SteveB wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve


Oh, Yeah. Hand gun against AK-47. Right.
How about getting rid of all guns?

I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve

Tony Hwang wrote:
SteveB wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had
a concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened
the carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve

Oh, Yeah. Hand gun against AK-47. Right.
How about getting rid of all guns?


Yeah. Make sure that the only people who are armed are the nutcases who
want to commit suicide while taking a lot of innocents with them.
If we had restrictive gun laws, do you think this kid couldn't have
gotten a gun? If you do, you are living in lala land.
The answer is to allow more ccw's with properly trained owners and then
a nutcase would be too busy ducking for cover to shoot innocents.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 05:26:27 GMT, Tony Hwang wrote:

SteveB wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve


Oh, Yeah. Hand gun against AK-47. Right.
How about getting rid of all guns?

How about getting rid of all drugs? Your thinking may
become more clear.

Gee, How was the gunman stopped in Colorado Springs ?
By an armed guard.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 05:26:27 GMT, Tony Hwang wrote
Re Take yer gun to the mall:

SteveB wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve


Oh, Yeah. Hand gun against AK-47. Right.
How about getting rid of all guns?

How about getting rid of all ass hole liberals?

I take my handgun to the mall all the time.
Thats where the shooting range is.

In article 7647j.8400$jq2.857@pd7urf1no, Tony Hwang wrote:
SteveB wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve


Oh, Yeah. Hand gun against AK-47. Right.
How about getting rid of all guns?

Just how do you plan to do that?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

wrote:

Gee, How was the gunman stopped in Colorado Springs ?
By an armed guard.

By a FEMALE armed security guard, according to one report.

Obviously the security guard took steps before the police arrived. We can
never tell for sure, but it is probable that the goblin would have killed
more had it not been for an armed person on the scene.

SteveB wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had
a concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened
the carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.


Carrying your weapon in the Omaha Westroads Mall is illegal.

Nebraska law allows private entities to declare themselves 'gun-free-zones'
by posting appropriate 'no-gun' signs. Westroads Mall chose that option.

Tony Hwang wrote:
SteveB wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who
had a concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have
lessened the carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve


Oh, Yeah. Hand gun against AK-47. Right.
How about getting rid of all guns?

Like you've attempted to do in Canada?

Right.

As for AK47 vs a handgun - I own both. In a VERY confined area, such as a
department store, the handgun would be a superior weapon.

In article , "HeyBub" wrote:
SteveB wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had
a concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened
the carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.


Carrying your weapon in the Omaha Westroads Mall is illegal.

Nebraska law allows private entities to declare themselves 'gun-free-zones'
by posting appropriate 'no-gun' signs. Westroads Mall chose that option.

Yeah, *that* worked well, didn't it?

When will people ever learn that gun control disarms only the law-abiding, and
not the law-defying?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "HeyBub"
wrote:

Carrying your weapon in the Omaha Westroads Mall is illegal.

Not anymore. They removed the restriction a couple of days ago.
--

JR

all gun owners have a responsibilty to keep them away from kids.

easy solution if a gun is used by someone else, like kid in family
takes unlocked gun the owner of the weapon serves 5 years minimum or
whatever the idiot would for commoting the crime or accident.....

so johhny jr finds his dads ak47 where dad always keeps it, wrapped in
a rag under the sofa.

johnny kills 3, and himself.


dad serves at least 10 years for his sons crime because the gun owner
MUST AT ALL TIMES KEEP GUNS SECURE!

In article ,
"Joseph Meehan" wrote:



I know a lot of people believe the situation would only get worse if
criminals were not deterred buy the fear that someone might have a gun; but
I am unconvinced. Criminals are not all that smart to begin with or they
would not be doing what they are doing.

Both gun ownership and these kinds of incidents are rare enough,
that anyone telling you anything either way on the intersection is
blowing smoke.

Joseph Meehan wrote:

Likely true, at least I hope so, that guard should not have used deadly
force if there was not a clear threat.

However the point is it was a guard, not an civilian.

A private security guard is a civilian.

BTW, is anyone else wondering why a church has an armed security
guard???

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:

A private security guard is a civilian.

