guns (as in
Switzerland, to repeat our example), you'd have a lot fewer
stolen guns.

Oh, come on, Ed, don't be ridiculous. Do you *really* think that
the prospect of losing a valuable possession is insufficient
incentive to secure it properly, that people won't secure their
property properly unless the law requires them to?

g Do you mean like the 20 guns that Gunner supplied to the nation's
criminals? Of were you referring to the other 230,000 that are stolen
each year?

Failure to answer the question noted.

Without surprise.

What question?

The question I asked in my post, Ed.

I thought you were making a joke about Gunner's failure
to secure his guns (there were nine, actually, in his statement; I see
that the 20 referred to another case). It looked like you were asking
tongue-in-cheek.

No, it was a straight-up question.

Maybe you should do something to address your reading comprehension problems
before you post again.

Now that I know you were serious -- an absurdity in itself -- the
answer is, prima facie, yes. It happens an average of 230,000 times a
year, according to the FBI.

The absurdity here, Ed, is that you think that people who don't have the good sense to lock
up valuable or dangerous things will suddenly acquire that good sense as the result of
passing a law. It's *already* against the law to break into someone's house and steal guns,
Ed, and that doesn't stop people from doing it -- why do you think *more* laws will make a
difference?

Now do you see why I thought your question was a joke? It was, but you
didn't realize it, apparently.

The only joke here is that you take your own naive beliefs seriously.

If you look, you'll find police reports referring to guns stolen from
houses in which the guns were in a "cabinet," or a closet, or
wherever. We know that thieves have several ways to break into a
house. It happens thousands of times each year.

Some of us are a lot more careful and have our guns well secured. But
in millions of cases over the years, law-abiding gun owners haven't.

Thus, we have a vast criminal market of guns.

And in the fantasy world you live in, passing a law is suffficient to solve the problem.

What color is the sky on your world, Ed? [Since you have trouble telling the difference...
perhaps I'd better tell you that *that* was not a serious question.]

Sorry, Doug. I did indeed misread your post. I thought you were saying
that the potential loss of valuable weapons would be enough incentive,
but I see that's not what you were saying at all.

About the question of how effective it would be to hold owners
responsible for a loss: I'd suggest that depends on how serious the
fine was. What's the cost to society of a gun in the hands of a
criminal? Would $1,000 and a mandatory gun-safety and responsibility
course, like the driver courses that high-points drivers have to go
through, be about right? I think that would have an effect.

Having lived in Switzerland for close to a year, the lesson I think we
can take from their experience is that they've maintained a vastly
different gun culture, one that involves widespread gun ownership
combined with relatively (relative to the US, that is) gun crime and
accident rates. Things like responsibility to keep your guns under
your control are part of it. It's imprinted into their system.

I think that could be done here, if we had something like the
introduction to guns that I went through as a kid in PA: NRA Safe
Hunter, PBA-sponsored Junior DCM; Boy Scout Marksmanship Merit Badge;
and the local gun culture in general.

A lot of things have changed but responsibility was a big part of it.
Now we have yahoos going into a gun shop and buying their first gun,
having someone tell them how to shoot it, and then going home to
exercise their "Second Amendment Rights." Without a clue.

--
Ed Huntress