"I'd like to see every gun in Marion Co. have a lock on it"

[Armed Eastsider]

Will all the criminals of Marion County please line up to pick up your free gun lock. Please use this gun lock at all times, up to and immediately after all crimes you plan on committing.

 

[MCFD713]

Well said Armed Eastsider: How can it be that only law abiding gun owners like all of us are the only ones that seem to understand that criminals don't follow the law, that is why they are called criminals. And the only people that safer by laws like this, or bans are the criminals.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Well, we don't have any such law, but it is obvious that the sheriff would like one. Such a law would not make anyone safer or more responsible. Given my limited vocabulary I am unable to articulate this point any more clearly, barring the use of a mallet or cranial drill. Locking up/hiding away guns in no way equates responsibility or safety. It is rather a way of avoiding or circumventing actual responsibility. Responsibility would involve an amount of time and education pertaining to whatever subject is at hand, in this case guns, the COTUS, freedom and liberty. Locking them up is IRRESPONSIBLE when it is done to avoid making certain those around you are properly educated and such irresponsibility will lead to further deterioration of our rights as it will only worsen with each generation. Ignorance is a disease that spreads slowly over generations, symptoms include laziness(looking for the easy way out), liberalism, and blindly following/obeying those that are most outspoken. Those behaviors are not instinctual but rather learned by watching the generation immediately preceding us and reaching false conclusions based on popular culture/media.

 

[jsx1043]

I would like to see an elected sherrif running the whole IMPD, not a mayor who doesnt know dick and his little dirtbag safety director.

and I would love to see my deputy buddy get a new charger so I can ride around with him in it

I agree.

 

[thompal]

liberty. Locking them up is IRRESPONSIBLE when it is done to avoid making certain those around you are properly educated and such irresponsibility will lead to further deterioration of our rights as it will only worsen with each generation. Ignorance is a disease that spreads slowly over generations, symptoms include laziness(looking for the easy way out), liberalism, and blindly following/obeying those that are most outspoken. Those behaviors are not instinctual but rather learned by watching the generation immediately preceding us and reaching false conclusions based on popular culture/media.

I agree, but the unthinking sheep among us WANT the nanny state to make all of our decisions for us, legislate that we do things that may prevent us from being harmed, and punish us if we fail to take precautions, even if we are not hurt by so doing.

Think: SEATBELTS.

I am firmly convinced that seatbelts do help prevent injury or death. A seatbelt probably saved my life once in a head-on accident. I've always worn a seatbelt, from LONG before it was a law, simply because I thought it was stupid not to.

HOWEVER, I in no way believe that people should be FORCED to wear a seat belt, or punished if they don't. I DO NOT believe that the police should stand on the roadside at intersections, and give tickets to people who are not wearing a seatbelt. Why is it a LAW that you must wear a seatbelt, even if you are not driving? Who is protected by your wearing of a seatbelt? It only protects you. Nobody can possibly claim that forcing you to wear a seatbelt at the end of a gun will in any way protect any innocent lives. I have never seen anyone claim that by NOT wearing a seatbelt, you can cause accidents, injure others, or harm the environment. So, why in the world is it a law? (1)

So, if such an absurd concept as seatbelt laws exist, why would you ever think that the mamy-pamby hanky wavers in the world wouldn't jump on any feel-good legislation that they could rally behind ("THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!")

Those people are so mentally defective somehow that they are completely incapable of making their own decisions, or of using common sense. They honestly believe that the only way that people won't do stupid things is to outlaw those stupid things. They believe this because they know that if not forced at the barrel of a gun and threatened with large fines and jail time, THEY WOULD DO STUPID THINGS, because, again, they are incapable of making adult decisions due to some mental defect.


(1) As for WHY seatbelt laws exists, cross reference "Insurance Lobby." People used to claim it was lawyers ruining the country. Actually, it's insurance companies.

 

[Destro]

My argument is no different than the responsibility you take as a driver of a vehicle.
Say your driving, and you come upon a green light at a very busy intersection. BAM! Your hit by a drunk driver who failed to stop at the light. While on paper and legally you might not be “at fault”, did you look both ways before you crossed the road (who cares if it is green) to make sure all traffic had stopped? Were you wearing your seatbelt? Sure, you wouldn’t have been ejected if the drunk hadn’t crashed into you at 70mph. Bla bla bla “Special Circumstances” and what not, it doesn’t matter in the end….The government has no responsibility to protect anybody from anything. Whatever happens to us we are responsible for. There’s a difference between “Personal responsibility” and “legal responsibility”
If your gun gets stolen, has a ND and hurts/kills somebody, lost, blows up in your face from bad ammo….doesn’t matter who’s at fault “legally” because in the end, it’s still your own fault.

