DemntedCowboy
Well-known member
So you think there is a way, to stop people from stealing legally obtained guns?
Donald Trump running for president
- Thread starter LiftWithDonuts
- Start date
thebigt
Legend
I guess we are stuck with both then...they would have much less success banning guns than alcohol.
in practicality it would be an end to the entire bill of rights if the government were to attempt to ban guns...soldiers would have to go house to house to confiscate guns--kinda like Afghanistan?
DemntedCowboy
Well-known member
Actually most guns obtained by Afghans are obtained by Russians are what we supplied them when training them. Just FYI. Try reading the book, "The bear went over the Mountain". It was written about Afghan's war against the Russians. When we trained them. Infact in the book where I was attacked in the Mizan River Province, on Nov. 9th if you read the book they attacked the Russians the same day in the same location from tactics we taught them. Just saying
thebigt
Legend
DemntedCowboy
Well-known member
Almost 100% of Afghans have atleast 1 AK-47 for every male over the age of 18 in the house they live in. Same in Iraq per their law. Which is why Al-Queda and the Taliban take over homes with all adult males to make sure they can have multiple weapons.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
Holding people more accountable for maintaining or securing their guns and preventing people from selling them off to third parties. There will always be theft, but a gun in the closet is easier to steal than a gun in a safe.
DemntedCowboy
Well-known member
Cause they cant steal a gun safe, and break into them
Jiigzz
Legend
Other countries manage, and have managed, to do it pretty well, lol.
I feel like you all gloss over the fact that literally no other westernised country has this issue. You guys create fake issues in an attempt to deflect the real issues.
NZ has legal guns
Aus has legal guns
Germany
Austria
Switzerland
And yet all don't have issues with mass shootings or rampant gun violence.
Why is that point repeatedly ignored?
DemntedCowboy
Well-known member
Really, and how is that. How do you stop people from breaking in to a home and stealing a gun
Jiigzz
Legend
Invalid Link Removed
..."This relates to material and construction of the cabinet/receptacle/safe, and to locking mechanisms. Where materials, method of construction or locks do not comply with the Standard, police will require certification of the receptacles's performance as equal to the Standard. Certification is to be by a police recognised professional. Obtain detailed information from your local Police Arms Officer before purchasing or installing your secure storage".
What is classed as safe storage:
Steel safes (Regulation 28(1) (c))
Commercial safes constructed of steel or steel and concrete material and intended to provide storage for firearms must only be approved after consultation and certification by a registered engineer and/or an accredited locksmith/safe smith (who has qualifications and experience relevant to assessing tensile strength of metals and other materials), to ensure they meet the minimum security criteria relating to firearm cabinets/boxes as detailed below.
If a safe is used it must be affixed to the building in the same manner as outlined for steel boxes or steel cabinets,as detailed below.
Steel boxes and cabinets (Regulation 28 (1) (c))
Steel boxes or steel cabinets shall be capable of withstanding reasonable physical attack with hand held tools and weapons, and equivalent to 6 mm mild steel strength. The box or cabinet should be built and finished in a workmanlike manner with negligible gaps between all fixed parts. Where it is proposed to construct cabinets or boxes of a single plate dimension measuring less than 6 mm mild steel or a variety of steel other than mild, consultation must take place with a registered engineer to confirm compliance with the performance based criteria. A certificate of compliance from the registered engineer must be provided in these circumstances.
Two locking mechanisms of no less strength and security performance than a five lever mortise dead lock complying with BS3621:2004 or subsequent amendment shall be fitted to the cabinet door. Owing to reduced size of a steel box designed solely for pistol storage together with the capability for concealment, only one locking mechanism is required. Any door handle fitted shall be designed to break off under leverage.
Drawings (reference C2191) can be obtained from an Arms Office. These give design and fixing recommendations.
A cabinet should be bolted to a minimum of two surfaces, one of which shall be the floor. Bolt shafts shall be a minimum of 10 mm in diameter and when bolted into concrete, expanding or chemical setting bolts may be used. Where the cabinet is bolted to a wooden floor it shall be through bolted to a steel plate which exceeds the floor area of the cabinet and is retained on at least two floor joists. All nuts must be on the inside of the cabinet, and bolts welded or burred to resist removal. It is recommended that the cabinet or box be bolted in a confined space, such as a wardrobe or cupboard.