BTW, is anyone else wondering why a church has an armed security
guard???

That is a mega-church something like 15K parishoners, IIRC. Would seem
that the collection plate alone would warrant armed security guards.
Also, don't know if they got them mostly for traffic control and the
guns just happened to come along with the persons assigned (although
from my misspent youth as a Pinkerton guard, those qualified to carry
firearms usually got paid more and cost more.)

Joseph Meehan wrote:

"SteveB" wrote in message
...
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had
a concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened
the carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve



So far I have only seen a couple of claims that privately owned guns
(legal or illegal) have been successfully used to stop such a shooter.
I have seen a few claims to that effect, but they have been proven to be
premature and wrong.

Frankly since it appears the in most cases the guns were legally
owned, often by the shooter or a family member that it would appear that
reduced access to guns could well reduce shooting deaths.

I know a lot of people believe the situation would only get worse if
criminals were not deterred buy the fear that someone might have a gun;
but I am unconvinced. Criminals are not all that smart to begin with or
they would not be doing what they are doing.


Well, and I know this sounds strange, but you are right about criminals.
They really don't think of the consequences because they can't imagine
they will get caught.
Once bullets start bouncing off of the walls around them, they are smart
enough to duck, giving victims a chance to get out of the line of fire.
Well, in theory I guess. It is still better than having to helplessly
stand there watching people die.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 06:35:01 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

SteveB wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had
a concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened
the carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.


Carrying your weapon in the Omaha Westroads Mall is illegal.

Nebraska law allows private entities to declare themselves 'gun-free-zones'
by posting appropriate 'no-gun' signs. Westroads Mall chose that option.


And how do they get the criminals to obey the signs?
--
15 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"

In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:
So far I have only seen a couple of claims that privately owned guns
(legal or illegal) have been successfully used to stop such a shooter. I
have seen a few claims to that effect, but they have been proven to be
premature and wrong.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Here are a couple examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalac...f_Law_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Woodham


Frankly since it appears the in most cases the guns were legally owned,
often by the shooter or a family member that it would appear that reduced
access to guns could well reduce shooting deaths.

I know a lot of people believe the situation would only get worse if
criminals were not deterred buy the fear that someone might have a gun; but
I am unconvinced. Criminals are not all that smart to begin with or they
would not be doing what they are doing.

"SteveB" wrote in message
...
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve




--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article ,
"SteveB" wrote:


Both gun ownership and these kinds of incidents are rare enough,
that anyone telling you anything either way on the intersection is
blowing smoke.

You don't get out a lot, watch news, or read the papers do you? Although
only the MAJOR incidents are reported on the national news, there are lots
of random senseless shootings in Small Town USA every day. We moved from
Las Vegas to rural Utah. We thought we'd be away from the crime. There are
still violent crimes in Small Town, USA, and our major feed from Salt Lake
has killings and drive bys EVERY DAY. Mostly by someone named Lopez. or
Martinez or .............

And how many of these are the random types that we are currently
discussing? Most of the ones you are talking about are not some yahoo
going into the mall and opening up. They are either gang (or criminal)
related or Hubbie getting ****ed at the wife (or boyfriend) and pulling
the trigger. Heck most of the gang related stuff would be a better
indication, since both sides tend to be well armed.
These kinds of incidents, where someone goes into a mall or school
and starts opening up are still too rare to make any calls about how
guns (or lack thereof) would have made a difference. Ain't ideology,
just statistics.

wrote:
all gun owners have a responsibilty to keep them away from kids.

easy solution if a gun is used by someone else, like kid in family
takes unlocked gun the owner of the weapon serves 5 years minimum or
whatever the idiot would for commoting the crime or accident.....

so johhny jr finds his dads ak47 where dad always keeps it, wrapped in
a rag under the sofa.

johnny kills 3, and himself.


dad serves at least 10 years for his sons crime because the gun owner
MUST AT ALL TIMES KEEP GUNS SECURE!

Sure. And the owner of a car, which is stolen and used in the commission of
a crime, should get ten years for not keeping his car secure from criminals.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

In article ,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:


dad serves at least 10 years for his sons crime because the gun owner
MUST AT ALL TIMES KEEP GUNS SECURE!

