I know, I know, you don't want to reduce your voting base.
Ok fine, can we at least call it what it is?
I'm Chicago metro, all they talk about is gun violence, yet I think it's gang violence.
Does that make sense or am I misguided in wanted to address the source?
Exactly, and these gang members are getting their guns from the same places they're getting their drugs. I highly doubt they would all the sudden jump through legal hoops created by further buyer restrictions in order to obtain their firearms.
can i asked where they are getting their guns from?
stolen, then sold illegally
1) this isn't true 2) if your gun gets stolen and is used in a crime, you are not a responsible gun owner and should be held accountable
sorry what is not true?
Most guns used in crimes are not stolen. They are usually purchased through legal means, straw purchases, borrowed from friends, etc.
But let's assume most guns used in crimes are stolen - perhaps we should have some sort of national registry. That way we could keep track of who owns what guns where. This would help solve crime and hold irresponsible gun owners accountable.
Again, my gun is stolen and used in a crime. How am I responsible?
With great power comes great responsibility. It's your gun and you're the responsible gun owner. It's known as vicarious liability. If you're that worried about it, perhaps there should be some sort of mandatory gun insurance. Although I'm betting it would be prohibitively expensive.
i m not worried about it all as it makes zero sense. So I m the responsible owner of my car. A drunk guy steals it and rams into another car and kills everyone on board. I m somehow responsible?
No, you wouldn't be held responsible under the current laws. In fact, some states have no fault laws which basically state injured parties will immediately receive compensation for medical treatment regardless of who is at fault. But that certainly won't stop anyone from suing you for wrongful death.
But we're not talking about cars, we're talking about guns. Try to keep up. I'm suggesting that if you own a gun, and it gets used in a crime, you should be held accountable as being party to that crime. You should be happy, this way to get to keep your shiny toy. Just keep track of it.
Do you REALLY want to use car ownership as an analogy?
Let's assume you're married. And you managed not to shoot your spouse with an accidental discharge or during a domestic quarrel. My money's on suicide, but I digress.
Now your spouse steals your car, runs a red light and gets a camera ticket. Or gets a parking ticket. You, as the owner of the vehicle, will be held responsible for those tickets until you can account for what actually happened. And if you can't, you're on the hook.
Why should this be any different than: "Sir, we found your gun at the scene of the murder and have a few questions we'd like to ask you."
Now let's take a look at the layers upon layers of laws and regulation that make that scenario unlikely. You need a driver's license. You need to take a test to get that license. You have to renew that license. You need to register that car when you purchase it. You have to register it when you sell it. You need to operate that vehicle within the rules of the road. That car has to have mirrors, seat belts, an airbag, and any number of safety features. You need to carry valid insurance on that car in the event something happens to your car, or if the driver of that vehicle causes damages to someone else.
If guns were regulated 1/2 as well as cars are, maybe we'd actually see a significant reduction in gun related violence and death.
Or do you just like to drag out the car analogy when it's convenient?
Your original thesis was, gun owners should be held responsible if their stolen guns are used in a crime. So yes I like the car analogy. If someone steals my car and kills four people I am not responsible. If someone breaks open my safe, cuts the gun lock/pried open the trigger lock and uses that gun in a crime, I am not responsible.
And what the hell are you talking about in your second paragraph?
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my position. My suggestion is: If the gun you own gets used in a crime, you should be held accountable. Whether your gun was stolen, lost, or loaned it to a friend; you should be considered an accomplice to whatever crime occurred.
and honestly bud, that is retarted thinking. It makes ZERO sense. Please try again.
I know, I know, you don't want to reduce your voting base.
Ok fine, can we at least call it what it is?
I'm Chicago metro, all they talk about is gun violence, yet I think it's gang violence.
Does that make sense or am I misguided in wanted to address the source?
Exactly, and these gang members are getting their guns from the same places they're getting their drugs. I highly doubt they would all the sudden jump through legal hoops created by further buyer restrictions in order to obtain their firearms.
can i asked where they are getting their guns from?
stolen, then sold illegally
1) this isn't true 2) if your gun gets stolen and is used in a crime, you are not a responsible gun owner and should be held accountable
sorry what is not true?
Most guns used in crimes are not stolen. They are usually purchased through legal means, straw purchases, borrowed from friends, etc.
But let's assume most guns used in crimes are stolen - perhaps we should have some sort of national registry. That way we could keep track of who owns what guns where. This would help solve crime and hold irresponsible gun owners accountable.
