New Testingstan

Again, why? If all you can come up with is a lame excuse about that's how things are done then it's just not good enough as far as I see it. I prefer to err on the side of not micromanaging random acts of stupidity with fines for everything.

@crazedwraith

Aaron wrote:you cover it with safe storage laws, not "keep it out of an oven" laws

Yup. This.

So take note of it and put in a law for proper storage. You can't just go around fining people for shit that's not on the books.

Never said they could.

I also just noticed that you rather conveniently ignored the part of my last post that said "without serious injury". If someone had been killed or gotten shrapnel in their chest its obviously a different matter.

Oh god and here I thought we'd agreed on something already.

The 'without serious injury' has no bearing on my argument. Which was expressing surprise and incredulity that there are no laws on the safe storage of ammunition.

Obviously if there were laws, they'd be varying grades of punishment for 'negligence' and 'negligence that caused injury'

A while back I ripped my my Transformers BDs onto a harddrive. Anyway, they played fine on my PC through my AV amplifier. The problem was that I couldn't bitstream to get Dolby True HD audio because my desktop can't do it. But it turns out that my brother's laptop can, which I found very shocking. So now I can mount the image, or any BD image I've created, and watch it as if I am using an actual BD player. Very cool.

Crazedwraith wrote:Oh god and here I thought we'd agreed on something already.

The 'without serious injury' has no bearing on my argument. Which was expressing surprise and incredulity that there are no laws on the safe storage of ammunition.

Obviously if there were laws, they'd be varying grades of punishment for 'negligence' and 'negligence that caused injury'

There are laws about safe storage of firearms but again, those pertain to mostly whether or not a minor or somebody else who should not be able to can easily access the firearm.

I'm guessing they didn't think about the ammunition because they figured it wasn't very dangerous without the firearm to go with it. And who would bother breaking into a house just to steal bullets?

EDIT: While I'm thinking about it, there is the obvious enforcement issue. It's stupid to have laws on the books with no practical way to enforce them, after all.

Short of saying, "Oh you have firearms and/or ammunition? RANDOM HOME SEARCHES! " which would never fly in the US for the obvious reasons, safe storage could only be enforced after the fact: if your firearm and/or ammunition is stolen and used in a crime, or if your child gets their hands on the gun and shoots themselves/a friend, etc.

In those cases though, the firearm could (probably) be traced back to the owner. If they report it stolen with serial number and all. And if it was found that the owner did not store it safely, a charge could be issued.

But you can't really track ammunition, can you? How would they ever know where the rounds used in the crime came from? I'm not sure they could ever prove it one way or another, because I've yet to see a round with a serial number stamped on the back. So how would you enforce safe storage of ammunition independent of the firearm it would be used with?

If you don't have a good answer to that, specifying the ammunition part would be poor lawmaking. Not that such has ever stopped real world legislators, of course.

And before anyone says it, I don't think there's an epidemic of "idiots storing ammo in oven, forget it's there and turn it on" that requires writing a special law for this. And even if there were the risk to the public or even people inside the house is fairly minimal. So a civil citation at best I'd think, if you really felt the need to make a law for a solution in search of a problem.

Worst come to worst, isn't there any general purpose law existing anyway for involuntarily putting someone's else life / health in danger ?

Aaron wrote:you cover it with safe storage laws, not "keep it out of an oven" laws

This is pretty much what I was thinking.

Oxymoron wrote:Worst come to worst, isn't there any general purpose law existing anyway for involuntarily putting someone's else life / health in danger ?

I'm no legal expert, so I'll give you a probable maybe on that one.

Still, even if there was such a law handy, would it have been a practical application of it to charge this guy with everything that would entail?

in australia you can be charged for engaging in unregulated high risk behavior. its mostly used to prosecute morons who go swimming in flood water and then have to be rescued

Sam and I saw The Last Stand last night.

It was silly and badly acted, but it was heaps of fun once it got going.

no-one wants to see poor arnold

i like arnold

Well you know what that calls for


http://youtube.com/watch?v=qJdMjRHRLfg

RogueIce wrote:

Oxymoron wrote:Worst come to worst, isn't there any general purpose law existing anyway for involuntarily putting someone's else life / health in danger ?

I'm no legal expert, so I'll give you a probable maybe on that one.

Still, even if there was such a law handy, would it have been a practical application of it to charge this guy with everything that would entail?

As always, it all depends on the circumstances. If the injuries sustained are only minor, and the victim does not wish to pursue the one indirectly responsible for said injuries through his negligence, then I'd say there's not much that can be reasonably done by the Judiciary.

it also depends on how the law is written, and the attitude of law enforcement and the crown (or equivilant).

here i would expect at the minimum that he would have all his guns seized until he can retake the safety course. At worse, total confiscation, prison and a lifetime firearms ban.

All depending on the Crown.

Dude the Crown is exactly why everyone's allowed to have firearms in the house

If they didn't have those guns, the king of england could just come over and start pushing them around

Damn him and his redcoats

zhaktronz wrote:in australia you can be charged for engaging in unregulated high risk behavior. its mostly used to prosecute morons who go swimming in flood water and then have to be rescued

To be fair, normally it is idiots swimming in flood water and now rescue services are now retrieving a water logged corpse.

Aaron wrote:it also depends on how the law is written, and the attitude of law enforcement and the crown (or equivilant).

here i would expect at the minimum that he would have all his guns seized until he can retake the safety course. At worse, total confiscation, prison and a lifetime firearms ban.

All depending on the Crown.

How the law was written would be my biggest concern. Unfortunately a lot of politicians seem to enjoy making laws just vague enough that they have some rather nasty unintended consequences. But if they're so specific that they only account for situations that crop up once in a blue moon, what's the point?

Well I watched some of the new nostalgia critic. A review of Pearl Harbour. With added non-review scenes of micheal bay's career. So i guess its intended as a blend of NC and demo reel.

It's ok I guess but i have to wonder if the parallels between the eviews decription of bay's careers and the nostalgia critic finishing and restarting are intentional or just ironic.

Zod wrote:

Aaron wrote:it also depends on how the law is written, and the attitude of law enforcement and the crown (or equivilant).

here i would expect at the minimum that he would have all his guns seized until he can retake the safety course. At worse, total confiscation, prison and a lifetime firearms ban.

All depending on the Crown.

How the law was written would be my biggest concern. Unfortunately a lot of politicians seem to enjoy making laws just vague enough that they have some rather nasty unintended consequences. But if they're so specific that they only account for situations that crop up once in a blue moon, what's the point?

Yeah, our safe storage laws are vague enough that they can be used as a "gotcha"

To the point where even clear cut self defence cases (Ian Thompson) are tied up in court for years because the Crown Attorney thinks he can get you on a storage violation.

Safe storage is a piss easy regulatory issue if you are at the point where gun ownership requires license/regulation; simply require that the gun safe be inspected at time of installation/renewal as a condition of license.