Disney Count support may be spotty from here. We apologize for the inconvenience.

stolen guns = dead people, but owner not culpable?

http://tinyurl.com/7z85d

"If somebody stole a bus and ran over 12 kids, the bus wouldn't be at fault. If somebody stole 50 pounds of dynamite and blew up a house, the dynamite wouldn't be at fault. But the minute it's firearms, it's `oh my God, it's firearms.'"

...he ain't comin' back to canada 'cause there's a warrant for his arrest. i'm not sure if he should be blamed for the deaths his weapons has caused. I still think he should be arrested for his faulty logic...

who the fuck stores 30 guns (some assault rifles) in a housing complex where several rival gangs reside? i don't care if they were in a 500 pound vault... the fact remains that nobody was home while the thieves broke in and sledgehammered/blowtorched for 2 straight days...
Permalink Kenny 
January 7th, 2006
There's a big debate in Canada right now because the government is talking about banning handguns (due to the rise in handgun crime and gangsta culture). Naturally the gun lobby started talking about how that ridiculous that is. "Criminals don't register their firearms!" they proclaim. "Outlaw handguns, and then only outlaws have handguns!"

The point that they (intentionally) missed, is that lawful gun owners very frequently brag and gloat about their legal collection. When I was a kid I knew in detail three separate people who legally had handguns, because not only did they brag about it, but they frequently pulled it out to show, ensuring that everyone saw exactly where they kept it.

If I wanted to go gang banging or whatever, where would I go to equip? Why I'd go burgle the homes of someone who I knew firsthand, or secondhand, had a handgun.

That's the problem with legal gun ownership.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 7th, 2006
If the apartment had an alarm system (with motion detector) why didn't the cops respond when the bad guys entered, and then spent TWO DAYS breaking into the 1700-lb safe?
Permalink example 
January 7th, 2006
I agree. I am so glad that guns have been outlawed in Washington, DC and severely restricted in NYC and LA, making those cities the safest places to be in the country.

Dude, if Canada outlaws handguns, people will just drive down to the US to buy them. The centerpiece of the "outlawing guns makes citizens safer" is Australia. Well, duh - to smuggle guns into Australia you have to cross 1500 miles of ocean.

My take on the "outlawing guns to stop murder" thing - the HOMICIDE laws obviously didn't stop the guy, what makes you think gun laws will?

If someone steals your car and uses it on a hit-and-run spree, are you liable?

Philo
Permalink Philo 
January 7th, 2006
>My take on the "outlawing guns to stop murder" thing - the
>HOMICIDE laws obviously didn't stop the guy, what makes you
>think gun laws will?

Since homicide rates usually drop after the introduction of gun laws, it obviously stops some people who wouldn't be stopped by homicide laws.

In fact -- fuck it, why not just stop homicide laws since the people who murder anyway clearly aren't going to be stopped by them :)
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 7th, 2006
The idiot in the story stored a small arsenal of weapons in an unattended and unmonitored location. He is at least guilty of negligence and stupidity. The Toronto police and federal government are also guilty of giving him a license to store the guns in an unsafe manner, but whoever managed to bring governments to book?

For anyone who is wondering about the safe, it is irrelevant. In physical security, safes have one of two purposes: one, to delay (not prevent) access to the contents for a certain minimum amount of time, or two, to provide evidence of access after the event. Usually commercial organizations have the first objective and the military have the second objective. Given that a safe can only delay access to the contents, an unmonitored safe in unmanned surroundings is not effective security.
Permalink Ian Boys 
January 7th, 2006
Gun laws do reduce accidental (7 year old discovering Daddy's gun), deaths and incidents where if a gun could not be legally posessed someone wouldn't have got shot. These include relatively benign brawls and what have you that end in gunfights because one or more of the participants had legal weapons.

Whether they reduce crime supported by the use of guns is moot, the point is why on earth does a regular person need a lethal weapon?
Permalink Simon Lucy 
January 7th, 2006
"I agree. I am so glad that guns have been outlawed in Washington, DC and severely restricted in NYC and LA, making those cities the safest places to be in the country."

Those examples always come up, and they're so ridiculous that it dimishes the gun lobby case even saying it. Banning guns in small jusdictions in a giant country awash in gun trade is obviously futile. Banning guns in Canada while we're beside the US isn't great, but it's a hell of a lot harder, and more risky, transporting guns across the border than it is driving through the US.

