Mass Shootings

[Lurch 5931]

Nancy Lanza’s gun safe

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

1 minute ago, Lurch said:

Nancy Lanza’s gun safe

How did he get the code/key? Or why was it unlocked? 

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

7 minutes ago, staboner said:

i would consider myself a liberal and i don't want the 2nd amendment touched. 

blaming one part of our dysfunctional government is really not healthy IMO. 

All for making gun ownership a much more serious privilege of some type. thanks for your understanding. 

I think it is a problem on both sides. The left wants gun control at a pretty serious level, the right wont concede an inch because they feel it is a slippery slope to a gun ban, so the left pushes harder and more to the extreme, causing the right to lock up even more... you see the pattern. We dont have level headed adults at the highest level, the vocal minorities are the loudest on each side, which prevents policy discussion from occurring with the 70% of Americans that arent party extremists. 

Edited May 24, 2018 by Vince_McCoy_Williams

[Chuckie Finster 22716]

2 minutes ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

I think it is a problem on both sides. The left wants gun control at a pretty serious level, the right wont concede an inch because they feel it is a slippery slope to a gun ban, so the left pushes harder and more to the extreme, causing the right to lock up even more... you see the pattern. We dont have level headed adults at the highest level, the vocal minorities are the loudest on each side, which prevents policy discussion from occurring with the 70% of Americans that arent party extremists. 

This is incorrect.  Certainly, there are some who do, but saying that, as a whole, "the left wants serious gun control" is an inaccurate misinterpretation that groups like the NRA use to scare their base.

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

2 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

This is incorrect.  Certainly, there are some who do, but saying that, as a whole, "the left wants serious gun control" is an inaccurate misinterpretation that groups like the NRA use to scare their base.

Many are calling for "assault rifle" bans. I have seen this gaining a lot of traction. As well as registries. 

[GW Hayduke 1953]

1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

I wish people would start with a basic determination of how many deaths are acceptable before they draw a line in the sand regarding policy decisions.

 

39 so far this year.  So what, 100 for 2018?  Equal amount injured..

100 kids dying in the US per year due to school shootings isn't enough for me to suggest we do anything about the 2nd amendment.  But 100 dying per year is probably enough for me to think about whether our background check policies/training requirements/age limitations make sense in terms of federal law.

On the state level, states like California and Florida and Texas certainly can be looking at 20 per year.  Is that worth trying to pass some state laws that would pass muster under the current liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment?

(It's always struck me that this is similar to airline terrorism deaths.  It never seems like we try to put in perspective how many lives elaborate TSA procedures are worth. 

We certainly think everyone driving 70 and having cars is worth so many thousands of deaths per year.) 

I think we'd have an easier time talking about the issue if we just agree that all of us have some sort of death tolerance in regard to the value of a broad 2nd amendment and gun regulations.

These are relevant and important questions. And the answer will be based on our values.

I feel that it is important to fully frame the “problem” before jumping to determine the need for a “solution.” There are 2 desperate problems IMO.

One problem are the mass shootings. They are relatively rare but are shocking to the public. 

The second problem is the USs overall rate of firearm related deaths, which is on par with third world countries. This high rate applies across the entire US results in many more deaths compared to the deaths resulting from mass shootings.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Once the problem has been defined and agreed upon, a possible framing of goals for solutions could be:

1) to minimize/mitigate the frequency and magnitude of mass shootings.

2) to lower our overall rate of firearm related deaths.

From here, the evaluation of different solutions is appropriate.

[David Dennison 18944]

18 minutes ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

I think it is a problem on both sides. The left wants gun control at a pretty serious level, the right wont concede an inch because they feel it is a slippery slope to a gun ban, so the left pushes harder and more to the extreme, causing the right to lock up even more... you see the pattern. We dont have level headed adults at the highest level, the vocal minorities are the loudest on each side, which prevents policy discussion from occurring with the 70% of Americans that arent party extremists. 

Meaning what?

[tantric superman 4667]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Meaning what?

Like, Serious with an "s". 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

25 minutes ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

How did he get the code/key? Or why was it unlocked? 

I have no idea.  That type of safe can be popped open pretty easily with a screwdriver.  It is good for keeping young kids out, and that's about it.