 

[ATM]

I think what you're trying to say here is...

um




Sorry, I was just kidding. I don't have a clue.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

My argument is no different than the responsibility you take as a driver of a vehicle.
Say your driving, and you come upon a green light at a very busy intersection. BAM! Your hit by a drunk driver who failed to stop at the light. While on paper and legally you might not be “at fault”, did you look both ways before you crossed the road (who cares if it is green) to make sure all traffic had stopped? Were you wearing your seatbelt? Sure, you wouldn’t have been ejected if the drunk hadn’t crashed into you at 70mph. Bla bla bla “Special Circumstances” and what not, it doesn’t matter in the end….The government has no responsibility to protect anybody from anything. Whatever happens to us we are responsible for. There’s a difference between “Personal responsibility” and “legal responsibility”
If your gun gets stolen, has a ND and hurts/kills somebody, lost, blows up in your face from bad ammo….doesn’t matter who’s at fault “legally” because in the end, it’s still your own fault.

?wtf? Okay, I'll give it a try.
How is it that you equate a flimsy useless lock to personal responsibility? The lock on my door is more than enough, the personal responsibility you speak of involves someone NOT kicking in my door and that is not something within my control. These locks aren't going to prevent theft or burglars from using the gun. In fact they aren't even designed or intended to. For this reason your argument is ridiculously stupid. You are really missing every part of the point/target here, perhaps you should adjust your sights.

 

[ATM]

...did you look both ways before you crossed the road (who cares if it is green) to make sure all traffic had stopped?

Yep. That's when BAM! ...the semi plowed into me from behind.

Obviously my fault once again for stopping at a green light.

 

[Destro]

You are really missing every part of the point/target here, perhaps you should adjust your sights.

You thought it was "disturbing" that the sheriff would want folks to keep their guns secure, and I did not....

 

[lashicoN]

You thought it was "disturbing" that the sheriff would want folks to keep their guns secure, and I did not....

Secure isn't the same thing as locked. My personal carry firearm is secure in my holster, it's useless with a lock on it.

I also find it "disturbing" that the Chief LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) is offering his public opinion on something that is a heated issue and isn't a law. I wish people would just shrug and say "Well, you're a law enforcer, your opinion means jack to us, just shut up and enforce the laws on the books." But politicians listen to what other politicians say and then it goes from opinion to law.

 

[thompal]

My argument is no different than the responsibility you take as a driver of a vehicle.
Say your driving, and you come upon a green light at a very busy intersection. BAM! Your hit by a drunk driver who failed to stop at the light. While on paper and legally you might not be “at fault”, did you look both ways before you crossed the road (who cares if it is green) to make sure all traffic had stopped? Were you wearing your seatbelt? Sure, you wouldn’t have been ejected if the drunk hadn’t crashed into you at 70mph. Bla bla bla “Special Circumstances” and what not, it doesn’t matter in the end….The government has no responsibility to protect anybody from anything. Whatever happens to us we are responsible for. There’s a difference between “Personal responsibility” and “legal responsibility”
If your gun gets stolen, has a ND and hurts/kills somebody, lost, blows up in your face from bad ammo….doesn’t matter who’s at fault “legally” because in the end, it’s still your own fault.

I'm all for personal responsibility, taking responsibility for your own actions, etc.

However, claiming that it is MY fault if some thug breaks into my house, steals my gun, and uses it in a crime, is making the same leap that the Brady people use: that any accident or crime EVER committed with a firearm is the sole responsibility of the original owner, or perhaps even the manufacturer. After all, if a thug steals a Hi Point pistol from someone and then uses it to rob a store, shouldn't the Hi Point company be held responsible for that armed robbery? It was their fault the gun was created.

The same logic would be required if a drunk steals your car and gets caught driving it afterwards. Should YOU go to jail for DUI?? After all, if it hadn't been for YOUR negligence, he never could have stolen the car and driven while drunk.

 

[rambone]

You thought it was "disturbing" that the sheriff would want folks to keep their guns secure, and I did not....

I would find it disturbing to hear about a family who got killed because they were too busy fumbling with gun locks in the dark.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

You thought it was "disturbing" that the sheriff would want folks to keep their guns secure, and I did not....

No, what I find disturbing is your idea of what makes a gun secure along side with the fact that you would consider it any of his business what I do with my guns and when. It raises my blood pressure every time I hear the dribble you guys (brady bunch/anti 2a sheep) spew when you troll these sites. You certainly aren't in favor of actual responsibility like instruction, training, familiarization and other such methods of keeping your family safe with firearms. You think that a child safety lock will somehow keep the full grown burglar that just broke through your door from being able to use your gun in a later crime, and that using said lock is "being responsible" (did I say that already?).

 

[custom2006]

The first page of replies says it all = WELL SAID FELLOW HOOSIERS