0

With gun ownership comes responsibility

Editorial

On the surface, it seems absurd that the Albany Police Department would even have to ask residents to lock their cars, particularly when there are handguns in the vehicles.

But police found a need to do that after a string of entering-autos this past weekend resulted in guns and ammunition being stolen from at least three vehicles.

That means that today, largely because of the negligence of the owners, three more guns are in the hands of criminals.

Whether these weapons will be used in the commission of a crime is something we can’t know yet, but the recent spate of gun violence that has left two people dead and others shot at is an indication of what can happen when guns get into the wrong hands.

Owning a firearm is a constitutional right in the United States, one every bit as important as freedom of speech and freedom from a state-sponsored religion. But ownership of a gun — whether it’s a handgun, shotgun or one of the “assault-style” rifles that are fueling debate in Washington — also is a responsibility.

Gun owners are responsible for taking basic precautions to prevent their self-defense or sporting weapons from falling into the hands of criminals who would use them to do harm to others. Arming criminals, in fact, defeats the entire purpose of self-defense.

Gun owners, as a rule, take this responsibility seriously. But a few, at least, obviously are not, or else these weapons would not have so easily been added to the arsenals of criminals. Leaving an auto unlocked with a weapon inside is inexcusable.

Gun ownership is a right, but the gun owner also must live up to the responsibility that comes with exercising that right. The last thing a gun owner should want is to know that his or her carelessness contributed to an injury or — even worse — death.

Comments

Sherwood_Eagle_Alum 1 year ago

Who needs gun control? We know how to handle our weapons now!

0

USTPC 1 year ago

Again Sherwood? There are 80 million gun owners in this country. 99.9% of them are responsible and take care of their guns and ammo taking the precaution of locking them up. Yet you think that based on the .1% that don't, then the rights of the other 99.9% should be impacted. The same logic you use when talking about limiting clip or magazine size or banning the AR15 which is not any more deadly than a .223 hunting rifle just looks scary.

You continue to ignore the fact that gun control has no impact on criminals or their activity only on the law abiding citizen. The same as gun free zones only impact law abiding citizens and actually present an easy target for the criminals who want to easily kill a lot of people.

I agree with the article...with gun ownership comes responsibility. If you carry a gun do it concealed. If you have to leave it in your vehicle at the very least lock said vehicle and hide the gun so it cannot be seen from the window. But more gun control that limits a law abiding citizens is not the answer.

0

Sherwood_Eagle_Alum 1 year ago

Do you know what gun control means? Do you know what my views are on gun control for weapons with small capacity clips? My guess for the first is, "No" and I know your answer for the second is a "No".

gun control n. Regulation of the sale and use of rifles and handguns.

0

Jacob 1 year ago

You seem capable of researching issues. If you have not done so already, look into how the current gun laws are being enforced. The data is easily obtainable. It is clear that enforcement of current firearms laws is nearly non- existent. What would be the benefit of writing even more laws if no one cares enough to enforce them?

0

Sherwood_Eagle_Alum 1 year ago

How about we just throw away all gun laws, since they aren't enforced. Lets have a survival of the fittest society. It'll be fun!

0

Jacob 1 year ago

How about we enforce the ones on the books instead? I have a feeling that you wouldn't fare well under your proposed system.

0

Sherwood_Eagle_Alum 1 year ago

I would just hire someone to take care of the dirty work.

0

Jacob 1 year ago

I have looked at your books at your company. You can't really afford that.

0

Sherwood_Eagle_Alum 1 year ago

We can't put our collective heads in the sand and hope that things get better in regards to gun-related crime.

I don't think that the government should take away all guns out there or stop selling them all or stop selling all ammo. Stop assuming that anytime someone says "gun control" that you know what their beliefs are on the subject. That term is very vague.

0

Jax 1 year ago

How do you propose handling the black market gun trade? It's the illegal possession that is the main problem.

1

Sherwood_Eagle_Alum 1 year ago

I don't claim to have all the answers. Doing nothing and expecting things to get better is asinine in my opinion.

I can tell you that arming very citizen with an AR15 to defend themselves is just as foolish as trying to take away everyone's guns.

0

USTPC 1 year ago

I know exactly what gun control is....it is prohibiting or limiting a person from owning certain guns, magazines, clips, etc. or prohibiting or limiting the production of certain guns, magazines, clips, etc. or prohibiting or limiting the type of ammunition a person can use.

I also know your views about handguns and magazine capacities based on prior postings. You are okay with owning a handgun as long as the capacity of said gun is 10 rounds or less because you think that no one in defense of their life should ever need more.

I on the other hand believe that there are already enough laws on the books prohibiting certain individuals from owning guns (felons) and that the background checks in place are sufficient IF they were ever followed up on. There are also already penalties for using a gun in a crime (murder, theft, etc), for lying on a background check, for being a straw purchaser for someone not allowed to buy a gun, etc. These need to be enforced not more added.

Prohibiting my ability to purchase the weapon of my choice or prohibiting or limiting the size magazine or clip that I can have will not result in less gun deaths nor would it have stopped the Newton tragedy. Even Biden and Obama have admitted that. However it does impact my individual freedom.

Expanding background checks I could live with if they have a hard definition of what mentally unstable is. The current version is open to interpretation as to what qualifies as "mentally unstable" to the point that the simple use of anti-depressants could result in a person not being able to own a gun therefore I am against it until it is less subjective.

I am against having gun free zones because they do not work. However, gun free zones do provide victims for the criminal or mentally unstable who want to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. I do not understand how gun control advocates can continue to want gun free zones when they absolutely do not work.

Enforce the laws we have and leave law abiding citizens alone and quit trying to impact their individual freedoms.

1

B4it 1 year ago

Excellent data USTPC. I doubt if the gun control advocates will understand this logical info and reasoning. To put it another way for comparative reasoning, gun control advocates want to ban assault type weapons and clips holding more than 10 rounds of ammo. If the non-alcoholic beverage drinkers were to advocate banning buying more than 2 beers at a time, and also ban buying any packaging of beer with more than 2 beers in it, how do you think these gun banning advocates would respond?

Afterall, the irresponsible beers on the road (actually the drunks for clarification to these dumb masses) have killed many more innocent people than those irresponsible guns and ammo clips. THINK about it.

0

Sherwood_Eagle_Alum 1 year ago

Please read post above about assuming what someone means when they say "gun control". Your assistance is much appreciated.

0

DRTexas 1 year ago

Dumb Masses. I love it.

0

waltspecht 1 year ago

You want to hear something funny. Now some crooks have a gun safe in their vehicle. They keep their gun hidden from sight and are worried about someone stealing a stashed gun. Heck they can't even report the theft. So why do people continue to not lock their cars? Why do they not have simple gun safes that cost about $150 and are very effective? Why don't they just keep the piece on their person and carry it into the house? I know people shouldn't be opening cars and stealing things, but unfortunately that is a fact of life in this society.

1

Sherwood_Eagle_Alum 1 year ago

It is 100% unacceptable to leave a weapon in an unlocked car. Whether you are at home or away from home, you should not leave a weapon (loaded or not) easily accessible to someone else.

I'm not a fan of having a weapon in your car, period, but anyways...

0

B4it 1 year ago

S_E_A : I agree with not leaving a gun in a car or any other place for easy access for criminals. However, as for the gun control advocates, what they advocate is for everyone to agree with their restrictive views, even though they have little respect for the views of law abiding gun owners.

So where do you stand on restricting the selling of more than 2 beers and restricting packaging of no more than 2 beers to any purchaser (compared to restricting assault type weapons and ammo clips)?

This example is a little tongue in cheek on purpose. But the point is the same. The beers have no more fault in killing innocent people than the specific guns and ammo clips that are being targeted to be banned. The fault in both cases are with the irresponsible people who have no respect for human life using these devices. Do you see the irony?

0

Sherwood_Eagle_Alum 1 year ago

We have laws in place to lessen the deaths from driving under the influence. What is wrong with having laws to lessen the deaths from gun violence?

I assume you are okay with it being illegal to drink and drink. The alcohol the person consumed didn't kill anyone, the person driving the vehicle did. Why is it any different for guns?

Again, I am not advocating banning all weapons from all people, but we have to do something more to prevent irresponsible and unfit potential gun owners from obtaining weapons.

