Thread: Support for tighter Acat storage

The way I see it, for what it's worth, is that the greatest threat my to the security of my firearms is myself and my family - not how strong my safe is.

If some lowlives invade my home and threaten my family or me I'm not going to be foolish and risk serious harm or death to prevent access to my firearms. They can have them all and bugger off. Mine won't do the average lowlife much good as they're all single shot target rifles, mostly big and heavy. Even if cut down they'd still be big and heavy and cumbersome.

I'm not brave if the choice is harm to myself or my family or give up my firearms it won't matter how strong my gunsafes are.

Originally Posted by Nick-D

But mandatory minimums and 3 strike rules achieve fuck all except expensive overflowing jails.

I reckon shoot to kill and you won't have a problem then.

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

I reckon shoot to kill and you won't have a problem then.

@Sasquatch

Hmm, Yeah right then...

Disproportional crackdowns are a breakdown in justice, just in the other extreme.

The whole point of "an eye for an eye" is PROPORTIONALITY of punishment / restitution.

This both rules out Mohammedan-type justice (severing thieves' limbs etc), ridiculous light sentences, and Sasquatchanism.

One instance where we go wrong is overuse of jails, seeing 'deprivation of freedom' as a punishment rather than a protective measure for the public. I do think it is stupid and unjust to lock someone up for thieving, instead of having them productively doing forced work and income generated going to their victims until what was stolen is compensated for.

I was being flippant in that post and it wasn't to be taken with too much seriousness, although in all seriousness - I do grow tired of these weak arguments on "more" stringent security for firearms based on no real evidence and lame sentencing for serious firearm offending.

With the current "status-quo" for our justice system; it simply isn't working & we could be in serious trouble if society doesn't sort this problem out. As for Sasquatchanism, I had to have a chuckle at that!

@Sasquatch

Imagine you Avatarial self lending his name to a new World Religion of Piece*, huh?

*One piece of you here, the other piece over there.