Secondly the type of person who's going to break into their neighbour's house to steal a gun (the source of something like 2/3 of the firearms used illegally) is going for a short-term, low-hanging fruit. I hardly thing they're going to decide that if that isn't available, they'll go on a shopping trip to the US.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 7th, 2006
(BTW: I'm talking specifically about banning handguns when I say guns. Hunting rifles are a world different from concealable handguns, and it'll be an interesting day when gangsters start packing a bolt-action hunting rifle).
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 7th, 2006
"it's a hell of a lot harder, and more risky, transporting guns across the border than it is driving through the US."

Are you referring to the world's longest undefended border? The one where both countries share a lot of oceanic coastline?

Yeah, no guns sneaking north through *that*

[g,d,r]

Philo
Permalink Philo 
January 7th, 2006
Fair enough, but criminals as a general rule don't go hiking across the undefended border (though that really isn't true anymore. Both sides have been, err, "militarized" post 9/11) - they stick some stuff in the trunk and take their chances at the Rainbow Bridge. Most won't take that sort of extraordinary risk of getting caught, with certain apprehension, though.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 7th, 2006
>> unmonitored <<

Go and re-read the article. He had an alarm system.

>> He had all the proper licences and police inspected the apartment, armed with a motion-detector alarm, annually. <<
Permalink example 
January 7th, 2006
another interesting quote from the article:

"I'm shattered to know that my guns are out there being used by people with no training and no morals,"

'course, if they were properly trained (by him at a hefty fee, no doubt), he'd be okay with people with no morals using guns stolen from him...
Permalink Kenny 
January 7th, 2006
"If I wanted to go gang banging or whatever, where would I go to equip? Why I'd go burgle the homes of someone who I knew firsthand, or secondhand, had a handgun."

If criminals are dumb enough to attempt to break into gun owners' homes... well, sounds like evolution will take care of the rest.
Permalink KC 
January 7th, 2006
happens all the time dude. there is *nothing* magical about being a gun owner. if you aint home, you gonna get burgled, just like the non-gun owner across the street.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 7th, 2006
"happens all the time dude. there is *nothing* magical about being a gun owner. if you aint home, you gonna get burgled, just like the non-gun owner across the street."


You are correct, but I would wager that criminals who break into gun owners' homes are more likely to get killed/seriously injured in the process and therefore less likely to break into another home.

Criminal: 0
Society: 1
Permalink KC 
January 7th, 2006
Assuming the owners are home - which means the burglar's incompetent;-)

The rule with legally held firearms in the UK is that they must be held securely. Think separate double locked steel gun and ammunition cabinets, alarms...etc. Most criminals would just get a nice smuggled one. Not that that's possible because the ports are so secure that nothing smuggled ever gets into the country...
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 7th, 2006
"If criminals are dumb enough to attempt to break into gun owners' homes... well, sounds like evolution will take care of the rest."

The person who steals a gun owners weapon will likely have some sort of relationship with the gun owner - e.g. son of a poker buddy, or friend of a son of a poker buddy. "John is going up to the cottage next week..." It isn't rocket science.

I don't think anyone is saying they'll sneak in at night and steal it, though even if they did do that, they could likely suppress the occupant before they'd have a chance to get their weapon.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 7th, 2006
My parents house was broken into by the next door neighbors son while my parents were away.

My parents had some rifles in a gun cabinet but no safe. He took some of their guns and apparently he was completely wasted and started shooting up the house. It wasn't long before the cops came and apparently he fired warning shots at them. They eventually talked him out, but he was sentenced to jail for 8 years.

Were my parents responsible for this guys behaviour? (PS they bought a gun safe afterwards)
Permalink ronk! 
January 7th, 2006
>You are correct, but I would wager that criminals who break
>into gun owners' homes are more likely to get
>killed/seriously injured in the process and therefore less
>likely to break into another home.

Gun owners whose homes get broken into are more likely to get killed/seriously injured in the process.

>Criminal: 0
>Society: 1

What do you call it when everybody loses?
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 7th, 2006
>> Gun owners whose homes get broken into are more likely to get killed/seriously injured in the process. <<

Source?
Permalink example 
January 7th, 2006
I'm tired of looking stuff up. Too much hard work. This would be the fourth time.

Do a little research yourself or don't believe me. I don't care which.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 7th, 2006
What's wrong with TinyUrl?
Permalink  
January 7th, 2006
"Were my parents responsible for this guys behaviour?"

obviously they were entirely responsible for the fact he had access to a gun that enabled him to shoot the place up.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 7th, 2006

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: January, 2006 Other topics: January, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics