Do you have a right to know how many or what kind of guns your neighbor owns?
Sure don't. What my neighbor owns is none of my business unless he's pointing them at me.
I hope they all have guns. Makes us safer.
I don't have the right to know anything about my neighbor, although in some communities that she is a registered sex offender is made common knowledge.
I think that would be the only time I had a right to know anything about people that live near me..
This is where you should get to know your neighbors and be social with one another. It's not where we need governments and laws to step in.
We regularly go shooting ours together.
They own none... Which should I put?
Especially if they live in a neighborhood with children. There should be some privacy, so not necessarily how many or what kinds, but they should know which neighbors have guns for safety reasons.
How so? Whether or not one owns guns has no bearing on their suitability to be around children.
If you have kids, you don't want them running around a neighborhood where they could be shot if a neighbor is unstable and owns guns.
My brother had a gun pulled on him while walking in our "safe" neighborhood
Just like he doesn't have the right to know what we own.
I mean thongs now saw things lol
Should I know how many saw things my neighbor owns or how many hammer they own?
Of course. They also have to disclose what type of TV they have, and their printer, and their income, and their tax returns, and the rest of their personal information. Because what they own is your business!
No but I have the right to know if there's a convicted sex offender living there.
If my kids are going to play there, then yes. I'd expect most parents would agree.
That they have a legal obligation to disclose that they own guns?
That it's common courtesy.
The only obligation they have in regards to their guns/your children is to ensure they are properly locked up.
The guns that is, not the children.
I wouldn't even call it an obligation. It's a prerequisite for my kid coming over there- but it doesn't place an obligation on them. I would simply tell them my kid can't go to their house.
It's our job to get to know the parents, not for them to notify us. If safe gun ownership/use is commonplace to them, they may not think it's noteworthy - why would they tell us?
I agree, icy.
I'll give you that I'd be fine with knowing that their guns are properly secured.
I'm far more interested in how they're training their kids to treat guns than whether or not their guns are locked up.
If kids have been properly trained in how to safely handle and use firearms, then it doesn't matter if the neighbor has a loaded 'Ma Deuce' in their living room.
Mine are being properly trained how to handle and use firearms right from the get-go.
I disagree - my kids could be experts in gun safety and I still have a responsibility to lock them up when the neighbor kids are over.
yes, icytoes. 100% yes.
If my kids are playing over there, then I should know, just like parental guidance, alcohol, or porn.
You should know, but you don't have a right to. You do have a right, however, to not let your kids go over there.
Correct, and I've already denied my children access to their friends' houses because I know that the parents don't secure their weapons.
Why not teach your kids how to properly handle and use firearms, as well as how to keep their hands off other people's stuff instead?
I'm not worried about my kids since I've educated them. It's other people's kids I don't trust, especially when raised by parents reckless enough to leave firearms unsecured. Bad habits get perpetuated.
I just hope a significant number of them do own guns.
not a right no.. but I know what almost everyone in my area has as we go shoot together
As long as he's balanced mentally and not a threat to others. I do not have that right. We had a neighbor who was very unbalanced And I'd be terrified this woman or her partner owned any kind of firearm.
Not at all. I can see being concerned if your child plays there and the neighbor has the guns accessible, but otherwise, it's not your business.
No more than I have the right to know the same of their underwear, or food in their fridge. Which is to say not at all.
Not at all. Love the profile pic too
No. Why would I?
No. It's none of my business.
I don't know that it's a right, but I would really like to know. I'd have no problem telling them what I have..
From one gunner to another? Or just to be nosy?
A little of both, I guess.
How many and what kind of guns does husband have?
Entirely too many is all I know.
You can never have too many...
Im naive enough that until recently i thought most people didn't have guns. But you probably could tell that by how i am here. Truthfully since SOH i never realized how many people have guns. But in answer to your question no. Nor should they know
About my sex dungeon either.
Well...We do now...
Well Pinky if you ever in town...
No. Neither does the government.
Yikes. Do people think this?
ABC did a news segment about gun risks to children, and advised parents to find out if their kids' friends' parents had guns in the house. Some comments on this segment indicated at least some people believe we should have this right.
Linking it to that news program gives it a whole other spin for me. If I had little kids I would worry. And possibly want to know.
I think I would want to know too, but I don't think I have a right to.
I would want to know, too- but I would do it by talking to the parents, not by using the force of law.
Yeah I would definitely want to know and I wouldn't not necessarily take the word of the parent. Why would the cop to having guns accessible in the house?scary scary. The stats on guns in the house alone...
According to the CDC, accidental gun deaths for children between 1-14 yrs in 2010 (the last year with conclusive data) totaled 62. And that's from 92 million registered gun owning households.
By comparison- In 2010, 602 children died from drowning, 262 died in fires and 923 died in car accidents.
Frankly, I'd be more concerned about them having a pool, or the parent driving my child to or from their house.
All I would need is to know the family. Most respectful gun owners lock them up. My parents did....but my brother always had a pistol between his mattress and box spring. I had a nightmare and he checked the house for me.
Just say hey, if you have guns are they locked up? Besides, my parents always preferred my friends come over so they know what's going on.
While I agree that pols are a danger that can easily be avoided, a car ride I pretty unavoidable and the dangers inherent have been deemed acceptable to society. We have laws regulating the roads- your car is inspected, the speed at which you drive
is regulated by law enforcement, you are required to pass tests and renew your license every few years, the roads are patrolled by police. All of these things were put in palace mitigate the dangers of the road. People felt roads were dangerous and
Created laws and regulations to make the roads safer. Similarly gun regulations attempt to do the same. So I would be more hesitant to send my child to someone's hours with a pool, but the idea of a gun being in the home is no less disturbing.
Did you read the stats, rode? Pools and cars are clearly more of a threat. Would you also want a law requiring the parents to submit their driving history and lifeguard qualifications?
I agree with foxy- it's about knowing the parents.
Did you read my post? I said I would be hesitant to send my child to someone's house if they had a pool. They I explained the very complex system of regulation regarding the roads. Now that being said here's a third argument for you. Roads and cars
are a necessary part of life in terms of traveling and commuting about. It would be impossible for some people to go to school or get to their jobs everyday if they didn't use the roads. There's no such daily necessity involved with having a gun
in your house. You can argue you think it makes your house safer from a potential home invasion but that is not nearly the same thing as the societal necessity of using the roads. It's about mitigating danger when it comes to my kids.
Then answer my question- would you require similar laws be passed to provide you with information about which of your neighbors had pools or bad driving histories?
The current system regulating the roads removes reckless drivers with bad histories from the road so thankfully that already taken care of by the government. In terms of pools I'm thankful for community laws regarding fences and would not see the
issue with a list of pools however I don't think it's necessary because people and their children are much more likely to self report having a pool to me than having a gun accessible to their them/their child.
So the answer is yes. You see this as an opportunity to make gun ownership registrations a public matter, right?
What amazes me is that, in your eagerness to create a law that really isn't going to protect anyone more than common sense conversations between neighbors, the unintended consequences of that sort of law probably haven't occurred to you.
I'm assuming you're alluding to the fact that criminals could use this database to obtain guns illegally. I have to assume because you've the premise I have to defend against is implicitly vague. Of which "unintended consequences" you've assumed that
I am not considering I can only guess, maybe if you were clearer we could have a more intelligent discussion. In regards to the theory of criminals using the database to there advantage, there are two natural consequences. A) Gun owners would more
securely lock/hide away their weapons in safes so as to make their illegal apprehension by criminals impossible and B) this threat would serve as a deterrent to gun ownership and therefor decrease the number of gun deaths in the nation.
The idea of this threat either exposes a fallacy or is a fallacy in itself. Guns are supposed to be in homes to protect their owners from dangerous home invaders. If the home invaders are invading for guns, they are likely outgunned at the outset. So
either the gun is an asset or a liability but it cannot be both.
Lol. You still don't get it.
It isn't the gun owners who would be at risk.
What you're proposing would provide a list of gun free homes to any criminal who wants to limit their risk of getting shot on a home invasion.
This is what gun grabbers never quite understand.
Criminals will always have guns. They will make them themselves if they have to.
When you pass laws limiting gun availability, the only people you hurt are the ones who follow those laws.
The majority of home invasions in this country are done by drug addicts looking for something quick to sell, you're really telling me that you think they're going to cross reference a database before breaking into a home? That's funny
Why not just put a sign outside your house says "gun free home! defenseless family inside!"
I'm done with you. If you don't have the good sense to understand the criminal mind, you have no business telling anyone how to protect themselves.
To put all my cards on the table, as I'm sure you can tell and as I've made no effort to hide, I think the current state of gun regulation in America is horrific and the reason that we are unique in the world with our now constant school/workplace
Just stick that sign in your front yard and let me know how it works out for you.
shootings. Guns are far far too accessible, no other industrialized nation has as relaxed gun laws as us. I would have no issue altering the Constitution if necessary to safeguard our children and citizens as would be our obligation. In lieu of this
I have often fantasied about some sort of finger print recognition in guns, so that they could not be resold without proper regulation. If it could be done so as to not hamper the gun and the technology were cheap enough so as to not add to
significantly to the cost of a gun, would you have any issue with that?
roDe, I really don't care. You'll never gun up enough ridiculous gun panic to pass an amendment, so it's a moot point and I have no interest in discussing it.
And Milkdude I would prefer to be robbed ten times than ever have someone I love get injured by a gun in my own home, to me there's no debate.
Fingerprint scanners? It's a nice idea, and Id like knowing that my own gun couldn't be used against me on the spot- but it wouldn't last in the long run. Criminals would figure out how to hack the guns pretty fast.
The point you were to discuss was and I quote "in lieu of that" (being a Constitutional amendment). Would you have issue with a gun that had finger recognition technology so that it could only be used by those whom had been programmed to use it?
Not to mention the fact that a criminal a who might want to steal a gun may also be willing to cut my finger off just so he can use it.
Yet another unintended consequence of increased regulation.
They have the technology now. But no one has the balls to do it.
Anyway, this conversation is going nowhere and, paradoxically, splintering off into new areas now, so I'm done. Have a nice night.
I think you've got a very exaggerated concept of a criminal. In Boston and New York the average criminal is an uneducated thug, it could be a regional difference. I see them on a daily basis on the street so it could be and this is just a guess
but I see that you're from Nebraska which I can into assume doesn't have a very significant urban crime element with gangs and turf wars. Here they're just thugs without any technological even know what hacking is.
Lol cut off your finger? Come on. That's ridiculous even for you. Anyway, the technology is hand grip, which is just as individual as fingerprints. And anyway none of this still gives me the right to demand to know what guns my neighbor has.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Boston were the first to introduce them. We've got the strictest gun laws in the country and as a result we have among the fewest gun fatalities. They're debate more gun regulations in the state house as we speak.
Rode, they used to say the same thing about home alarm systems. That criminals just weren't smart enough to defeat the technology.
Now it takes an ave. of 2 minutes to hack an alarm system and you can buy the tech from criminals who make it at home.
And yes, cutting off fingers isn't a big deal to the right people. Just google it. Some guys just cut off a woman's ring finger just to get the ring.
You're assuming everyone thinks like you or has your same squeamishness about violence.
Milkdude I agree we aren't getting anywhere but I think we differ on the cause. I think you're fear of having your finger removed to be more than slightly paranoid. You're image of a criminal, like something out of a movie, can only come from someone
who sounds like they've never seen a criminal and is therefor terrified of the idea of them. Do you have assassins trying to break into your house after disabling your alarm system, looking to chop your finger off to shoot you with your gun. I mean
Rode, you have no idea where my idea of a criminal comes from. I used to work with sociopaths and severely mentally ill children who wouldn't think twice about cutting the fingers off of someone. And some did.
I get the feeling you're very sheltered.
you do you might want to skip the alarm and the gun and build yourself a panic room to keep out the scary/hostile outside world. Or you could take a Xanax. Your call.
RoDe, stop with the personal attacks. If that's where you've ended up then you've clearly lost this debate.
Yeah no don't gee wrong I'm sure you have a very diverse portrayal of America over there in Lincoln, Nebraska. Lots of hoods over there I here.
Milkdud it would be great to see you follow through and stop commenting as you have threatened so many times in the past. Is it real this time? Haha doubt it!
Now you're making jokes about where I live? Are you 12?
I tried to end this conversation politely, but you don't seem to have it in you to agree to disagree.
But since it clearly matters to you, you can have the last word.
Milk, as you probably know, I have worked with violent young adults too (who have raped children, set people on fire, etc.) I also live in East Oakland, one of the most violent places in the country. And while I take reasonable precautions, I am not
worried that someone is going to break into my house, override my alarm system, and cut off my finger so they can use my gun. Because while yes, these things have happened to *somebody* *somewhere* they are statistically incredibly unlikely
To happen to me, even given where I live and whom I know. You're the one who said we should be more afraid of children in cars and pools--and rightfully so!--but then turn around and said we shouldn't have fingerprint-locked guns because of
statistically unlikely occurrences. You also said that criminals would make their own guns--and that's probably true. So why are you afraid of them breaking into your house and cutting off your finger to use yours? It's just illogical.
Your paranoia about these things says far less about the people you've worked with and far more about the person you are.
Kermie, you're focusing a bit too
Much on the detached finger thing. The point was simply that criminals will go to
extremes that normal people dismiss or don't generally expect because normal
People don't think like criminals.
Criminals consistently improve their skills to meet and exceed the barriers out up by their victims. It's just an arms race. Biometric locks on guns are a nice idea, and one I'd invest in if only for my
Kids' sake, but it isn't going to stop crime.
Biometric locks will be defeated fairly easily once they are on the market, so what's next? It doesn't really matter because eventually we always get back to the only real safeguard, which is personal responsibility.
And what about unintended consequences? My iPhone has a great thumbprint scanner- but if my thumb or the scanner are a little dirty, or if it's too cold, or if something else interferes, it doesn't work right.
Do you want someone to die because of a scanner malfunction?
I'm not willing to force people to put their lives on the line just for some ultimately meaningless gun tech regulation that will be hacked within days of hitting the streets.
And returning to the point, you have enough common sense to realize you don't want a gun registry that will tell criminals you live in a gun free home any more than you want to put a sign in your window that says "we are defenseless."
And by the way, just stop with always playing the the "your feelings about blah say less about blah and more about you" card.
It's so trite and condescending, and honestly, saying it all the time says more about you than the person you're judging.
Hey Milkdud- Im pretty sure you know I disagree with just about everything you said and while Im not taking the time tonight to refute it all point by point- I just wanted to remind you that you said you were done with this thread a total of 4 times.
RoDe, let it go. So he had something else to say? So what? Refute the ideas, if you can. But taunting is pointless.
Milk, that's fine, backpedal on what you said. The point was, you have both encouraged others to order their lives by statistics
and then wildly surmised doom scenarios as reasons not to do things (like here, again--do you really think they haven't tested the electronic gun locks again and again and again to make sure they don't malfunction? The extreme potentiality of it
failing is not reason to dismiss it. You have other reasons for that. And that's fine. Just be honest.)
And no, I will not stop being a mirror for people who want to cast about for straw men to blame as a distraction from their own issues.
And yes, I'm aware that say something about me. I'm fine with what it says. I'll accept condescending if it means calling others on their bs.
Clearly you're guilty of something.
I thought you were on hiatus.
I was sitting in traffic :) So, I had to take a peek and vote on Milks poll!