No one? You can personally agree on your word that no one wants a total ban? I'm not trying for a gotcha here, I just want to be sure that the implication that you are asserting that no one in Moms wants a total ban.
With that said, would you support for a total ban on all fire arms? What about non sport weapons? Just want to get a sense on the scope of your idea of policy.
You miss understand. I think proper storage and safety is an important measure that should be taken. I'm saying that some of the legislature proposed places litigation and blame on the owner if an incident occurs in the form of penalties up to jail time.
These arguments, to be blunt, are a false trail. If X then Y is never the base for a solid argument.
This is also an interesting line of reasoning. Then do you propose that all house place accidents are child abuse? Fell off trampoline and broke arm? Swallowed pills left on floor? Climbed banister and fell onto floor?
The acts are awful emotionally jarring and serious events. But these incidents happen every day. You are attempting to protect from the very nature of humans. We are too curious for our own good.
I agree that the fault falls on the un-careful parents, but to impose legal action, such as child abuse, is too far. "Sorry you lost your child, here's a $5000 fine and we're taking your other children."
I encourage you to watch these series on DefCon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48HUctXZUNw&ab_channel=Christiaan008
These outline the susceptibility to attacks on a variety of safes. Once again, I'm not saying they don't serve a purpose in the home. I'm pointing out the futility of punishing people if their firearms are stolen and used illegally.
Why not? It's the Government's job to protect the Second amendment. Why then insulate Government taught children from safety lessons about firearms? Studies have shown that this lessens the curiosity and intrigue in the educated children, thus lessening the chance of a firearm related accident in the home.
NRA is a private company and not a part of my concerns. Similarly is the dealing of Moms not my concern. I don't give either money so it doesn't concern me.
But it is. The current laws list conditions by a persons family that would initiate an inquiry that would lead to the seizure. Now with the various manifestos and pre-planned messages from mass shooters, some states are now looking into letting teachers, councilors, co workers, even other student submit an official inquiry to allow a search of a suspect. Does it stop at the child/adult in question? Oh no, it encompasses all in the household as well. So if some of these more extreme Red Flags come into play, it will be exactly as you describe.
Do you support this?
So then do you agree that it is reasonable to, if legal, conceal a firearm on your person if you believe you are entering an area that may be deangerous on your life?
I'm wondering how we bring the common sense of the every-man into the legal purview. How can I be judged based on what my neighbor would do, etc.
I know it's a cliche, but can I have some sources? Preferably in APA format. :)
No madam, everyone is tired of this. However, everyone who want to impose regulations are failing to capture the consent of the people through the omission of one simple problem.
Nearly all of the mass shooting are committed by illegal guns. These are not card carrying, regulation following, gun lock using, safe storage, background passing people. These are mentally ill people who use the best tool around for the most harm. And until you can convince America you are not punishing the legal firearm owners, then the cause is a futile one.