Again, my gun is stolen and used in a crime. How am I responsible?
With great power comes great responsibility. It's your gun and you're the responsible gun owner. It's known as vicarious liability. If you're that worried about it, perhaps there should be some sort of mandatory gun insurance. Although I'm betting it would be prohibitively expensive.
This attitude rears it's head on a variety of issues. For example, responsible dog owners who raise a pitbull that chews a child's face off point at the dog claiming, "It had never done anything like that before. I don't know what got into it, but it's certainly not my fault" (as they run off to purchase another one).
Well. Thank gawd it had only chewed one kid's face off.
If you raise a dog, cougar, bear, snake, chimpanzee... or some other dangerous animal that chews a kid's face off... you are responsible. It was your decision to take responsibility for the care and ownership of the animal and you neglected that responsibility which resulted in bodily harm.
If you want a gun... fair enough. But don't shrug your shoulders when it is lifted from your glove compartment and say, "Meh. What are you gonna do" as you drive over to the Big 5 Sporting Goods to purchase two more in their 2 for 1 red light special event. Be prepared to face the consequences. For example, if all guns were registered and you were only allowed one handgun... and your handgun goes missing... then you don't get another one.
Dude you are saying it was STOLEN! How is this on me? What consequences could there be if it was stolen? Find me one case where a gun owner was sued because his gun was used in a crime after it was stolen. This is assinnine thinking. Hell with this type of thinking let s go with the ten club: you sell your extra ten club ticket to a member on the board for face value. They in turn sell that same ticket for ten times the face value to a scalper named "Kat". They trace that ticket to your account and your ten club privelages are now revoked for life.
If either scenario can demonstrate all precautions were taken and negligence of responsibility is not an issue, I would expect no consequences at all. If someone breaks into your home and manages to break open your gun vault and steal your gun... fair enough.
I know, I know, you don't want to reduce your voting base.
Ok fine, can we at least call it what it is?
I'm Chicago metro, all they talk about is gun violence, yet I think it's gang violence.
Does that make sense or am I misguided in wanted to address the source?
Exactly, and these gang members are getting their guns from the same places they're getting their drugs. I highly doubt they would all the sudden jump through legal hoops created by further buyer restrictions in order to obtain their firearms.
can i asked where they are getting their guns from?
stolen, then sold illegally
1) this isn't true 2) if your gun gets stolen and is used in a crime, you are not a responsible gun owner and should be held accountable
sorry what is not true?
Most guns used in crimes are not stolen. They are usually purchased through legal means, straw purchases, borrowed from friends, etc.
But let's assume most guns used in crimes are stolen - perhaps we should have some sort of national registry. That way we could keep track of who owns what guns where. This would help solve crime and hold irresponsible gun owners accountable.
Again, my gun is stolen and used in a crime. How am I responsible?
With great power comes great responsibility. It's your gun and you're the responsible gun owner. It's known as vicarious liability. If you're that worried about it, perhaps there should be some sort of mandatory gun insurance. Although I'm betting it would be prohibitively expensive.
This attitude rears it's head on a variety of issues. For example, responsible dog owners who raise a pitbull that chews a child's face off point at the dog claiming, "It had never done anything like that before. I don't know what got into it, but it's certainly not my fault" (as they run off to purchase another one).
Well. Thank gawd it had only chewed one kid's face off.
If you raise a dog, cougar, bear, snake, chimpanzee... or some other dangerous animal that chews a kid's face off... you are responsible. It was your decision to take responsibility for the care and ownership of the animal and you neglected that responsibility which resulted in bodily harm.
If you want a gun... fair enough. But don't shrug your shoulders when it is lifted from your glove compartment and say, "Meh. What are you gonna do" as you drive over to the Big 5 Sporting Goods to purchase two more in their 2 for 1 red light special event. Be prepared to face the consequences. For example, if all guns were registered and you were only allowed one handgun... and your handgun goes missing... then you don't get another one.
Dude you are saying it was STOLEN! How is this on me? What consequences could there be if it was stolen? Find me one case where a gun owner was sued because his gun was used in a crime after it was stolen. This is assinnine thinking. Hell with this type of thinking let s go with the ten club: you sell your extra ten club ticket to a member on the board for face value. They in turn sell that same ticket for ten times the face value to a scalper named "Kat". They trace that ticket to your account and your ten club privelages are now revoked for life.