Sure. And the owner of a car, which is stolen and used in the commission of
a crime, should get ten years for not keeping his car secure from criminals.

Actually if his kid takes it (which is pretty much the case we are
talking about) then it is possible for him to be held responsible.

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
news:7647j.8400$jq2.857@pd7urf1no...
SteveB wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve
Oh, Yeah. Hand gun against AK-47. Right.
How about getting rid of all guns?

Well, with a handgun, at least one would have had a chance. BTW, in my
qualifying, I could hit a person's torso in 36 out of 36 shots. Yes, I do
think I would have a chance with a handgun. At least I'd HAVE a chance.

Get rid of guns? What would be next? Books?

Steve

wrote in message news:V557j.226237$Xa3.51512@attbi_s22...
Tony Hwang wrote:
SteveB wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve

Oh, Yeah. Hand gun against AK-47. Right.
How about getting rid of all guns?


Yeah. Make sure that the only people who are armed are the nutcases who
want to commit suicide while taking a lot of innocents with them.
If we had restrictive gun laws, do you think this kid couldn't have gotten
a gun? If you do, you are living in lala land.
The answer is to allow more ccw's with properly trained owners and then a
nutcase would be too busy ducking for cover to shoot innocents.

Or at least think about it before they head to the mall. Crime has fallen
in states where CCW laws were relaxed.

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
Likely true, at least I hope so, that guard should not have used deadly
force if there was not a clear threat.

However the point is it was a guard, not an civilian.

Consider what might have happened if three or four would be heroes were
running around with guns shooting each other.

I think they'd probably be able to identify the threat and the only
difference is that there would be 3x or 4x the holes in the perp.

"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
...
In article , "HeyBub"

wrote:

Carrying your weapon in the Omaha Westroads Mall is illegal.

Not anymore. They removed the restriction a couple of days ago.
--

JR

In Las Vegas about a year ago, they posted signs, NO CONCEALED WEAPONS,
PERMIT OR NOT. So many people went to management and complained, and there
was an incident somewhere where a robbery and stabbing was thwarted by a
citizen with a gun. The signs came down.

Steve

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:


dad serves at least 10 years for his sons crime because the gun
owner MUST AT ALL TIMES KEEP GUNS SECURE!

Sure. And the owner of a car, which is stolen and used in the
commission of a crime, should get ten years for not keeping his car
secure from criminals.

Actually if his kid takes it (which is pretty much the case we are
talking about)

So, your law wouldn't apply to a criminal breaking into a house and stealing
a weapon? It only applies if a child steals the weapon? I'd love to hear the
rationale behind THAT distinction.

then it is possible for him to be held responsible.

I've never seen or heard of that, unless conspiracy was involved.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
So far I have only seen a couple of claims that privately owned guns
(legal or illegal) have been successfully used to stop such a shooter. I
have seen a few claims to that effect, but they have been proven to be
premature and wrong.

Frankly since it appears the in most cases the guns were legally owned,
often by the shooter or a family member that it would appear that reduced
access to guns could well reduce shooting deaths.

I know a lot of people believe the situation would only get worse if
criminals were not deterred buy the fear that someone might have a gun;
but I am unconvinced. Criminals are not all that smart to begin with or
they would not be doing what they are doing.

Still, if shooting breaks out, do you want your gun with you or at home? I
want mine right in my waistband. All 18 rounds.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Joseph Meehan" wrote:



I know a lot of people believe the situation would only get worse if
criminals were not deterred buy the fear that someone might have a gun;
but
I am unconvinced. Criminals are not all that smart to begin with or they
would not be doing what they are doing.

Both gun ownership and these kinds of incidents are rare enough,
that anyone telling you anything either way on the intersection is
blowing smoke.

You don't get out a lot, watch news, or read the papers do you? Although
only the MAJOR incidents are reported on the national news, there are lots
of random senseless shootings in Small Town USA every day. We moved from
Las Vegas to rural Utah. We thought we'd be away from the crime. There are
still violent crimes in Small Town, USA, and our major feed from Salt Lake
has killings and drive bys EVERY DAY. Mostly by someone named Lopez. or
Martinez or .............

On Dec 10, 8:42 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

"SteveB" wrote:
Both gun ownership and these kinds of incidents are rare enough,
that anyone telling you anything either way on the intersection is
blowing smoke.

You don't get out a lot, watch news, or read the papers do you? Although
only the MAJOR incidents are reported on the national news, there are lots
of random senseless shootings in Small Town USA every day. We moved from
Las Vegas to rural Utah. We thought we'd be away from the crime. There are
still violent crimes in Small Town, USA, and our major feed from Salt Lake
has killings and drive bys EVERY DAY. Mostly by someone named Lopez. or
Martinez or .............

And how many of these are the random types that we are currently
discussing? Most of the ones you are talking about are not some yahoo
going into the mall and opening up. They are either gang (or criminal)
related or Hubbie getting ****ed at the wife (or boyfriend) and pulling
the trigger. Heck most of the gang related stuff would be a better
indication, since both sides tend to be well armed.
These kinds of incidents, where someone goes into a mall or school
and starts opening up are still too rare to make any calls about how
guns (or lack thereof) would have made a difference. Ain't ideology,
just statistics.

Kurt-

I do agree with you about the "thinness" of the stats associated with
school / mall shootings & therefore the difficulty of making any
conclusions based on them.

but I've yet to see a nutcase intent on killing people got to a police
station, firing range or gun show & start shooting.

They seem to go to an area frequented by large numbers of unarmed
people.

They maybe crazy / unhinged but they're not infinitely stupid.

Personally I believe I'm safer where my fellow citizens are armed
rather than at a signed & declared "gun free" zone. (aka victim rich
zones)

Predators prefer the weak & vunerable.

cheers
Bob

Dave Bugg wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:


dad serves at least 10 years for his sons crime because the gun
owner MUST AT ALL TIMES KEEP GUNS SECURE!

Sure. And the owner of a car, which is stolen and used in the
commission of a crime, should get ten years for not keeping his car
secure from criminals.

Actually if his kid takes it (which is pretty much the case we are
talking about)

So, your law wouldn't apply to a criminal breaking into a house and stealing
a weapon? It only applies if a child steals the weapon? I'd love to hear the
rationale behind THAT distinction.

then it is possible for him to be held responsible.

I've never seen or heard of that, unless conspiracy was involved.

In at least one state (probably others) there is a law holding the gun
owner responsible if the gun was not reasonably secured, with exclusions
for breaking and entering, etc. Basically if dad (or mom) leaves their
gun(s) in an unlocked cabinet (or comparable unsecured location) in a
home with children and the child takes the gun and does something the
parent is responsible (clear negligence anyway). If the kid breaks into
a locked cabinet and steals the gun, or a burglar steals the gun the
owner is not responsible. If a gun owner leaves their gun(s) in an
unlocked location in their home without children they are fine as well
since anyone gaining access would be breaking and entering.

Seems a pretty reasonable law, though a bit redundant since anyone not
taking reasonable precautions to keep a potentially dangerous item safe
from unauthorized use would seem to be negligent anyway.

Joseph Meehan wrote:
Likely true, at least I hope so, that guard should not have used
deadly force if there was not a clear threat.

However the point is it was a guard, not an civilian.

The guard was in civilian clothes. From news reports: " 'She probably saved
over 100 lives,' said Brady Boyd, the pastor of the New Life Church in
Colorado Springs, said on Monday."


Consider what might have happened if three or four would be heroes
were running around with guns shooting each other.


Good point. Tell you what, let's tally up the deaths from those cases where
a number of people were running around shooting each other vs. the number of
people who've died where there was only ONE person doing the shooting.

Consider the situation where someone at the scene of a crime is shot. The
person shot is shot either by the police or by a citizen. Cops shoot the
wrong person EIGHT times more often than the citizens. Why? Because when the
cops get there, they don't know who is the squint and who is the saint. Most
of the time, the people on the scene DO know.

In the case of the church shootings, it is likely that the armed citizens
could easily tell who was the evil-doer.

Joseph Meehan wrote:
So far I have only seen a couple of claims that privately owned
guns (legal or illegal) have been successfully used to stop such a
shooter. I have seen a few claims to that effect, but they have
been proven to be premature and wrong.