I am fine for harsher penalties for gun owners who do not take reasonable steps to secure their weapons.  I am against strict liability criminal offenses against those who took reasonable steps to secure their weapons.

[Brisketexan 105198]

8 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I have no idea.  That type of safe can be popped open pretty easily with a screwdriver.  It is good for keeping young kids out, and that's about it.

I am fine for harsher penalties for gun owners who do not take reasonable steps to secure their weapons.  I am against strict liability criminal offenses against those who took reasonable steps to secure their weapons.

Actually, not true.  That was my exact gun safe 15 years ago.  A burglar broke in to our house, and went at it with a crowbar, obviously for quite some time and from different angles. He was able to bend parts of the door, but the door as a whole and the locks held rock-steady.

I have a better safe now, but that one DOES work.

[BabaYaga 15304]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

I have no idea.  That type of safe can be popped open pretty easily with a screwdriver.  It is good for keeping young kids out, and that's about it.

I am fine for harsher penalties for gun owners who do not take reasonable steps to secure their weapons.  I am against strict liability criminal offenses against those who took reasonable steps to secure their weapons.

That's because it's not a "safe" at all.  It's an RSC (residential security container), also known as a gun locker.  Easily opened with a screw driver or pry bar if you know what you are doing (where to pop the locks).  Zero fire rating.  Good for keeping toddlers and infants away.  They are made from thin sheet-metal and lined with drywall (gives them some weight, and the appearance of security).

So how do you enforce this exactly?  What are "reasonable steps"?  Certainly not this.  A chain lock?  A bolt lock?  A $50 Dremel from Lowes defeats those.  Some of these shooters planned this out for 6+ months.  They had smoke grenades.  Gas masks.  IED's.  You think this is a deterrent?

Do you then require every gun owner to also own a Class 350 rated gun safe?  If you live in a condo or townhouse, your may not even be allowed to own such a heavy safe (HOA).  So now you must decide between breaking the law and defending your family, or finding a completely new place to live?

[Lurch 5931]

I would support a law where the gun owner is held responsible for a minor in their custody under 18 stealing their weapon and using it in a mass shooting. 

I agree, I think it would make the parents talk to their kids a little more and it would make them take their gun security more seriously. Unfortunately, this is actually a "common sense" regulation but it would never get any traction with the liberal lawmaking wing because they would overreach which puts a full stop to constructive policy discussion.

I have no idea.  That type of safe can be popped open pretty easily with a screwdriver.  It is good for keeping young kids out, and that's about it.
I am fine for harsher penalties for gun owners who do not take reasonable steps to secure their weapons.  I am against strict liability criminal offenses against those who took reasonable steps to secure their weapons.

[Brisketexan 105198]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

That's because it's not a "safe" at all.  It's an RSC (residential security container), also known as a gun locker.  Easily opened with a screw driver or pry bar if you know what you are doing (where to pop the locks).  Zero fire rating.  Good for keeping toddlers and infants away.  They are made from thin sheet-metal and lined with drywall (gives them some weight, and the appearance of security).

So how do you enforce this exactly?  What are "reasonable steps"?  Certainly not this.  A chain lock?  A bolt lock?  A $50 Dremel from Lowes defeats those.  Some of these shooters planned this out for 6+ months.  They had smoke grenades.  Gas masks.  IED's.  You think this is a deterrent?

Do you then require every gun owner to also own a Class 350 rated gun safe?  If you live in a condo or townhouse, your may not even be allowed to own such a heavy safe (HOA).  So now you must decide between breaking the law and defending your family, or finding a completely new place to live?

Again, using the argument of "if we can't make it IMPOSSIBLE, we shouldn't do ANYTHING."

Deadbolts on doors and locked windows don't stop ALL burglars....but they stop a lot of them.  Seatbelts and airbags don't save ALL lives....but they save a lot of them.

Trigger locks and/or moderate/decent gunsafes wouldn't stop ALL kids who want to use dad's gun, but they will stop many of them.

Perfection is not an attainable goal.  With respect to ANY law or regulation.  But reduction of the bad act IS attainable.

I'm here to tell you that even that shitty gunsafe stopped a burglar in my house.  My better gun safe today was not too expensive, and isn't too heavy, but it would stop anyone but the most determined, who had the time and tools to do a hard break in.

[BabaYaga 15304]

That’s not even remotely true.  Nor is anyone suggesting doing nothing.  But if you are going to go down the path of forcing gun owners to enact “reasonable” steps, I want to know what those are?

This is also conflating two different arguments.  Stopping general crime, and then these very specific repeating school shootings (and the name of this thread).  Sure, a gun locker will help against a snatch/grab home break-in with a criminal that probably doesn’t know how to simply bend back the edges and pop the locks with a screwdriver.  Someone taking months and months of careful planning – how again is this a deterrent?  These lunatics are making IED’s, but a sheet-metal gun locker throws off their plans?  They can acquire illegal smoke grenades, but can’t slip the key off daddy’s keys when he’s sleeping or in the shower?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Reasonable to me would be locked up in a safe or some sort of locking wall mount.  Or with a trigger lock.  I would support a law requiring such precautions if minors live in the home.  

[Brisketexan 105198]

4 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

That’s not even remotely true.  Nor is anyone suggesting doing nothing.  But if you are going to go down the path of forcing gun owners to enact “reasonable” steps, I want to know what those are?

This is also conflating two different arguments.  Stopping general crime, and then these very specific repeating school shootings (and the name of this thread).  Sure, a gun locker will help against a snatch/grab home break-in with a criminal that probably doesn’t know how to simply bend back the edges and pop the locks with a screwdriver.  Someone taking months and months of careful planning – how again is this a deterrent?  These lunatics are making IED’s, but a sheet-metal gun locker throws off their plans?  They can acquire illegal smoke grenades, but can’t slip the key off daddy’s keys when he’s sleeping or in the shower?

Gun safes will stop more than a snatch-and-grab.  Again, my current gun safe is better than the previous one, but it's not a super-duper 1000 lb firesafe.  It's still going to stop most all comers, even a determined one.

And, you overstate the skill of these guys.  Yeah, some MADE IEDs....but they didn't make FUNCTIONAL IEDs.  We're still talking about kids here, not Liam Neeson in Taken.

I believe that a DECENT gun safe and/or trigger locks will prevent many of these kids from getting their parent's guns.  Those are REASONABLE measures.

If the kid is Liam Neeson, and the world's best burglar and toolman, then it's not going to be enough.  But perfection isn't the benchmark here.  Preventing those events that can reasonably be prevented is.

[Brisketexan 105198]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Reasonable to me would be locked up in a safe or some sort of locking wall mount.  Or with a trigger lock.  I would support a law requiring such precautions if minors live in the home.  

This.  I don't think we have to over-engineer this.

[Chuckie Finster 22716]

10 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

That’s not even remotely true.  Nor is anyone suggesting doing nothing.  But if you are going to go down the path of forcing gun owners to enact “reasonable” steps, I want to know what those are?

This is also conflating two different arguments.  Stopping general crime, and then these very specific repeating school shootings (and the name of this thread).  Sure, a gun locker will help against a snatch/grab home break-in with a criminal that probably doesn’t know how to simply bend back the edges and pop the locks with a screwdriver.  Someone taking months and months of careful planning – how again is this a deterrent?  These lunatics are making IED’s, but a sheet-metal gun locker throws off their plans?  They can acquire illegal smoke grenades, but can’t slip the key off daddy’s keys when he’s sleeping or in the shower?

It's impossible to define "reasonable," that's why my stance does not rely on that at all.  If a person wants to buy a gun, he's responsible for any crimes committed with that gun.  Period.  The owner now gets to decide how to prevent these.  If he thinks educating his family on the dangers of gun use is the way to go, have at it.  If he wants to buy the biggest, baddest safe on the market, feel free.  If his idea of safety is setting it on his nightstand, so be it.  Bear arms, just fucking keep track of them.  

I could drop thousands of dollars trying to train a pit bull, but if it mauls a little kid I don't get off of the hook because I took "reasonable" steps to control him.

Edited May 24, 2018 by Chuckie Finster

[jimmyjazz 46032]

This is really advancing the discussion:

 

[jimmyjazz 46032]

27 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

It's impossible to define "reasonable,"

Note how twisted around the axle we've become over the phrase "well-regulated".

[BabaYaga 15304]

37 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

It's impossible to define "reasonable," that's why my stance does not rely on that at all.  If a person wants to buy a gun, he's responsible for any crimes committed with that gun.  Period.  The owner now gets to decide how to prevent these.  If he thinks educating his family on the dangers of gun use is the way to go, have at it.  If he wants to buy the biggest, baddest safe on the market, feel free.  If his idea of safety is setting it on his nightstand, so be it.  Bear arms, just fucking keep track of them.  

I could drop thousands of dollars trying to train a pit bull, but if it mauls a little kid I don't get off of the hook because I took "reasonable" steps to control him.

The point is less the skill of the assailant (big distinction between getting into a sheet-metal gun safe and an IED), and more to the level of premeditation and planning that we are seeing.  These are not crimes of passion.  These are planned assassinations on a grand scale.  This time the IED’s failed.  Next time?  Now what?  Pipe bombs are not hard to make (don’t ask me how I know this…)

And my fear is this line of reasoning falls in the decision making process of having to do “something”, regardless of whether that something will actually work or not?  I want to know how a kid can take the time to learn and assemble IED’s (and even overseas, in combat zones, many fail to detonate, so this by itself is nothing to dismiss) will be deterred by a key-lock? 

This is taking a very broad approach to what is becoming a very limited and defined occurrence.  I also don’t disagree with this as part of the conversation (though I fail to see how it can be effectively enforced unless you go with a zero tolerance policy - that I fail to see will gain any traction).  But I can also see this not holding up very long.

If someone steals your car and plows into a dozen people – is the owner liable then also?

If someone steals your laptop, downloads a virus that causes multiple pedestrian deaths – is that owner liable?

If you really wanted to get buy-in from the right, every discussion would also involve hardening the targets.  Removing these idiotic gun-free zones.  Looking at viable security measures such as armed guards, etc.  How is this not a part of the discussion?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

47 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

It's impossible to define "reasonable," that's why my stance does not rely on that at all.  If a person wants to buy a gun, he's responsible for any crimes committed with that gun.  Period.  The owner now gets to decide how to prevent these.  If he thinks educating his family on the dangers of gun use is the way to go, have at it.  If he wants to buy the biggest, baddest safe on the market, feel free.  If his idea of safety is setting it on his nightstand, so be it.  Bear arms, just fucking keep track of them.  

I could drop thousands of dollars trying to train a pit bull, but if it mauls a little kid I don't get off of the hook because I took "reasonable" steps to control him.

So strict liability?

Would you be okay with the same standard if someone takes your car and injures/kills someone with it.

Edited May 24, 2018 by Johnny Sack

[jimmyjazz 46032]

How many car thieves are trying to subsequently injure or kill someone?

A gun has one purpose:  to inflict harm.  If you cannot keep it secure, you deserve to share the blame when it is used in that manner, even if you didn't pull the trigger.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

27 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

This is really advancing the discussion:

 

I always say, when you hear the phrase “this is what they really think”, brace yourself for some turbocharged stupidity.  

[Chuckie Finster 22716]

14 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

So strict liability?

Would you be okay with the same standard if someone takes your car and injures/kills someone with it.

A car's purpose is to transport.  A gun's purpose is to shoot.  Equating the two is going out of your way to try and complicate a solvable issue. 

edit: jimmyjazz beat me to it

Edited May 24, 2018 by Chuckie Finster

[tantric superman 4667]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I honestly don't know how you could argue persuasively that someones right to bear arms wouldn't be infringed if you were to hold them strictly liable for any crimes related to that firearm.  The strictly liable standard clearly infringes upon your right to keep and bear arms because you are surrendering your due process rights in regard to ANY crimes committed related to that firearm. 

 

 

 

 

[tantric superman 4667]

It doesn't matter what a gun's purpose is, or what a speech's purpose is, or what the purpose of the Muslim faith is.

What matters is that are protected liberty interests. 

Edited May 24, 2018 by tantric superman

[Lurch 5931]

I agree, I think it would make the parents talk to their kids a little more and it would make them take their gun security more seriously. Unfortunately, this is actually a "common sense" regulation but it would never get any traction with the liberal lawmaking wing because they would overreach which puts a full stop to constructive policy discussion.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I honestly don't know how you could argue persuasively that someones right to bear arms wouldn't be infringed if you were to hold them strictly liable for any crimes related to that firearm.  The strictly liable standard clearly infringes upon your right to keep and bear arms because you are surrendering your due process rights in regard to ANY crimes committed related to that firearm. 
 

The gift that keeps on giving

[tantric superman 4667]

Disappointed lurch.

You seem to work better when there are pictures.

[atomheartbevo 89774]

2 hours ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

I think it is a problem on both sides. The left wants gun control at a pretty serious level, the right wont concede an inch because they feel it is a slippery slope to a gun ban, so the left pushes harder and more to the extreme, causing the right to lock up even more... you see the pattern. We dont have level headed adults at the highest level, the vocal minorities are the loudest on each side, which prevents policy discussion from occurring with the 70% of Americans that arent party extremists. 

Not all on the left want "gun control at a pretty serious level", but the left has already given us the Assault Weapons Ban, and there is no reason to think they won't match or equal that if given the chance, with no sunset provisions.  The AWB held up pretty well in the courts.

Because the right won't give an inch, the left is going to have the moral high ground every time there is another shooting, and the right won't have a seat at the table when we reach the tipping point (within 5 years).  I think, as I said, this is partly by design - the NRA will reap tremendous financial rewards if we get something approaching another AWB.

And Trump is no protector of gun owners.  He's not a gun enthusiast, he's already said he's cool with cops taking your firearms without due process, and while he may occasionally let NRA members slob his knob, he very clearly favors cops and firefighters, based on what he posts on twitter and what he uses as his twitter banners.

[Lurch 5931]

Disappointed lurch. You seem to work better when there are pictures.

 

I’m told the evil left is the problem with implementing a common sense solution here. Please let us know when you guys work out an answer amongst yourselves.

 

And now some pictures.

[tantric superman 4667]

12 minutes ago, Lurch said:

I’m told the evil left is the problem with implementing a common sense solution here.

Poor you.  I can see how that gives you license to be a bit bitchy.

[Lurch 5931]

You must be new here.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13517]

I thought the Lanza guy had access to the guns and didn't require breaking into a safe to get to them.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

29 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Not all on the left want "gun control at a pretty serious level", but the left has already given us the Assault Weapons Ban, and there is no reason to think they won't match or equal that if given the chance, with no sunset provisions.  The AWB held up pretty well in the courts.

Because the right won't give an inch, the left is going to have the moral high ground every time there is another shooting, and the right won't have a seat at the table when we reach the tipping point (within 5 years).  I think, as I said, this is partly by design - the NRA will reap tremendous financial rewards if we get something approaching another AWB.

And Trump is no protector of gun owners.  He's not a gun enthusiast, he's already said he's cool with cops taking your firearms without due process, and while he may occasionally let NRA members slob his knob, he very clearly favors cops and firefighters, based on what he posts on twitter and what he uses as his twitter banners.

Also, there are currently jurisdictions in the US where assault weapons are currently banned and several cases have ruled it constitutional although the SC has seen to reason to take up the issue. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/02/22/does-the-second-amendment-really-protect-assault-weapons-four-courts-have-said-no/

[JBJ 3664]

3 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I could drop thousands of dollars trying to train a pit bull, but if it mauls a little kid I don't get off of the hook because I took "reasonable" steps to control him.

Yes, you actually do.

Edited May 24, 2018 by JBJ
Quote too long

[BabaYaga 15304]

59 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Because the right won't give an inch,

That's because the right has given, and given, and given again.  Time after time.  Year after year.  And each time it's not enough. 

[Lurch 5931]

I mean, we used to have people walking around with missile launchers strapped to their backs, but the flexible right gave in as always and here we are again, asking for MORE!

 

[jimmyjazz 46032]

20 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

That's because the right has given, and given, and given again.  Time after time.  Year after year.  And each time it's not enough. 

LOL wut?

[Dirk X West 772]

17 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

LOL wut?

You know, all those times...Obama and all.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

How many car thieves are trying to subsequently injure or kill someone?

A gun has one purpose:  to inflict harm.  If you cannot keep it secure, you deserve to share the blame when it is used in that manner, even if you didn't pull the trigger.

How many gun thieves are trying to subsequently injure or kill someone?  Most steal them and sell them.

[HtownHorn 14760]

4 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Reasonable to me would be locked up in a safe or some sort of locking wall mount.  Or with a trigger lock.  I would support a law requiring such precautions if minors live in the home.  

Yep.

[Stringer 1439]

Wait.  So there are conservatives in here who want the government to regulate what you do in your own home?  Am I reading that right?

[Buzzrock 14936]

again, we have a problem with mentally unstable people having much to easy access to guns. thems the words. stick to that. 
we need measures to:
- make gun ownership more of a responsibility
- make mental health a national crisis (IMO it is)
talking about the 2nd amendment is hot air, regardless of what side your hot air comes from.
if the first above treads on your liberty then so be it. your calcs are wrong and IMO you are failing to account for the mental anguish and anxiety this problem is causing all of our society
 

You’re a recent parent right? Don’t worry. You fret about them less as you have more of them.

We really need to have that happy hour.

[Buzzrock 14936]

I have no idea.  That type of safe can be popped open pretty easily with a screwdriver.  It is good for keeping young kids out, and that's about it.
I am fine for harsher penalties for gun owners who do not take reasonable steps to secure their weapons.  I am against strict liability criminal offenses against those who took reasonable steps to secure their weapons.

So you keep a pistol in your car for self defense. You need to go to the post office, which by federal law doesn’t allow guns. You lock it in your glove box and go in to renew your passport or whatever.

While you’re in there, someone breaks into your car, pops your glove box, and steals your pistol. They then walk in the post office and kill ten people.

Is it your fault?

[Buzzrock 14936]

Again, using the argument of "if we can't make it IMPOSSIBLE, we shouldn't do ANYTHING."
Deadbolts on doors and locked windows don't stop ALL burglars....but they stop a lot of them.  Seatbelts and airbags don't save ALL lives....but they save a lot of them.
Trigger locks and/or moderate/decent gunsafes wouldn't stop ALL kids who want to use dad's gun, but they will stop many of them.
Perfection is not an attainable goal.  With respect to ANY law or regulation.  But reduction of the bad act IS attainable.
I'm here to tell you that even that shitty gunsafe stopped a burglar in my house.  My better gun safe today was not too expensive, and isn't too heavy, but it would stop anyone but the most determined, who had the time and tools to do a hard break in.

I don’t think I’ve seen you weigh in on securing schools. In light of this post: what say you?

[Lurch 5931]

Wait.  So there are conservatives in here who want the government to regulate what you do in your own home?  Am I reading that right?

Only in your bedroom, gun rack and womb.

[Buzzrock 14936]

Only in your bedroom, gun rack and womb.

And when you can buy beer.

Go find a poker game. You’ll be happier.

[Lurch 5931]

And when you can buy beer.

Go find a poker game. You’ll be happier.

As we speak. Floridians got this one right

[atomheartbevo 89774]

32 minutes ago, Stringer said:

Wait.  So there are conservatives in here who want the government to regulate what you do in your own home?  Am I reading that right?

We have plenty of laws that govern what we do in our own homes.  We're only 15 years removed from the state of Texas arguing in front of the Supreme Court that two dudes should not be able to bang each other in the privacy of their own home.

People with dangerous dogs get in legal trouble all the time when said dogs get out and maim/maul/kill.

Felons can easily find themselves prosecuted when a legal gun owner gives them unsecured access to a firearm (and said legal gun owner can be prosecuted).  Doesn't matter if the felon uses the gun or not, all it takes is for somebody to leave a gun in the open in a home with a felon, and if the cops somehow get wind of it, they're in trouble.

We prosecute people all the time for not being responsible in and around their homes.

We have to have the conversation about kids having unsupervised access to firearms.

If we don't, the alternative is gun control laws that make the AWB look like it was about BB guns.