You cant call it back!

Varmintmist · Jun 2, 2005

As was posted, Geneva Convention in 1899. Actually the Hague peace conferance. That means it was in force when I was in, my father and uncles were in and grandfathers were in. Its called the rules of war.

So prove away /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

"These included the 1899 treaties, concerning asphyxiating gases and expanding bullets. In 1907, 13 separate treaties were signed, followed in 1925 by the Geneva Gas Protocol, which prohibited the use of poison gas and the practice of bacteriological warfare."
http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/history.html

"The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions."
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/dec99-03.htm

168 BTHP bullets used by snipers are a different ball of wax. The HP on the Sierra bullet is not designed to expand. It is there for the flight of the bullet. Those are OK under the Hague. Spec ops is cleared to use other stuff. Terrorists are not a uniformed army so any Geneva or Hague accords dont apply to them.

We didnt sign on to the Hague, but we did agree to follow the rules

JimR · Jun 2, 2005

My gun safe where I can secure all of my firearms.

RedRocker · Jun 3, 2005

Dang Jim, are you one of them "gun nuts"? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

gsganzer · Jun 3, 2005

( Dang Jim, are you one of them "gun nuts"? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif )

He better watch out. He lives in Taxachusetts where they probably have a law against owning that many guns. Heck, Massachusetts requires that you get photographed and fingerprinted (Someone correct me if I'm wrong) just to get a hunting license.

JimR, I don't have a problem with a firearm display like yours. Heck, it's something that's pretty neat to show off. But if it's not in a room that can be locked, or you don't have an alarm system for your house, then you're asking for trouble.

I very good friend of mine has one of the most impressive Winchester Model 70 collections you've ever seen. He had them in various places around the house on display. Everything was fine until an aquaintance of his granddaughter caught wind of it. His house was broken into and every one of the guns, that wasn't in a safe, was stolen. Over 30 rifles.

I'm not this big advocate that promotes that every gun must be locked away in a safe, or have a trigger lock etc. etc. I just want to get across to everyone that you need to think about how secure your weapon is from unintended users. There are a lot of good handgun safes on the market that afford quick and quiet access in times of need. I can't think of many convincing arguments of why someone's hunting rifles and shotguns should be propped up in the corner of a closet, instead of locked in some kind of safe during the off-season.

I'm sure the gentleman in Minnesota thought he had his family members trained and his weapons were secure. That is until his grandson broke into his house, killed them both, stole his weapons and went on a shooting rampage at the Indian Reservation high school killing over 10 people.

getut · Jun 3, 2005

I havn't been able to get involved in this because it can get very political. But I think the anti-gun types have brainwashed people into believing all this crap. It all boils down to education.

I and most of my cousins grew up in families where there was always a loaded shotgun leaning in the corner right beside the back door. Guess what.... us kids NEVER touched the gun. We knew that if we did it was an instantaneous asking for a good bruising to our hineys. There wasn't even a question about it. Somehow in this day and time, liberals have brainwashed the public into believing the gun owner is in the wrong. In the old days.. EVERYONE had guns. EVERYONE was taught they were not a toy. If someone got shot, it was PROPERLY blamed on the fool that shot the person (or the parents that didn't train the kid right). I guess it goes to the fact that nowadays you can't even correct a kid in a way that sticks (good butt whooping) without having child protection knocking on your door.

Heck... most of my people grew up in a cotton mill community. EVERY house had a loaded shotgun leaning against the wall at the back door. EVERY house had 2-3 young children. No door were ever locked, even when the family was away and there was never a problem. EVER. And even if there would have been, people would have put the blame where it belonged (with the shooter, not the gun owner).

How in the heck can use a gun if it is locked up in a gun safe and has a trigger lock on it?

getut · Jun 3, 2005

Oh.. someone will probably bring up the point that I am legally wrong or can be sued or whatever.

I am not the type that goes for that. There are rights and wrongs that go way above "legal" and "civil" court and people like to make big gray areas out of things that are so black and white it is pitiful.

Fact. If someone steals my gun and shoots someone with it, I can probably be sued. So what. In the big picture I have done NOTHING wrong. I did not steal the gun and I did not shoot someone. It doesn't even matter if I sat it on the coffee table right in front of them.

I refuse to jump through hoops, even it is "illegal" because someone, lawyers or whatever have people buffaloed into believing their hogwash. Its not a gray area.

gsganzer · Jun 3, 2005

( people would have put the blame where it belonged (with the shooter, not the gun owner).)
I agree with you that the fault lies with the criminal. My sizeable contributions to the NRA/ILA last year defending lawsuits against gun owners and the gun manufacturers will tell you where I stand on the issue. However, the owner has a certain amount of responsibility to REASONABLY safeguard their firearms. When you had a small child, did you secure the medicine cabinet or kitchen cabinet that had cleaning chemicals to prevent a poisoning? Did you lower the FEL and implement on your tractor when it was unattended to prevent an injury? The term REASONABLE is obviously open to interpretation, but I'd rather not let the "Anti-gunners" convince the populace of what's "reasonable" after the general public has grow tired of watching shootings on the evening news that were committed with guns that weren't prudently secured.

( How in the heck can use a gun if it is locked up in a gun safe and has a trigger lock on it? )
Is your .30-06 deer rifle what you're using for home defense? How about your 3" 12 ga. for turkey? You're .44 magnum that you use for hunting pigs? You're .470 NE used for Cape Buffalo? In my opinion, there isn't a good reason why these shouldn't be secured in the off season, instead of propped up in a closet or slid under a bed. When a large enough minority fails to demonstrate reasonable responsibility, then the elected officials are prompted by the general public to define "reasonable responsibility". Need proof? Look at the helmet law and seatbelt law. Or closer to home in Texas, look at the recent legislation that passed regarding passengers riding in the bed of a pickup.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person operates an open-bed pickup truck or an open flatbed truck or draws an open flatbed trailer when a child younger than 18 years of age is occupying the bed of the truck or trailer.

How many of us remember the feeling of riding in the back of Dad's pickup as he cruised down a back road? In Texas it's now been deemed illegal, because a large enough minority failed to demonstrate reasonable responsibility.

Do I advocate every gun someone owns being kept in a safe or have a trigger lock? Of course not. It depends on the situation and what's reasonable. I will say that with some of todays handgun safes, instant access can be unencumbered. In fact, I've found the benefit of the handgun being in the exact same grip position, in the exact same place when I pop open my handgun safe. There's no feeling around in a drawer to get my hand properly wrapped around the grip.

getut · Jun 3, 2005

From a legal standpoint, I cannot argue, you are absolutely positively correct.

From a "right/wrong" standpoint, that is a different story. Why should I have to spend $1000 on a gun safe to protect myself from being sued if my gun is stolen and used for malicious purposes? Why should I have to pay $100 on a cheap one? Why should I spend one red cent of my money when I am not the one at fault? It is the concept, not the monetary expenditure, or even the hassle that for me is the rub with this. I refuse to perpetuate that crock even (especially) if I expose myself to possibly being sued if it would happen to me.

I have a very old glass front gun case that I keep my guns in. It doesn't even have a lock, since a lock on a glass front case would be useless anyway. I have a Ruger .45 auto loaded with black talons beside my bed as my home defense weapon.

Don't get me wrong, even the consequences you speak of ( but I'd rather not let the "Anti-gunners" convince the populace of what's "reasonable" after the general public has grow tired of watching shootings on the evening news that were committed with guns that weren't prudently secured.) are absolutely positively the way it would be in the public. I cannot deny that and won't even try. I have the peace of mind to know that even if they pass laws or try to change things, they are changing them for the wrong reasons and I would not go along with it, even if cops show up at my door. It just fuels the fire for them every time a shooting with a stolen gun happens. But that still does not change the fact that the gun owner is not the one at fault. And if I am not at fault, and if I have done nothing wrong, then I refuse to change or to spend one red cent of my money to capitulate, even if that puts me on the bad side of those trying to get these laws passed.

Heheh.. showing my colors huh? Slightly political statement, but more just humorous... I'm so conservative that neither the Reps or Dems will call me their own. You ought to get me talking about women voters and drivers. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

gsganzer · Jun 3, 2005

(
Heheh.. showing my colors huh? Slightly political statement, but more just humorous... I'm so conservative that neither the Reps or Dems will call me their own. You ought to get me talking about women voters and drivers. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif )

Getut, we're all just being ourselves and discussing things as each of us see's them. The issue of guns (as well as the types of tractor engine oil /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif) are always some of the touchiest issues to talk about on this forum. It's always difficult (especially for me) to convey ideas, thoughts and opinions in a written format. You lose the ability to use body language, facial expressions etc. to help make a point or convey your demeanor.

One of the greatest things about TBN, is we always seem to be able to approach some of the most controversial issues with some degree of decorum. Occasionally some smoke begins to rise in some posts (that's why we have such great moderators), it's the nature of the topic and the media by which we're trying to communicate.

I hope there isn't anyone on this board that ever feels like I've deliberately stepped over the line of being considerate.

JimR · Jun 3, 2005

( Dang Jim, are you one of them "gun nuts"? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif )
Yup, I'm a Yankee Redneck Politically un-correct law-abiding gun-toting son of a mother. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif