This is the biggest LDO moment of the day.

Government Overreach = Anything I Don't Like

You know the funny thing is I agree with this statement. The problem is you didn't really read or comprehend the scenario, maybe it's my fault for not describing it properly.

My father gave me the combination to the safe when I turned 16 or so, I had been handling guns under his supervision for 6 years or so at that point and wanted me to know because of where we lived, and because he trusted me in case of an emergency. So even though my description as a kid was correct, I could have worded it better.

My scenario probably shouldn't even had included that with how you latched onto that one word.

So let's exclude that part; I as an adult, who has been handling weapons my whole life, my father trusts me with guns, I haven't ever broke the law, no episodes or anything to allude I would ever commit a felony. I own guns, but keep them in my father's safe because I don't feel the need to have them in the city where I live, seeing as they are rifles and shot guns. So of course I know the combination.

Catch my wife cheating, drive to my father's house, get into the safe and take one of his shotguns instead of my own because they are the same make and model and I'm not thinking clearly. He has no reason to check his safe, he doesn't even know I was there. I take the gun back with me and wait week later till they are together again, and kill them both.

No children involved, just a father trusting his at that point completely law abiding son and with me storing my own weapons there, it is compltely logical for me to know the safe combination. However, his gun was used. He loses his right.

I agree with the other points, just not this small part.

I am not at all, I am against people being held accountable for other's actions.

this seems a good argument for NOBODY HAVING EASY ACCESS TO GUNS. Also, in your specific example the father should probably concede that he allowed a cold, calculating murderer access to his shotgun collection and it's probably best for everyone if he isn't allowed to own deadly weapons any more. If he's feeling particularly rational he might even blame his son more than Obama for his loss of rights.

Actually people need to treat every gun as if it is loaded always.

The fact that he was cleaning his gun when a 2 year old was around is a huge problem.

Well I only added in the week wait to take away any argument of diminished capacity, but if you want people to be able to be stripped of their rights because of other people's actions we aren't going to agree on this point.

You understand your entire scenario is one of the big reasons people want better restrictions on guns right?

I haven't argued against restrictions. I have argued against losing the right because of other people's actions.

Provisioning a murderer with weapons isn't a good enough reason to restrict one's rights to firearm ownership?

(Of course unknowingly--if you give someone access to a gun with the belief that they are going to kill someone with it, that's a whole different level of criminality.)

Do you believe someone should be held accountable if someone takes a knife from their house and uses it to stab and kill someone?

Both cases they are unknowingly providing a weapon for a crime. I am just of the belief that you cannot blame someone for another person's actions.

yes, that is what i was taught before anyone even put a gun in my hands. and it was repeatedly drilled into me, even after i was trusted to take one out on my own.

agreed on the 2nd part. what's the solution?

You're right. Thank you for agreeing that mandatory training classes should be required

Its not even that. Itt gov overreach is anything that is a mandatory change. Ie things that will be effective.

You've entered a thread and began conversing with people in which some of those want your gun rights stripped regardless. It's possible to make good conversation in here but eventually you're going to get massacred by the heavy Kool-Aid drinkers.

Stop by and a enjoy a couple puffs!...but you're going to want to pass that thing down the aisle sooner than later.

Note in his scenario two people died and the person who provided the murder weapon only loses the right to keep owning deadly weapons.

As if the biggest downside in this scenario is the father of a murderer who helped his daughter in law get murdered can no longer go hunting on the weekend. Holy ****ing **** gun nuts never fail to find new depths of terrible.

Providing a gun to a murderer is your own action. Once reasonable restrictions stopping people from passing guns to others without a background check is implemented this wouldn't be a problem.

"Held accountable" is uselessly vague, but probably the real point of departure is earlier. If you think that, like knives, there shouldn't be any restrictions on the sale or transfer, then why the emphasis in your parable on the guns being secured? Why not just say they were taken from the rack on the front porch?

When have I ever said there shouldn't be a restriction on sale or transfer of guns?

The argument was that people should lose their right to own firearms if one they owned was used in a felony. I said I didn't agree because there are scenarios where a person can do absolutely nothing wrong and they would lose their rights.

Providing a murder weapon to a double murderer isn't doing nothing wrong.

Your definition of provide differs greatly when it comes to guns than mine.

Apparently just having something = providing murderers or felons with possible weapons.

Should there be restrictions on sale or transfer of guns applied to individuals?

If so, why wouldn't that apply to the scenario of giving access to someone who uses the weapon in a felony murder?

Steven, your definitions differ because you genuinely put the ability to safely store and secure weapons above people's lives. This is weird for the rest of us.

Lets assume you had the the capacity to control and implement all gun laws. Are there any parameters/requirements that a person can take for you to allow this person to keep a gun in his/her house?

Anyone else is free to respond.

Training class still don't stop stupid people from doing stupid things. I assume you drive. How many people drink and drive, text and drive or drive while sleep deprived. All are bad things that people are not only taught but repeatedly are shown by commercials and the dangers of doing so.

Even after going through "hunter training" classes that every hunter in the state of NJ, Pa and NY have to take. People still don't follow safety rules.

So to make people take a class so you feel better still it's not going to stop people from being people.