General security of building
The place in which a safe, box or cabinet is fixed shall be a building, part of a building, or a room which is secured in a reasonable and prudent manner against unauthorised entry. Normally it will be in the licence holder's dwelling. Outbuildings, detached garages, or structures remote from occupied premises will not in general be acceptable. A steel cabinet, steel box or safe should ideally be located within a confined space, such as a cupboard or wardrobe.
Doors
Doors must be of structurally sound condition capable of being firmly locked. Where practicable doors should be hung on the inside with three sturdy hinges. Where doors are required to be externally hinged, two hinge security bolts shall be fitted. Sliding doors shall be fixed so as to resist removal from the outside when locked. External sliding doors shall be secured by double cylindered deadlocks, or from the inside with locking patio bolts. Double leading doors (French doors) shall have a locking patio bolt at the top and bottom of the first leaf (inner door) or flush bolts in edge of the first leaf.
Door framing and the lock striking box shall be securely fixed to the wall so as to resist splitting or forcing open.
A locking mechanism of no less strength and security performance of a five lever mortise deadlock or five pin double cylinder deadlocks or dead bolts shall be fitted to entry doors.
Where a steel cabinet box or safe is located in a room or garage within a dwelling the internal door should be of solid construction with a locking mechanism as described above, secured at all times when the premises are unoccupied.
Windows
All windows should be capable of being firmly closed by hinges, locks, catches or other fastenings maintained in good condition. Louvre windows shall not be used unless grilles and bars that resist cutting or prising by hand held tools are fitted. Window locks or locking window catches should be fitted to all opening windows that are not in the immediate view of occupied premises or public places.
Alarms
The installation of an intruder alarm system is recommended. All intruder alarm systems and subsequent installation procedures shall comply with New Zealand Standard 4301:1983 or subsequent amendment. Such intruder warning devices should be monitored and audible, but other arrangements may be suitable depending on the particular circumstances.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
They can indeed. I have a friend in Atlanta that happened to and he had a lot. Like I said though, theft will always happen. I'm talking about legally getting a gun and then putting it into the illegal world for profit. Wouldn't holding people more accountable for the guns they legally buy help with that? And I know, that starts a slippery slope to a database. I'm just thinking out loud mostly.
DemntedCowboy
Well-known member
You do realize that in America, this is already a requirement before a store even puts it for sale in a store right. Doesnt mean that every one does what the law requires. Mine is bolted down. Doesnt mean that everyone does.
Mine requires thumb print and code identification, and is bolted down so noone can just walk off with it.
Jiigzz
Legend
Following the above, it is incredibly hard to steal a gun safe considering when all requirements are met, how heavy they are.
But that's not even it. It simply isn't a problem. You guys make it out like gun control is impossible - but you don't even try make it possible. You just think of every other excuse imaginable so you don't feel like restricting gun usage is a valid choice.
But that's not even it. It simply isn't a problem. You guys make it out like gun control is impossible - but you don't even try make it possible. You just think of every other excuse imaginable so you don't feel like restricting gun usage is a valid choice.
DemntedCowboy
Well-known member
I bet you a thousand American dollars, 2 bottles of PWO, and a case of Bang, you cant get to my gun or into my gunsafe or even tell where its at
Jiigzz
Legend
This isn't stores man, this is homes.
And ALL houses must be inspected prior to obtaining a licence.
Certificate of Compliance
A Certificate of compliance supplied by an accredited person are to meet or exceed the following minimum standard. The certificate:
•sighted by Police must be the original thereof – not a copy or facsimile. Note: Suppliers may establish the validity of a certificate with police Arms Officers and subsequently supply customers with a copy for presentation at the time of the police inspection of their security;
•must establish the credentials of the accredited person or persons who are supplying the certification;
•must be under the hand of the accredited person or persons, and contain reference to the examiner’s trade, guild or professional qualifications and the currency of their practising certificate;
•is to be dated and valid for no more than 24 months from the date of examination, and in any case will become void if the specifications or method of manufacture of the receptacle change, or it is established by police that the receptacle has failed to perform as required;
•is to describe the materials used in the receptacle, including the type and thickness of the steel used, and the type of locks installed (including the published national standard to which the locks are manufactured);
•is to provide sufficient detail for police to assess how the receptacle complies with the standards set out in Police Form POL67N (PDF 208KB) (Conditions and Requirements for firearms licences and endorsements)
•is to detail the variations from the POL67N requirements and explain how these variations are the same as or superior to the standards in Form POL67N (PDF 208KB).
Stores have a much stricter code they must follow.
Jiigzz
Legend
And that is responsible gun ownership!
So my posts are definitely not aimed at people who are like you, at all (prob most of you ITT)
ax1
Legend
Points are ignored because all a political distraction to the real issues though...most of us aren’t concerned about getting shot when walking out of the house because we are realistic and are aware it’s almost impossible for that to happen.
I’m not being biased but this country is superior and stronger to the ones listed in most ways including the power of self defense and especially safety. Knock on wood but it’s not if but when a war happens and foreign troops take the streets and the military can’t be there to help the people, they will beg for arms or when a small pocket of rebel idiots start civil unrest (look up koreatown during la riots.)
Don’t the citizens of Swiss have weapon depots? Or is that Sweden? One of those countries for smart not to repeat the mistakes of WWII.
ax1
Legend
Except literally no data supports the fact the US is safer
You choose to live in fear of some invasion and that's cool. Meanwhile I'll enjoy my safe, peaceful and free country knowing full well i won't be shot at today
Did you look it all up? I cant now and cant post charts atm, but Id be looking into other crimes such as robberies, rape, other violent crimes...etc. How can people defend themselves? especially compared to lax gun control states not shythole police state chicago. Im locked in unescapable fire risk apartment cages here in China due to robberies being so rampant since nobody ownes guns to defend themselves.
Its almost IMPOSSIBLE to get shot in America, stop fear mongering its nonsense.
You want data? Look at individual gun ownership here vs all your weakling places and see who is better protected during civil unrest, war or coup. It will happen, unfortunately. If WWIII erupts Id be here for certain and not NZ where the people arent safe.
ax1
Legend
Except literally no data supports the fact the US is safer
You choose to live in fear of some invasion and that's cool. Meanwhile I'll enjoy my safe, peaceful and free country knowing full well i won't be shot at today
By the way, I feel extremely safe from guns in America. I wake up worrying about real issues about the next SSRI having side effects on the street, traffic accidents, alcohol related incidents, real issues that people are actually at risk at facing rather than the almost impossibility of gun violence.
You watch to much television, its not the way they make it appear to be here. Bullets arent flying everywhere, its stupid close to impossible to ever hear a illegally shot gun unless you live in liberal hard core gun control ses pools like south of me in NYC.
Im more worried about getting hit with lightening than a stupid bullet, and btw my forensic detective (long long history and researcher of blood splatter on scene) martial art instructor years ago told me most people survive gun shots so anyone can come and shoot me...which is something that will never happen anyways here in the safety net of the USA.
ax1
Legend
Except literally no data supports the fact the US is safer
You choose to live in fear of some invasion and that's cool. Meanwhile I'll enjoy my safe, peaceful and free country knowing full well i won't be shot at today
Do you have a lot of organized crimes and gangs in NZ like bloods, crips and Latin kings among hundreds of others? Mafia? Just wondering. Severe heroin/drug crisis? Monster sized drug rings both domestically and crossing the borders? Has your own CIA been caught smuggling kilos of cocaine into the homeland? ISIS declare war on innocent civilians?
ax1
Legend
I do heavily support gun control btw. All the unfederal agencies and thug beuracrats enforcing all illegal unconstitutional laws such as the IRS, FBI, NSA, etc..we can unarm them ....they don’t need them. When they can learn not to violate their oath of office respecting all 10 of our Amendments and hold accountability for their crimes I’ll consider giving them their 2nd back again.
That would mean dissolving the departments as an entirety of course as the Constitution does not authorize Federal police forces. They can take new jobs as local police, there are still a lot of good folks there not a total pessimist lol
muscleupcrohn
Legend
Looking at the CDC data, which I trust to be more accurate than NYTs, in 2014 there were 33,736 motor vehicle traffic deaths, and 33,594 firearm deaths, BUT 21,386 of those firearm deaths were suicides, leaving 12,208 non-suicide gun-related deaths in that year, of ~1/3 the amount of traffic-related deaths. You may disagree, but I don't think a self-inflicted suicide presents the same danger or unavoidable risk as car accidents, shootings, etc. do. Even at 12,208 deaths per year, it's a major problem, but let's get the facts straight and be as accurate as possible.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Jiigzz
Legend
But again now you have to resort to data that doesn't exist, to back a scenario of your choosing. That's not how it works. You can't just make up scenarios to prove a point.
You call us weaklings, that's fine. if that makes you feel better about waving your guns around on the street, call us what you like it makes no difference to us. But that doesn't change the fact that you need to make up scenarios in order to back that stance, "oh we need guns because we have gangs", "and because our government wants to kill me".
Meanwhile I live in one of the most free and safe countries in the world, and yet I don't have to wave my gun around on the street to achieve that. I guess that's what makes me free
On the war note, what's your rifle going to do when a nuke comes knocking at your door? This aint a war in the 1700s like what you are prepared for. During nuclear war, believe me, the US is the last place I want to be
muscleupcrohn
Legend
Let's find common ground to start with on "gun control." I completely agree on banning bumpfire stocks. They serve no real, useful purpose for self-defense or responsible use of a firearm. It's largely been used as a range toy, but now we know it can be abused. It is useless for actually using a firearm in self-defense, as it ruins accuracy and precision in favor of increasing fire rate in an imprecise and uncontrollable manner. It only serves as a range toy, or to make indiscriminately firing into crowds faster/easier. Neither of which are the purpose of the Second Amendment. Banning them is common-sense enough for me. Secondly, let's increase the penalties for gun-related violent crimes. It may not do all that much to deter all gun use, and won't effect these mass shootings, but it may at least yet repeat offenders off the street, therefore reducing the number of armed and violent criminals who can kill people. Rehabilitation is great, but not for people who have repeatedly shown a willingness and desire to kill other people, or put their lives in danger with weapons such as firearms. Non-violent drug-related crimes are a vastly different story, as we have already discussed. How's that for common-sense laws that we can agree on and start with, hopefully building a sense of communication and dialogue.But again now you have to resort to data that doesn't exist, to back a scenario of your choosing. That's not how it works. You can't just make up scenarios to prove a point.
You call us weaklings, that's fine. if that makes you feel better about waving your guns around on the street, call us what you like it makes no difference to us. But that doesn't change the fact that you need to make up scenarios in order to back that stance, "oh we need guns because we have gangs", "and because our government wants to kill me".
Meanwhile I live in one of the most free and safe countries in the world, and yet I don't have to wave my gun around on the street to achieve that. I guess that's what makes me free
On the war note, what's your rifle going to do when a nuke comes knocking at your door? This aint a war in the 1700s like what you are prepared for.
Misfit28
Well-known member
True. That article pulled data from the CDC, but earlier.
My point was that it isn't "almost impossible" to be killed with a gun in the US.
Jiigzz
Legend
I was reading on Quora when someone had answered a question on why Americans like guns so much. The following is their response:
5. Many Americans fear outside forces that threaten to take away their livelihoods or their lives, if they don't have the protection of arms. These fears are based on many things, but include the 50 year standoff with the Soviet Union, our national identity being tied to world war 2, and the associated fears of the state rounding up huge numbers of people for extermination camps, and a complicated disconnect that many American's feel from their federal government.
6. More recently, video games such as Call of Duty have been built that feature modern weaponry modeled in a very realistic way. This has greatly increased the number of people interested in ownership of similar weapons.
7. Most Americans don't believe that guns can be removed from criminals hands, even if they were to give up their own. The belief is reinforced by the abject failure of the war on drugs, and the abject failure of prohibition.
