So Called Gun Solutions

Once again, Rick Sapp’s blog post will make you think. Although I do agree with solution #3. Increased Punishments [be sure to read my caveat below the quote].

  1. Increased punishments: Emanuel wants more-effective enforcement and harsher punishment for citizens who fail to report lost or stolen firearms. The law currently requires reporting a lost or stolen firearm within 72 hours. Failure to do so is a petty offense under the current law, which he says is too lenient. He suggests fines and jail.

But I think the punishment should probably be on the criminal who uses a stolen firearm and not the person who the firearm was stolen from. Personally, I’m kinda partial to punishing the criminal instead of the victim.

What do you think would be a good gun solution?

1 Like

The problem with that “solution” is that there re numerous legitimate ways one could go days, weeks, months, or even years not noticing that a gun had gone missing.

Think of all the little old ladies with a closet full of the long departed husband’s guns, or the war prizes tucked away in attics somewhere that haven’t even been seen in five or six decades.

I’d rather punish the offenders rather than the victims of crimes.


As I have said before, whenever something bad happens the control freaks and bureaucrats rush right out to punish the uninvolved. :rage:


In my opinion the solutions are already on the books. Enforce the laws that we already have.

The real hard truth about guns and gun control is that until people (on both sides) put their feelings away and have factual debates, then absolutely nothing will change.

You can’t change emotions with facts or facts with emotions.


Like most complex problems there is a very simple solution.

Simply make the penalties for unlawful possession of or trafficking in stolen or otherwise illegal firearms so severe that most criminals will avoid guns like The Plague.


They have a law, and they have a punishment. A fine and jail would also border on the person (victim) becoming a prohibited person and that is not right.

The government should not try to criminalize morality. But their are other facets that get involved. The person committing the crime needs serious consequences which they will not obey anyway. Some statutes can take the victim who had the gun stolen and a prosecutor would try to effectively charge them with complicity.

I am a believer that you do the crime, you are willing to do the time. Unfortunately the law is never treated as black and white. Layers majority of the time want to plea things out.

1 Like

I agree with you - I was wondering if people would stop reading at the quote :rofl:


While not directly related to the mess that is NJ (I’m originally from there), Chicago, Baltimore et al. I believe there is a grass roots solution that could be implemented on an individual business basis. It centers around the concept of “Unknown Deterrence”. I spent my misguided youth driving submarines for the Navy, which in part, ultimately won the Cold War because of “Mutually Assured Destruction” and unknown deterrence. I live in VA Beach now, where we had our own “gun issue” recently and the thing that struck me was the sign on the door of building 2 with the “No Weapons Allowed” and Ghost buster symbol.

It is my contention that instead of banning weapons via the sign at the door in the hopes that it will make a criminal pause or stop that a new window sticker be created and implemented for those who wish to participate.

“Weapons Possible Zone” “Legally armed citizens may be present” and put a gun with a big green “?” question mark in a circle.

Laws only affect the law abiding.

What say you?




I like that solution :smiley:

and yes, yes they do.
Welcome to the group @Craig6!

I would think that either no signs at all or something simple such as “Not a gun free zone” would cover it fine.

You don’t want to chase off people who aren’t comfortable around RAC’s carrying and at the same time you don’t want to give a clear signal to anyone hell bent on robbing the business that they’re going to have to be willing to fight for it thus potentially raising the chances that in such an event guns will have to be used.

Unfortunately I think a lot of liability carriers these days would have a problem with such signage that makes it obvious and there’s always the possibility that an anti gun prosecutor could use it against you should you ever be forced to use deadly force on the premises or even at home.


@WildRose I agree that in our litigious society that a “Weapon’s Possible” sign might draw some negative liability but on the other hand would not also the premise that a “Gun Free Zone” sticker would garner a certain responsibility of the establishment to provide protection in the absence of being able to protect yourself?

In the case of the VB Shooting the final designation of the case has yet to be determined, if it is ruled to be NOT a terrorist case then the city WILL be held liable under Workman’s Compensation laws as they stand today for failing to provide a safe work environment. The laws/rulings under OSHA are fairly specific on this point.

Effective solutions to a madman are very limited on the pre inccident side as sited for litigious and liability reasons and the concept of the new “Red Flag” laws have yet to prove their metal and seem to be just more bureaucratic intrusion.

Unfortunately we are left with “A good guy with a gun, takes on a bad guy with a gun.” scenario as our only defense if we cannot be proactive in some form.

Personally I couldn’t give two figs about hurting someone’s feelings or offending someones perception if all the good guy’s go home tonight.



1 Like

And that’s the point… Sometimes I feel that honor and honesty have no value anymore.

to have “a real” right to defense yourself. I’ve been checked by FBI (probably NSA as well, maybe few other agencies) and waited 2 months to have a permit to buy a gun, then 3 months to be allowed to keep the gun on me… Why the bad guy who pointed gun on my son didn’t need all these?


If you’re running a business though you don’t want to be chasing off customers or potential customers.

Unfortunately there’s nothing on the books or in case law that holds either the gov’t or private business owners liable for the harms done by “gun free zones”.

Insurance companies also are very much responsible for anti gun work places/businesses by charging ridiculous rates unless business owners keep the work place “gun free”.

Unfortunately I don’t see any simple answers here because we’re not likely to get legislators to pass laws that make owners liable if there is a shooting in a gun free zone nor are we likely to see any judges ruling same in any lawsuits stemming from them.

1 Like

Shifting responsibility from the criminal onto the victim never seems to be a good outcome.



But then some big-hearted person will cry about how “we 're ruining a life over one mistake” etc, etc, blah, blah, blah, and the laws and penalties become so diluted they no longer serve as a deterrent.

Even so, making criminal use of a firearm so dangerous for the criminal begs the question of “what next?” . Knife regulation? Hammer legislation?

Perhaps the answer might be in harsh penalties for the criminal use of a “weapon”. What constitutes a weapon can be determined from the context of the incident, which would allow for their use in a legitimate self defense situations.

I realize that this idea opens a huge, potentially insurmountable, can of worms. But then we are already dealing with the 22,000 existing gun laws can of worms, not to mention the criminal justice system.

As law abiding gun owners, I think we can all agree that the legitimate use of any tool or object is not a problem in our society. It is the criminal use of these things that underlies the loss, pain, death, and tragedy playing out in our country every day. Punishing the criminal has far greater deterrent effect than general restriction. I think it was Socrates who said "Abuse is never an argument against proper use.