0

B4it 1 year ago

You are almost getting it S_E_A!!! You said "The alcohol the person consumed didn't kill anyone, the person driving the vehicle did. Why is it any different for guns?"

Guns do not kill people either. It is the mentally impaired person behind the gun pulling the trigger. We also already have laws for criminals killing someone with any type of gun.

Even though we have laws for DUI, there are no unreasonable calls from Congress to restrict the number of beers that someone can buy, even though many more people are killed by drunk drivers. Therefore to fully understand the point, there should also not be any unreasonable restrictions on the type of gun or ammo clip limits.

Restricting access to guns for the mentally impaired and "unfit" should be the focus, not the amount of ammo in a clip.

1

Sherwood_Eagle_Alum 1 year ago

I fear my post went over your head, bait. I know that a weapon is an inanimate object; it requires a person to make a conscious decision to load it and pull the trigger (usually).

Just because something is harmless by itself doesn't mean we leave it alone unregulated. We regulate the sale and consumption of alcohol and tobacco pretty stringently for the benefit of the masses. Why not do the same for a weapon?

I agree with your last statement up until the, "not the amount of ammo in a clip" part.

0

B4it 1 year ago

What a disappointment. You were almost there S_E_A, but you FAILED to make the connection.

By your illogical reasoning, we should regulate everything including knives, bricks, candles, bats, lead pipes, ropes, etc, etc, etc., anything that by itself could be harmless, yet we should not "leave it alone unregulated." Do you even THINK about what you are writing and proposing?

By the way, in relation to your post, nothing went over my head.

0

Sherwood_Eagle_Alum 1 year ago

So we shouldn't regulate things which are dangerous to the masses? We should deregulate automobiles, weapons, alcohol, tobacco...etc? Survival of the fittest?

A weapon is made to kill things. If there was no threat of death, then it wouldn't be a deterrent. You don't want everyone having WMDs do you? I don't want everyone having a military style weapon (AR-15 style).

By the way, unless you were intentionally not trying to understand my point, then it went over your head, b4it.

0

USTPC 1 year ago

To add to your point B4it....an estimated 34,000 deaths per year occur as the result of vehicle accidents. Some cause by drunk drivers, some by sleepy drivers, some by careless drivers.

Address the drunk drivers first....install a breathalyzer in every car and if anyone gets in the car and has been drinking the car will not start.

As for the rest....Fatalities occur at high rates of speed. So why do we not require that car owners get a device installed on their vehicle that will not allow the vehicle to go faster than 45 MPH. The lower speed means less fatalities. Also, car manufacturers can no longer produce a car that can exceed 45 MPH.

It is all about saving innocent lives even at the expense of individual freedoms, right?

1

Sherwood_Eagle_Alum 1 year ago

There is no correlation between speed and accidents the last time I checked.

I would be fine with a manufacturer installed breathalyzer to start up a vehicle. Certain people already have to have these installed already.

0

DRTexas 1 year ago

Just admit defeat. Your argument holds no mo water.

0

Sherwood_Eagle_Alum 1 year ago

If you want to dance all you have to do is ask, doc.

0

USTPC 1 year ago

There is a correlation.

"O'Day and Flora (1982) and Joksch (1993) found that the risk of a car driver being killed in a crash increased with increases in speed"

"In 1974, Congress established the NMSL of 55 mph – mainly implemented to conserve fuel – traffic fatalities declined 16 percent, from 54,052 in 1973 to 45,196 in 1974"

"while the precise number of lives saved is unknown, an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 lives were saved by the NMSL from 1974-1978"

"Higher and lower than average speeds don’t have equal consequences; as crash speeds increase, so does crash severity"

This all came from a study on the NHTSA website. There is more statistics if you care to look at the entire article.

www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/enforce/speed_forum.../ferguson.pdf

0

Jacob 1 year ago

"There is no correlation between speed and accidents the last time I checked"

I will thank you on sherywood's behalf. LOL

0

Sherwood_Eagle_Alum 1 year ago

Accidents and deaths are different. :)

0

Jacob 1 year ago

Even in the protected environment in which you were "educated", you got thumped in the back of the ears a lot, didn't you?

0

Sherwood_Eagle_Alum 1 year ago

Are we going to play this childish game of, "last person to talk, wins"?

0

RedEric 1 year ago

Liberals love to tell other people what to do. Conservatives just want to be left alone. I grew up in a small northern town where attitude adjustment was common. Mostly young males who did not get sufficient instruction at home. (All white by the way) this is no longer possible due to the "RIGHTS" bestowed on everyone by insistence of the liberals. I am astonished at how many people do not understand Cause and Effect.

0

USTPC 1 year ago

So true RedEric. A Liberal does not like guns he/she want to legislate that no one can have a gun. Conservative does not like guns he/she simply does not buy one.

0

WTFwtf 1 year ago

Beware anyone who (frequently sherwoody) pulls the ol dictionary definition defense. Soooo lame. Come up with an original thought for once yer parents didnt instill in u. The recent legislation aint gonna pass the politicos have moved on to the next flavor

0

Sherwood_Eagle_Alum 1 year ago

Do you know what a dictionary is?

dic·tion·ar·y
/ˈdikSHəˌnerē/ Noun A book that lists the words of a language in alphabetical order and gives their meaning. A reference book on any subject, the items of which are arranged in alphabetical order.

Synonyms lexicon - vocabulary - wordbook - thesaurus - glossary

0

FryarTuk 1 year ago

Universal background checks. Restrict assault weapons. Has nothing to do with Second Amendment and right to own firearms. The overwhelming majority of Americans approve it knowing it is sane and responsible course of action. It will happen.

0

USTPC 1 year ago

The overwhelming majority of Americans DO NOT approve it. The numbers they are using to support that were pulled out of thin air and a poll conducted in three states- Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Connecticut - and the last time I checked they do not represent all Americans.

Actually the restriction they want to place on scary looking hunting rifles is an infringement on my right to bear arms which is a violation of the constitution.

0

FryarTuk 1 year ago

Actually the overwhelming majority of the United States Citizens do support background checks and restrictions on terroristic weaponry. Eventually this will work through and be approved. It is always hard for light to shine through but it will happen. Because of the intransigence and ignorance of the trogs many people will suffer before the effectiveness of the policies are fulfilled but that is the price of democratic process. Look how long it took for slavery to end and fools at C-PAC are yet extolling its virtues. It will happen. Light will eventually shine through the darkness.

0

USTPC 1 year ago

We already have a requirement for background checks so saying the majority support that means nothing. As a matter of fact I support background checks as long as they do not tie to my medical care.

As far as support on "terroristic weaponry" I can only assume you mean bombs seeing as that is their primary weapon of choice. I know you cannot mean AR15 and 30 round magazines/clips because those are not "terroristic weaponry".

As far as the support for banning the scary looking hunting rifles (you know, the AR15's and such) and the 30 round magazines/clips, the majority of Americans do not support a ban. That is because anyone with any common sense knows that a ban on those weapons will do nothing to prevent the next shooting spree.

But as we see in the news everyday, common sense and logic are both lacking in a large portion of our society.

0

RedEric 1 year ago

Liberals hate facts. Here are the facts for your liberal friends USTPC, if you have any. The AR15 was available for sale to the public for two years before the military adopted the M16. I.E. the 15 predates the 16 so therefore the AR15 is not a military styled weapon.

0

alleebrin 1 year ago

But don't you all know, you can't fix stupid??

0

Sherwood_Eagle_Alum 1 year ago

You're right! How do we stop these idiots from leaving a weapon in an unlocked car?!

0

Jacob 1 year ago

"Actually the overwhelming majority of the United States Citizens do support background checks and restrictions on terroristic weaponry"

LOL. Terroristic weaponry. You're a hoot! Please cite the poll where restrictions on terroristic weaponry was used in the questionaire.

0

TheBoss 1 year ago

I have to agree to a background check to work at MCLB. This dosen't effect my rights. It puts food on the table.

0

LoneCycler 1 year ago

Colorado has passed laws to ban the sale of magazines with greater than 30 round capacities. Magpul Inc., a large manufacturer of said "terroristic weapons," has promised to relocate their manufacturing facility to another State if this happened. The Albany-Dougherty Economic Development Commission should get that Job Investment Fund problem sorted out tomorrow and have somebody give Magpul Inc. a call and tell them about the vacant facilities we have in Albany.

0

Jacob 1 year ago

there is no such thing, legally, as a "terroristic weapon". That is a made up term of a delusional, effete poster on this cite, but I get your point. This area would be fortunate beyond belief to land such a wonderful company, though.

0

FryarTuk 1 year ago

Beat your chest all you please. The truth is the louder you bleat about the terroristic weaponry and loose background check the more you frighten the American public to disdain gun ownership. By the way are you familiar with the declining statistics of gun ownership in the USA? You should be because it is changing rather rapidly. The light of reason will shine through eventually. Let's hope the hyper-defensiveness hasn't damaged second amendment rights so badly that the public is indifferent to it as well as responsible gun ownership/use. Keep on braying.

0

Jacob 1 year ago

The more you use that silly, made up term, the less credibility you have. To correct you, though, I never voiced an opinion either way regarding background checks, which I strongly support, by the way. As to your declining gun ownership stats, perhaps gun owners are simply not comfortable reporting same, considering the sky is falling, fearmongering, uninformed, panicked sheep who believe everything the left wing government feeds them.

0

FryarTuk 1 year ago

Jacob: "To correct you, though, I never voiced an opinion blah blah blah "

You are being presumptuous. My comments were not addressed to you. As far as quibbling about legal definitions, you do not seem to understand they are rather fluid and for the sake of any legislation are specified at the time a law is written. The American public certainly understand the terms. So, I'm off to participate in capitalism.

0

B4it 1 year ago

Sorry Fryar -- I am sure the one coomenting on your inappropriate term did not mean to "frighten" you with the facts. As for your statement about declining gun ownership, where in the world did you come of with that false information. I guess from your perspective, the lack of ammo in various stores and from online vendors reflects a lack of demand, therefore the ownership is declining. aaaaaaiiiiiinnnnnntt = Wrong answer, try again. Please do no be frightened by these facts.

0

FryarTuk 1 year ago

Date of note is March 11, 2013: "The 40-year decrease was found in the General Social Survey (GSS), a research initiative that is conducted every two years in an effort to study and gauge basic trends among the American populace (NORC, a research organization at the University of Chicago, is responsible for implementing the survey). The latest results found a downward trend in gun ownership since the late 1970s.

In was in the 1970s that 50 percent of the population, on average, reported having a gun in their household. This proportion dropped to 49 percent in the 1980s. But by the 1990s, it fell more dramatically to 43 percent, dipping even lower to 35 percent in the 2000s, the Times reports. In 2012, the rate was 34 percent, showcasing a steep decline when looking back just a few decades."

There is a more in depth article in NYT. You can go on NYT website and research if you like. The problem is that the louder you scream your irrational blather the more the general public is alarmed so that the end result will be as the Brits say about soccer, " you make your own goal." I believe stongly in the 2nd amendment but not in allowing terroristic armaments. You may have trouble understanding the difference but apparently the american public does not.

0

USTPC 1 year ago

Do you think that the reported decline is really a change in desire of Americans to own guns? I would say that it has more to do with the fact that our children are being indoctrinated into believing guns are bad and that only the government should have guns and also a lot to do with the laws that they pass restricting our constitutional right to bear arms. I agree with Jacob and would bet that the report is not accurate because a large percentage of gun owners answer no when asked if they own a gun. Nobody's business but theirs.

0

FryarTuk 1 year ago

Well, of course, you can dismiss the research. It is very strong and objective and it has no axe to grind. I think we should take it seriously.

0

USTPC 1 year ago

Fryer, I am somewhat surprised on your view about gun control. Wasn't it you who was pushing to vote Ron Paul in as president last year? The same Ron Paul who is for limited government and constitutional rights?

0

FryarTuk 1 year ago

USTPC, yes. I was and am a Ron Paul supporter. We (on this thread) are not talking about gun control we are essentially addressing background checks and weapons of terror which do not impact the second amendment. It may be that Paul has a different opinion on the issue but he is not a single issue politician.

0

Sign in to comment