1. You ever heard of a mass shooting at a place where guns are common? A
police station or firing range? Freakoids are not THAT stupid.

2. There are academic papers on the subject. Here's one: "Multiple Victim
Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws:
Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement "

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=161637


Frankly since it appears the in most cases the guns were legally
owned, often by the shooter or a family member that it would appear
that reduced access to guns could well reduce shooting deaths.

Agreed. But your presumption that reduced shooting deaths is a good idea is
not shared by all.

The most use of illegally obtained guns involve gang-bangers killing each
other over drugs.



I know a lot of people believe the situation would only get worse
if criminals were not deterred buy the fear that someone might have a
gun; but I am unconvinced. Criminals are not all that smart to begin
with or they would not be doing what they are doing.

Yes they are. A study of crime in all 3050 counties in the U.S. both before
and after concealed handgun laws were passed showed (after passage) a
significant drop in person-on-person crime (rape, robbery, etc.) and an
up-tick in property crime (car theft, burglary, etc.).

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 06:35:01 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

SteveB wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who
had a concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have
lessened the carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.


Carrying your weapon in the Omaha Westroads Mall is illegal.

Nebraska law allows private entities to declare themselves
'gun-free-zones' by posting appropriate 'no-gun' signs. Westroads
Mall chose that option.


And how do they get the criminals to obey the signs?

They don't, of course. They hope that by prohibiting law-abiding folk from
bringing their guns to the venue, that the opportunity for a law-abiding
person to BECOME a criminal is eliminated.

I suppose they say to themselves: "When confronted with the price of an item
or a surly saleslady, if *I* had a gun, I'd shoot somebody! Since *I* am
typical, it's best not to allow firearms."

In my view, the intellectual disagreement has been between those who are
more afraid of guns than criminals and those who hold a reverse philosophy.
In recent years, those who fear criminals more than firearms have been in
the ascendency. In 1986, Florida became the first state to implement "shall
issue" concealed handgun licenses. "Shall issue" means that if you meet the
statutory requirements (stand up, hear thunder, and see lightning), the
licensing authority MUST issue the license - no discretion permitted. Since
then, the number of states with "shall issue" laws has increased to 38.
Another ten have some sort of discretionary scheme (NY and Calif for
example). Only three (including D.C.) have no permitting system at all.
Twenty-five states have adopted a no-retreat Castle Doctrine.

Pete C. wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:


dad serves at least 10 years for his sons crime because the gun
owner MUST AT ALL TIMES KEEP GUNS SECURE!

Sure. And the owner of a car, which is stolen and used in the
commission of a crime, should get ten years for not keeping his car
secure from criminals.

Actually if his kid takes it (which is pretty much the case we are
talking about)

So, your law wouldn't apply to a criminal breaking into a house and
stealing a weapon? It only applies if a child steals the weapon? I'd
love to hear the rationale behind THAT distinction.

then it is possible for him to be held responsible.

I've never seen or heard of that, unless conspiracy was involved.

In at least one state (probably others) there is a law holding the gun
owner responsible if the gun was not reasonably secured, with
exclusions for breaking and entering, etc. Basically if dad (or mom)
leaves their gun(s) in an unlocked cabinet (or comparable unsecured
location) in a home with children and the child takes the gun and
does something the parent is responsible (clear negligence anyway).
If the kid breaks into a locked cabinet and steals the gun, or a
burglar steals the gun the owner is not responsible. If a gun owner
leaves their gun(s) in an unlocked location in their home without
children they are fine as well since anyone gaining access would be
breaking and entering.

I was referring to the act of stealing a car, Pete. My state had a similar
law to the one you described above, and it was thrown out by the state
supreme court. A gun control group then rewrote the law as an initiative, to
account for the flaws in the law, and it was trounced by 68% of the voters.

Seems a pretty reasonable law,

Maybe, or maybe not. It depends on if such a law causes the weapon to become
unusable for immediate protection. In my vehicle, I have a digital safe. My
Beretta 92F is kept in that safe with a loaded magazine in an unlocked
position in the handle. It provides security for my weapon, but the digital
combination allows near instant access. It doesn't cripple my ability to
deploy the weapon if needed.

though a bit redundant since anyone not
taking reasonable precautions to keep a potentially dangerous item
safe from unauthorized use would seem to be negligent anyway.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Dave Bugg wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:


dad serves at least 10 years for his sons crime because the gun
owner MUST AT ALL TIMES KEEP GUNS SECURE!

Sure. And the owner of a car, which is stolen and used in the
commission of a crime, should get ten years for not keeping his car
secure from criminals.

Actually if his kid takes it (which is pretty much the case we are
talking about)

So, your law wouldn't apply to a criminal breaking into a house and
stealing a weapon? It only applies if a child steals the weapon? I'd
love to hear the rationale behind THAT distinction.

then it is possible for him to be held responsible.

I've never seen or heard of that, unless conspiracy was involved.

In at least one state (probably others) there is a law holding the gun
owner responsible if the gun was not reasonably secured, with
exclusions for breaking and entering, etc. Basically if dad (or mom)
leaves their gun(s) in an unlocked cabinet (or comparable unsecured
location) in a home with children and the child takes the gun and
does something the parent is responsible (clear negligence anyway).
If the kid breaks into a locked cabinet and steals the gun, or a
burglar steals the gun the owner is not responsible. If a gun owner
leaves their gun(s) in an unlocked location in their home without
children they are fine as well since anyone gaining access would be
breaking and entering.

I was referring to the act of stealing a car, Pete. My state had a similar
law to the one you described above, and it was thrown out by the state
supreme court. A gun control group then rewrote the law as an initiative, to
account for the flaws in the law, and it was trounced by 68% of the voters.

Seems a pretty reasonable law,

Maybe, or maybe not. It depends on if such a law causes the weapon to become
unusable for immediate protection. In my vehicle, I have a digital safe. My
Beretta 92F is kept in that safe with a loaded magazine in an unlocked
position in the handle. It provides security for my weapon, but the digital
combination allows near instant access. It doesn't cripple my ability to
deploy the weapon if needed.

though a bit redundant since anyone not
taking reasonable precautions to keep a potentially dangerous item
safe from unauthorized use would seem to be negligent anyway.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

I seem to recall that the law in question only applied to when the gun
was not in the owners immediate possession, i.e. in your holster. So
assuming you have a carry permit, it would be in your holster while your
in your vehicle. If it was stolen from the glove compartment of your
locked vehicle, it would still fall under the breaking and entering type
exception. Having it further locked is certainly a good idea of course.

On Dec 10, 12:06 am, "SteveB" wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve

In Minnesota unless you try and escape you become a willing
participant.
Then you have to be Jesus Christ himself to survive the aftermath. I
carry.
I would have run. (I assume I would have run. I also assume I would
have
my wits.)

Pete C. wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:


dad serves at least 10 years for his sons crime because the gun
owner MUST AT ALL TIMES KEEP GUNS SECURE!

Sure. And the owner of a car, which is stolen and used in the
commission of a crime, should get ten years for not keeping his
car secure from criminals.

Actually if his kid takes it (which is pretty much the case we
are talking about)

So, your law wouldn't apply to a criminal breaking into a house and
stealing a weapon? It only applies if a child steals the weapon?
I'd love to hear the rationale behind THAT distinction.

then it is possible for him to be held responsible.

I've never seen or heard of that, unless conspiracy was involved.

In at least one state (probably others) there is a law holding the
gun owner responsible if the gun was not reasonably secured, with
exclusions for breaking and entering, etc. Basically if dad (or mom)
leaves their gun(s) in an unlocked cabinet (or comparable unsecured
location) in a home with children and the child takes the gun and
does something the parent is responsible (clear negligence anyway).
If the kid breaks into a locked cabinet and steals the gun, or a
burglar steals the gun the owner is not responsible. If a gun owner
leaves their gun(s) in an unlocked location in their home without
children they are fine as well since anyone gaining access would be
breaking and entering.

I was referring to the act of stealing a car, Pete. My state had a
similar law to the one you described above, and it was thrown out by
the state supreme court. A gun control group then rewrote the law as
an initiative, to account for the flaws in the law, and it was
trounced by 68% of the voters.

Seems a pretty reasonable law,

Maybe, or maybe not. It depends on if such a law causes the weapon
to become unusable for immediate protection. In my vehicle, I have a
digital safe. My Beretta 92F is kept in that safe with a loaded
magazine in an unlocked position in the handle. It provides security
for my weapon, but the digital combination allows near instant
access. It doesn't cripple my ability to deploy the weapon if needed.

though a bit redundant since anyone not
taking reasonable precautions to keep a potentially dangerous item
safe from unauthorized use would seem to be negligent anyway.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

I seem to recall that the law in question only applied to when the gun
was not in the owners immediate possession, i.e. in your holster. So
assuming you have a carry permit, it would be in your holster while
your in your vehicle. If it was stolen from the glove compartment of
your locked vehicle, it would still fall under the breaking and
entering type exception. Having it further locked is certainly a good
idea of course.

The law actually required trigger guards and lock boxes, with the ammunition
secured in a seperate location to the weapons

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:12:06 -0800, SteveB wrote:

wrote in message news:V557j.226237$Xa3.51512@attbi_s22...
Tony Hwang wrote:
SteveB wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve

Oh, Yeah. Hand gun against AK-47. Right.
How about getting rid of all guns?


Yeah. Make sure that the only people who are armed are the nutcases who
want to commit suicide while taking a lot of innocents with them.
If we had restrictive gun laws, do you think this kid couldn't have gotten
a gun? If you do, you are living in lala land.
The answer is to allow more ccw's with properly trained owners and then a
nutcase would be too busy ducking for cover to shoot innocents.

Or at least think about it before they head to the mall. Crime has fallen
in states where CCW laws were relaxed.


correlation is not causation and this is ****ing offtopic. Take it to a
politics or firearms newsgroup.

Dave Bugg wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:


dad serves at least 10 years for his sons crime because the gun
owner MUST AT ALL TIMES KEEP GUNS SECURE!

Sure. And the owner of a car, which is stolen and used in the
commission of a crime, should get ten years for not keeping his
car secure from criminals.

Actually if his kid takes it (which is pretty much the case we
are talking about)

So, your law wouldn't apply to a criminal breaking into a house and
stealing a weapon? It only applies if a child steals the weapon?
I'd love to hear the rationale behind THAT distinction.

then it is possible for him to be held responsible.

I've never seen or heard of that, unless conspiracy was involved.

In at least one state (probably others) there is a law holding the
gun owner responsible if the gun was not reasonably secured, with
exclusions for breaking and entering, etc. Basically if dad (or mom)
leaves their gun(s) in an unlocked cabinet (or comparable unsecured
location) in a home with children and the child takes the gun and
does something the parent is responsible (clear negligence anyway).
If the kid breaks into a locked cabinet and steals the gun, or a
burglar steals the gun the owner is not responsible. If a gun owner
leaves their gun(s) in an unlocked location in their home without
children they are fine as well since anyone gaining access would be
breaking and entering.

I was referring to the act of stealing a car, Pete. My state had a
similar law to the one you described above, and it was thrown out by
the state supreme court. A gun control group then rewrote the law as
an initiative, to account for the flaws in the law, and it was
trounced by 68% of the voters.

Seems a pretty reasonable law,

Maybe, or maybe not. It depends on if such a law causes the weapon
to become unusable for immediate protection. In my vehicle, I have a
digital safe. My Beretta 92F is kept in that safe with a loaded
magazine in an unlocked position in the handle. It provides security
for my weapon, but the digital combination allows near instant
access. It doesn't cripple my ability to deploy the weapon if needed.

though a bit redundant since anyone not
taking reasonable precautions to keep a potentially dangerous item
safe from unauthorized use would seem to be negligent anyway.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

I seem to recall that the law in question only applied to when the gun
was not in the owners immediate possession, i.e. in your holster. So
assuming you have a carry permit, it would be in your holster while
your in your vehicle. If it was stolen from the glove compartment of
your locked vehicle, it would still fall under the breaking and
entering type exception. Having it further locked is certainly a good
idea of course.

The law actually required trigger guards and lock boxes, with the ammunition
secured in a seperate location to the weapons

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Different law. The one I referred to was CT and was apparently much more
sane that the attempts at one in your area.