Ax1, is that you?
Then I read this on Wikipedia about the Nazi gun control theory:
"This radical wing of the gun rights movement focuses less on the value of guns for self-defense against criminals than on their value for fighting tyranny."[15] He says the militia groups that grew in number across the U.S. after the early 1990s organized "to fight off what they saw as an increasingly tyrannical federal government and what they imagined was the inevitable invasion of the United States by the United Nations."[20] Winkler wrote that "[to] some on the fringe," the Brady Bill "was proof that the government was determined to deprive Americans of their constitutional rights."[21]
Geez you guys are paranoid.
And further:
Reductio ad Hitlerum is an attempt to invalidate someone else's position on the basis that the same view was held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party,[1] for example: "Hitler was a vegetarian, X is a vegetarian, therefore X is a Nazi". A variation of this fallacy, reductio ad Stalinum, also known as "red-baiting", has also been used in political discourse.
Invalid Link Removed
These arguments come up a lot of gun control advocates lol.
5. Many Americans fear outside forces that threaten to take away their livelihoods or their lives, if they don't have the protection of arms. These fears are based on many things, but include the 50 year standoff with the Soviet Union, our national identity being tied to world war 2, and the associated fears of the state rounding up huge numbers of people for extermination camps, and a complicated disconnect that many American's feel from their federal government.
6. More recently, video games such as Call of Duty have been built that feature modern weaponry modeled in a very realistic way. This has greatly increased the number of people interested in ownership of similar weapons.
7. Most Americans don't believe that guns can be removed from criminals hands, even if they were to give up their own. The belief is reinforced by the abject failure of the war on drugs, and the abject failure of prohibition.
Ax1, is that you?
Then I read this on Wikipedia about the Nazi gun control theory:
"This radical wing of the gun rights movement focuses less on the value of guns for self-defense against criminals than on their value for fighting tyranny."[15] He says the militia groups that grew in number across the U.S. after the early 1990s organized "to fight off what they saw as an increasingly tyrannical federal government and what they imagined was the inevitable invasion of the United States by the United Nations."[20] Winkler wrote that "[to] some on the fringe," the Brady Bill "was proof that the government was determined to deprive Americans of their constitutional rights."[21]
Geez you guys are paranoid.
And further:
Reductio ad Hitlerum is an attempt to invalidate someone else's position on the basis that the same view was held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party,[1] for example: "Hitler was a vegetarian, X is a vegetarian, therefore X is a Nazi". A variation of this fallacy, reductio ad Stalinum, also known as "red-baiting", has also been used in political discourse.
Invalid Link Removed
These arguments come up a lot of gun control advocates lol.
Misfit28
Well-known member
Yup, I see that type of paranoia every day. I suppose one could also say that people who want more gun control are also paranoid.
Jiigzz
Legend
This is true.
I see nothing wrong personally with owning a gun. I think Ax1 sees gun control as getting rid of all guns - that simply isn't true. If you want guns to protect yourself from the Government, fine. If you want it to protect home and property, fine.
Your problems are not the guns. Your problems are widespread, uncontrolled access to guns. There doesn't seem to be enough enforcement around who has guns, buying ammo for these guns and other things of the like.
Then you have things like this:
Invalid Link Removed
Now, how does this contribute to self defense. By the time you have swung your gun around, taken off the safety and have it in a firing position you are dead.
Then you have images like this:
Invalid Link Removed
In a more ready position, already facing direction of draw - but now I know you have a gun. A criminal will go for you first. Conceal carry makes far more sense
It's like you need the gun, to protect yourself from someone who has a gun, because they weren't restricted from buying said gun. Seems bizarre to me, lol
Misfit28
Well-known member
Oh, I agree.
Then you have the internet badasses who want to say how if they were there with their guns that they would have handled the situation. This was especially prominent with the Aurora theater.
Shooting at a person that has a gun and is returning fire, while avoiding hitting innocents when your adrenaline is pumping is WAY different than shooting at a paper target.
Not to mention if it is in a dark place like a theater.
muscleupcrohn
Legend
Honestly, coming from someone like myself who is a big supporter of the right to bear arms, I don't really see the point of open carry, and I think it can often cause more potential issues and chaos than it can prevent (the act of open carry, not having the gun itself or concealed carry, which I support). For one, it can draw a lot of unnecessary attention, from civilians and law enforcement officers. Second, if you are unfortunate enough to be in the area of a mass shooting or other violent conflict, or even suspicion of such crime, even something more "mundane" like a robbery or assault, your act of openly displaying a firearm will draw a lot of attention, and possibly even lead to police viewing you as a target when you are not, but it would be understandable, as you're openly displaying a gun. TL;DR: I support the right to bear arms and concealed carry, but don't particularly care for open carry.
thebigt
Legend
carrying a gun is like having the biggest, baddest military in the world...it is only a deterrent if people believe you will use it. if you draw a line in the sand and the line gets crossed and you do nothing, it isn't much of a deterrent.
I have known several badasses who would see a punk with a gun and walk up slap them down and take the gun, I've personally seen it happen...
I have known several badasses who would see a punk with a gun and walk up slap them down and take the gun, I've personally seen it happen...
thebigt
Legend
a lot of commonsense right here....:bigok:
Jiigzz
Legend
Agreed.
Then if you vigilantly screen those who pose a threat to national security, have a tendency for violence or are criminals before selling firearms. Boom, you start reducing gun violence.
Perhaps I came across wrong in my approach. I know there are a lot of responsible gun owners out there
thebigt
Legend
add mental health to that list and sign me up....
muscleupcrohn
Legend
As in actual mental Heath issues, not the extremes some people want. I think it should be used to keep guns out of the hands of people who may be a threat to others, NOT using it as a means of gun control per se (ie to get guns out of as many hands as possible using any criteria possible, even if it's a huge stretch). I've heard some people say that depression after the death of a loved one to be disqualifying from owning a gun. All that'd do is discourage people who own guns from seeking help with natural depression from the loss of a loved one. There are definitely some obvious cases of people who shouldn't have guns, I completely agree.
Jiigzz
Legend
100% agree
thebigt
Legend
again more sense...I am talking about severe mental disease where if one were to decide not to take medication they would pose a serious threat...if we were really serious about enforcement temporary restraints could be used, but as a country we can't even keep a good eye on children in abusive situations---don't get me started on that one!!!
ax1
Legend
You havent showed data that its likely for me to die from gunfire. I dont count suicides and thugs killing thugs btw. Show me something significant.
ax1
Legend
I dont count suicides as muscle says and I also dont count gang violence. What number do we have now and at what % likely hood did I have of getting shot? Take away "gun free" zones too and the most super strict defenseless societies such as Chicago and what number % do we have? I really wanna know.
NY times is blocked in China btw, on not on my vpn PC right now lol
ax1
Legend
Also after you get those numbers take out the homicides from gun fire with those who were even under the influences of SSRIs or alcohol because to me each one of those homicides is prescription drug or alcohol related, not gun related.
Get me a % and you will see your making a fairytale led by the fantasy news networks you watch.
Be fair and add up the lives saved by guns too while your at it since fantasy news networks seem to forget to add to the script.
Jiigzz
Legend
I have trust in my government. Not complete trust, but trust.
I can't say the same for the majority of Amercians I engage with. A lot of them highly distrust American bureaucracy
ax1
Legend
I only speak and represent myself and my own ideas nor do I let gun control advocates influence me and my thinking.
You can bring up their arguments but that is irrelevant to my own opinion.
I dont even own a gun, I despise them. I have a cool bb gun though.
Jiigzz
Legend
Now you're shifting goalposts to make the stats look favorable.
In that case, if we exclude thugs killing thugs, Brazil has a lower murder rate than the US. Because we dont count thugs apparently.
No.
If they have firearms available to them legally or illegally, and they kill someone while under the influence, the weapon used was still a gun.
Otherwise what are you looking for? An honest person killing an honest person? C'mon, be realistic.
To be fair, the argument is more for improving current legislation. Let's remove guns as being the cause for a minute, and focus on how so many undesirables get access to guns. I think that approach makes more sense