If either scenario can demonstrate all precautions were taken and negligence of responsibility is not an issue, I would expect no consequences at all. If someone breaks into your home and manages to break open your gun vault and steal your gun... fair enough.
Dude if anything is stolen from your house regardless of how locked up it was how is it your responsibility?! How could you possibly be responsible?!
I know, I know, you don't want to reduce your voting base.
Ok fine, can we at least call it what it is?
I'm Chicago metro, all they talk about is gun violence, yet I think it's gang violence.
Does that make sense or am I misguided in wanted to address the source?
Exactly, and these gang members are getting their guns from the same places they're getting their drugs. I highly doubt they would all the sudden jump through legal hoops created by further buyer restrictions in order to obtain their firearms.
can i asked where they are getting their guns from?
stolen, then sold illegally
1) this isn't true 2) if your gun gets stolen and is used in a crime, you are not a responsible gun owner and should be held accountable
sorry what is not true?
Most guns used in crimes are not stolen. They are usually purchased through legal means, straw purchases, borrowed from friends, etc.
But let's assume most guns used in crimes are stolen - perhaps we should have some sort of national registry. That way we could keep track of who owns what guns where. This would help solve crime and hold irresponsible gun owners accountable.
Again, my gun is stolen and used in a crime. How am I responsible?
With great power comes great responsibility. It's your gun and you're the responsible gun owner. It's known as vicarious liability. If you're that worried about it, perhaps there should be some sort of mandatory gun insurance. Although I'm betting it would be prohibitively expensive.
This attitude rears it's head on a variety of issues. For example, responsible dog owners who raise a pitbull that chews a child's face off point at the dog claiming, "It had never done anything like that before. I don't know what got into it, but it's certainly not my fault" (as they run off to purchase another one).
Well. Thank gawd it had only chewed one kid's face off.
If you raise a dog, cougar, bear, snake, chimpanzee... or some other dangerous animal that chews a kid's face off... you are responsible. It was your decision to take responsibility for the care and ownership of the animal and you neglected that responsibility which resulted in bodily harm.
If you want a gun... fair enough. But don't shrug your shoulders when it is lifted from your glove compartment and say, "Meh. What are you gonna do" as you drive over to the Big 5 Sporting Goods to purchase two more in their 2 for 1 red light special event. Be prepared to face the consequences. For example, if all guns were registered and you were only allowed one handgun... and your handgun goes missing... then you don't get another one.
Dude you are saying it was STOLEN! How is this on me? What consequences could there be if it was stolen? Find me one case where a gun owner was sued because his gun was used in a crime after it was stolen. This is assinnine thinking. Hell with this type of thinking let s go with the ten club: you sell your extra ten club ticket to a member on the board for face value. They in turn sell that same ticket for ten times the face value to a scalper named "Kat". They trace that ticket to your account and your ten club privelages are now revoked for life.
If either scenario can demonstrate all precautions were taken and negligence of responsibility is not an issue, I would expect no consequences at all. If someone breaks into your home and manages to break open your gun vault and steal your gun... fair enough.
Dude if anything is stolen from your house regardless of how locked up it was how is it your responsibility?! How could you possibly be responsible?!
If you leave a gun lying on your coffee table and a child shoots another child with it... you're responsible (irresponsible is more appropriate). If a thief breaks into your house and steals a gun you left lying on your coffee table... you were irresponsible. And in both cases you never respected the level of responsibility necessary for such an item- you never should have had one.
Guns are supposed to be stored in a gun locker separate from ammunition. I would wager that the overwhelming majority of guns stolen were from the irresponsible variety; therefore begging for more responsible ownership.
A gun isn't a f**king vase or credit card.
Classic though. People want their toys, but they don't truly want the responsibility necessary to ensure they play safely with them.
I know, I know, you don't want to reduce your voting base.
Ok fine, can we at least call it what it is?
I'm Chicago metro, all they talk about is gun violence, yet I think it's gang violence.
Does that make sense or am I misguided in wanted to address the source?
Exactly, and these gang members are getting their guns from the same places they're getting their drugs. I highly doubt they would all the sudden jump through legal hoops created by further buyer restrictions in order to obtain their firearms.
can i asked where they are getting their guns from?
stolen, then sold illegally
1) this isn't true 2) if your gun gets stolen and is used in a crime, you are not a responsible gun owner and should be held accountable
sorry what is not true?
Most guns used in crimes are not stolen. They are usually purchased through legal means, straw purchases, borrowed from friends, etc.
But let's assume most guns used in crimes are stolen - perhaps we should have some sort of national registry. That way we could keep track of who owns what guns where. This would help solve crime and hold irresponsible gun owners accountable.
Again, my gun is stolen and used in a crime. How am I responsible?
With great power comes great responsibility. It's your gun and you're the responsible gun owner. It's known as vicarious liability. If you're that worried about it, perhaps there should be some sort of mandatory gun insurance. Although I'm betting it would be prohibitively expensive.
i m not worried about it all as it makes zero sense. So I m the responsible owner of my car. A drunk guy steals it and rams into another car and kills everyone on board. I m somehow responsible?
No, you wouldn't be held responsible under the current laws. In fact, some states have no fault laws which basically state injured parties will immediately receive compensation for medical treatment regardless of who is at fault. But that certainly won't stop anyone from suing you for wrongful death.
But we're not talking about cars, we're talking about guns. Try to keep up. I'm suggesting that if you own a gun, and it gets used in a crime, you should be held accountable as being party to that crime. You should be happy, this way to get to keep your shiny toy. Just keep track of it.
Do you REALLY want to use car ownership as an analogy?
Let's assume you're married. And you managed not to shoot your spouse with an accidental discharge or during a domestic quarrel. My money's on suicide, but I digress.
Now your spouse steals your car, runs a red light and gets a camera ticket. Or gets a parking ticket. You, as the owner of the vehicle, will be held responsible for those tickets until you can account for what actually happened. And if you can't, you're on the hook.
Why should this be any different than: "Sir, we found your gun at the scene of the murder and have a few questions we'd like to ask you."
Now let's take a look at the layers upon layers of laws and regulation that make that scenario unlikely. You need a driver's license. You need to take a test to get that license. You have to renew that license. You need to register that car when you purchase it. You have to register it when you sell it. You need to operate that vehicle within the rules of the road. That car has to have mirrors, seat belts, an airbag, and any number of safety features. You need to carry valid insurance on that car in the event something happens to your car, or if the driver of that vehicle causes damages to someone else.
If guns were regulated 1/2 as well as cars are, maybe we'd actually see a significant reduction in gun related violence and death.
Or do you just like to drag out the car analogy when it's convenient?
Your original thesis was, gun owners should be held responsible if their stolen guns are used in a crime. So yes I like the car analogy. If someone steals my car and kills four people I am not responsible. If someone breaks open my safe, cuts the gun lock/pried open the trigger lock and uses that gun in a crime, I am not responsible.
And what the hell are you talking about in your second paragraph?
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my position. My suggestion is: If the gun you own gets used in a crime, you should be held accountable. Whether your gun was stolen, lost, or loaned it to a friend; you should be considered an accomplice to whatever crime occurred.
and honestly bud, that is retarted thinking. It makes ZERO sense. Please try again.
Just because you don't understand, doesn't mean it's nonsensical.
We have all kinds of laws that don't make sense. Why can't I drive 100 mph on the highway, when my car goes 120 mph? Well, because someone realized the highway would be a safer place if we limited speeds allowed to drive on them.
This is a good compromise. You get to keep your gun, and it's 'well-regulated'. The part of the amendment your ilk seems to forget about. Lose your gun? You have to report it to the registry and pay a $50 fee. Gun gets stolen, you don't report it, and it turns up in a crime? You pay a $5000 fee. Give a gun to your minor/child and he shoots up a school full of children? You go to jail And so on.
You may not be able to outlaw stupidity, bet you can certainly find ways to tax it.
I know, I know, you don't want to reduce your voting base.
Ok fine, can we at least call it what it is?
I'm Chicago metro, all they talk about is gun violence, yet I think it's gang violence.
Does that make sense or am I misguided in wanted to address the source?
Exactly, and these gang members are getting their guns from the same places they're getting their drugs. I highly doubt they would all the sudden jump through legal hoops created by further buyer restrictions in order to obtain their firearms.
can i asked where they are getting their guns from?
stolen, then sold illegally
1) this isn't true 2) if your gun gets stolen and is used in a crime, you are not a responsible gun owner and should be held accountable
sorry what is not true?
Most guns used in crimes are not stolen. They are usually purchased through legal means, straw purchases, borrowed from friends, etc.
But let's assume most guns used in crimes are stolen - perhaps we should have some sort of national registry. That way we could keep track of who owns what guns where. This would help solve crime and hold irresponsible gun owners accountable.
Again, my gun is stolen and used in a crime. How am I responsible?
With great power comes great responsibility. It's your gun and you're the responsible gun owner. It's known as vicarious liability. If you're that worried about it, perhaps there should be some sort of mandatory gun insurance. Although I'm betting it would be prohibitively expensive.
This attitude rears it's head on a variety of issues. For example, responsible dog owners who raise a pitbull that chews a child's face off point at the dog claiming, "It had never done anything like that before. I don't know what got into it, but it's certainly not my fault" (as they run off to purchase another one).
Well. Thank gawd it had only chewed one kid's face off.
If you raise a dog, cougar, bear, snake, chimpanzee... or some other dangerous animal that chews a kid's face off... you are responsible. It was your decision to take responsibility for the care and ownership of the animal and you neglected that responsibility which resulted in bodily harm.
If you want a gun... fair enough. But don't shrug your shoulders when it is lifted from your glove compartment and say, "Meh. What are you gonna do" as you drive over to the Big 5 Sporting Goods to purchase two more in their 2 for 1 red light special event. Be prepared to face the consequences. For example, if all guns were registered and you were only allowed one handgun... and your handgun goes missing... then you don't get another one.
Dude you are saying it was STOLEN! How is this on me? What consequences could there be if it was stolen? Find me one case where a gun owner was sued because his gun was used in a crime after it was stolen. This is assinnine thinking. Hell with this type of thinking let s go with the ten club: you sell your extra ten club ticket to a member on the board for face value. They in turn sell that same ticket for ten times the face value to a scalper named "Kat". They trace that ticket to your account and your ten club privelages are now revoked for life.
If either scenario can demonstrate all precautions were taken and negligence of responsibility is not an issue, I would expect no consequences at all. If someone breaks into your home and manages to break open your gun vault and steal your gun... fair enough.
Dude if anything is stolen from your house regardless of how locked up it was how is it your responsibility?! How could you possibly be responsible?!
If you leave a gun lying on your coffee table and a child shoots another child with it... you're responsible (irresponsible is more appropriate). If a thief breaks into your house and steals a gun you left lying on your coffee table... you were irresponsible. And in both cases you never respected the level of responsibility necessary for such an item- you never should have had one.
Guns are supposed to be stored in a gun locker separate from ammunition. I would wager that the overwhelming majority of guns stolen were from the irresponsible variety; therefore begging for more responsible ownership.
A gun isn't a f**king vase or credit card.
Classic though. People want their toys, but they don't truly want the responsibility necessary to ensure they play safely with them.
This. Liability through negligence.
Presumably, you are keeping a gun at home to protect your family and personal possessions. If someone comes and steals your gun, one could argue that you were being negligent, and should responsible for the subsequent damages.
People pull this shit all the time. Say you're walking through a parking lot and trip on a giant pothole and injure yourself. Was the person being negligent because they weren't watching where they were going? Or was the store negligent in maintaining the condition of it's parking lot. Likely, both parties have some responsibility, and both were negligent to some extent. Either way someone is going to pay for the injuries. The store may accept 10% of the responsibility, and offer to pay 1/2 the hospital bills. Your health insurance picks up the 80% co-pay for your ER visit. And you pay 10% for not watching where you were going.
I know, I know, you don't want to reduce your voting base.
Ok fine, can we at least call it what it is?
I'm Chicago metro, all they talk about is gun violence, yet I think it's gang violence.
Does that make sense or am I misguided in wanted to address the source?
Exactly, and these gang members are getting their guns from the same places they're getting their drugs. I highly doubt they would all the sudden jump through legal hoops created by further buyer restrictions in order to obtain their firearms.
can i asked where they are getting their guns from?
stolen, then sold illegally
1) this isn't true 2) if your gun gets stolen and is used in a crime, you are not a responsible gun owner and should be held accountable
sorry what is not true?
Most guns used in crimes are not stolen. They are usually purchased through legal means, straw purchases, borrowed from friends, etc.
But let's assume most guns used in crimes are stolen - perhaps we should have some sort of national registry. That way we could keep track of who owns what guns where. This would help solve crime and hold irresponsible gun owners accountable.
Again, my gun is stolen and used in a crime. How am I responsible?
With great power comes great responsibility. It's your gun and you're the responsible gun owner. It's known as vicarious liability. If you're that worried about it, perhaps there should be some sort of mandatory gun insurance. Although I'm betting it would be prohibitively expensive.
This attitude rears it's head on a variety of issues. For example, responsible dog owners who raise a pitbull that chews a child's face off point at the dog claiming, "It had never done anything like that before. I don't know what got into it, but it's certainly not my fault" (as they run off to purchase another one).
Well. Thank gawd it had only chewed one kid's face off.
If you raise a dog, cougar, bear, snake, chimpanzee... or some other dangerous animal that chews a kid's face off... you are responsible. It was your decision to take responsibility for the care and ownership of the animal and you neglected that responsibility which resulted in bodily harm.
If you want a gun... fair enough. But don't shrug your shoulders when it is lifted from your glove compartment and say, "Meh. What are you gonna do" as you drive over to the Big 5 Sporting Goods to purchase two more in their 2 for 1 red light special event. Be prepared to face the consequences. For example, if all guns were registered and you were only allowed one handgun... and your handgun goes missing... then you don't get another one.
Dude you are saying it was STOLEN! How is this on me? What consequences could there be if it was stolen? Find me one case where a gun owner was sued because his gun was used in a crime after it was stolen. This is assinnine thinking. Hell with this type of thinking let s go with the ten club: you sell your extra ten club ticket to a member on the board for face value. They in turn sell that same ticket for ten times the face value to a scalper named "Kat". They trace that ticket to your account and your ten club privelages are now revoked for life.
If either scenario can demonstrate all precautions were taken and negligence of responsibility is not an issue, I would expect no consequences at all. If someone breaks into your home and manages to break open your gun vault and steal your gun... fair enough.
Dude if anything is stolen from your house regardless of how locked up it was how is it your responsibility?! How could you possibly be responsible?!
Dude, it's not enough that your house was locked. It's your fault, not the criminal's. The left prefers blaming the victim.
I know, I know, you don't want to reduce your voting base.
Ok fine, can we at least call it what it is?
I'm Chicago metro, all they talk about is gun violence, yet I think it's gang violence.
Does that make sense or am I misguided in wanted to address the source?
Exactly, and these gang members are getting their guns from the same places they're getting their drugs. I highly doubt they would all the sudden jump through legal hoops created by further buyer restrictions in order to obtain their firearms.
can i asked where they are getting their guns from?
stolen, then sold illegally
1) this isn't true 2) if your gun gets stolen and is used in a crime, you are not a responsible gun owner and should be held accountable
sorry what is not true?
Most guns used in crimes are not stolen. They are usually purchased through legal means, straw purchases, borrowed from friends, etc.
But let's assume most guns used in crimes are stolen - perhaps we should have some sort of national registry. That way we could keep track of who owns what guns where. This would help solve crime and hold irresponsible gun owners accountable.
Again, my gun is stolen and used in a crime. How am I responsible?
With great power comes great responsibility. It's your gun and you're the responsible gun owner. It's known as vicarious liability. If you're that worried about it, perhaps there should be some sort of mandatory gun insurance. Although I'm betting it would be prohibitively expensive.
This attitude rears it's head on a variety of issues. For example, responsible dog owners who raise a pitbull that chews a child's face off point at the dog claiming, "It had never done anything like that before. I don't know what got into it, but it's certainly not my fault" (as they run off to purchase another one).
Well. Thank gawd it had only chewed one kid's face off.
If you raise a dog, cougar, bear, snake, chimpanzee... or some other dangerous animal that chews a kid's face off... you are responsible. It was your decision to take responsibility for the care and ownership of the animal and you neglected that responsibility which resulted in bodily harm.
If you want a gun... fair enough. But don't shrug your shoulders when it is lifted from your glove compartment and say, "Meh. What are you gonna do" as you drive over to the Big 5 Sporting Goods to purchase two more in their 2 for 1 red light special event. Be prepared to face the consequences. For example, if all guns were registered and you were only allowed one handgun... and your handgun goes missing... then you don't get another one.
Dude you are saying it was STOLEN! How is this on me? What consequences could there be if it was stolen? Find me one case where a gun owner was sued because his gun was used in a crime after it was stolen. This is assinnine thinking. Hell with this type of thinking let s go with the ten club: you sell your extra ten club ticket to a member on the board for face value. They in turn sell that same ticket for ten times the face value to a scalper named "Kat". They trace that ticket to your account and your ten club privelages are now revoked for life.
If either scenario can demonstrate all precautions were taken and negligence of responsibility is not an issue, I would expect no consequences at all. If someone breaks into your home and manages to break open your gun vault and steal your gun... fair enough.
Dude if anything is stolen from your house regardless of how locked up it was how is it your responsibility?! How could you possibly be responsible?!
Dude, it's not enough that your house was locked. It's your fault, not the criminal's. The left prefers blaming the victim.
I know, I know, you don't want to reduce your voting base.
Ok fine, can we at least call it what it is?
I'm Chicago metro, all they talk about is gun violence, yet I think it's gang violence.
Does that make sense or am I misguided in wanted to address the source?
Exactly, and these gang members are getting their guns from the same places they're getting their drugs. I highly doubt they would all the sudden jump through legal hoops created by further buyer restrictions in order to obtain their firearms.
can i asked where they are getting their guns from?
stolen, then sold illegally
1) this isn't true 2) if your gun gets stolen and is used in a crime, you are not a responsible gun owner and should be held accountable
sorry what is not true?
Most guns used in crimes are not stolen. They are usually purchased through legal means, straw purchases, borrowed from friends, etc.
But let's assume most guns used in crimes are stolen - perhaps we should have some sort of national registry. That way we could keep track of who owns what guns where. This would help solve crime and hold irresponsible gun owners accountable.
Again, my gun is stolen and used in a crime. How am I responsible?
With great power comes great responsibility. It's your gun and you're the responsible gun owner. It's known as vicarious liability. If you're that worried about it, perhaps there should be some sort of mandatory gun insurance. Although I'm betting it would be prohibitively expensive.
This attitude rears it's head on a variety of issues. For example, responsible dog owners who raise a pitbull that chews a child's face off point at the dog claiming, "It had never done anything like that before. I don't know what got into it, but it's certainly not my fault" (as they run off to purchase another one).
Well. Thank gawd it had only chewed one kid's face off.
If you raise a dog, cougar, bear, snake, chimpanzee... or some other dangerous animal that chews a kid's face off... you are responsible. It was your decision to take responsibility for the care and ownership of the animal and you neglected that responsibility which resulted in bodily harm.
If you want a gun... fair enough. But don't shrug your shoulders when it is lifted from your glove compartment and say, "Meh. What are you gonna do" as you drive over to the Big 5 Sporting Goods to purchase two more in their 2 for 1 red light special event. Be prepared to face the consequences. For example, if all guns were registered and you were only allowed one handgun... and your handgun goes missing... then you don't get another one.
Dude you are saying it was STOLEN! How is this on me? What consequences could there be if it was stolen? Find me one case where a gun owner was sued because his gun was used in a crime after it was stolen. This is assinnine thinking. Hell with this type of thinking let s go with the ten club: you sell your extra ten club ticket to a member on the board for face value. They in turn sell that same ticket for ten times the face value to a scalper named "Kat". They trace that ticket to your account and your ten club privelages are now revoked for life.
If either scenario can demonstrate all precautions were taken and negligence of responsibility is not an issue, I would expect no consequences at all. If someone breaks into your home and manages to break open your gun vault and steal your gun... fair enough.
Dude if anything is stolen from your house regardless of how locked up it was how is it your responsibility?! How could you possibly be responsible?!
Dude, it's not enough that your house was locked. It's your fault, not the criminal's. The left prefers blaming the victim.
Are you referring to me when you say left?
Some of the people you guys are arguing with here... I've found myself arguing with in other threads. I'm about as middle as it could be.
In short, I'm about letting common sense prevail. Or, in short, I'm always right lol!
I know, I know, you don't want to reduce your voting base.
Ok fine, can we at least call it what it is?
I'm Chicago metro, all they talk about is gun violence, yet I think it's gang violence.
Does that make sense or am I misguided in wanted to address the source?
Exactly, and these gang members are getting their guns from the same places they're getting their drugs. I highly doubt they would all the sudden jump through legal hoops created by further buyer restrictions in order to obtain their firearms.
can i asked where they are getting their guns from?
stolen, then sold illegally
1) this isn't true 2) if your gun gets stolen and is used in a crime, you are not a responsible gun owner and should be held accountable
sorry what is not true?
Most guns used in crimes are not stolen. They are usually purchased through legal means, straw purchases, borrowed from friends, etc.
But let's assume most guns used in crimes are stolen - perhaps we should have some sort of national registry. That way we could keep track of who owns what guns where. This would help solve crime and hold irresponsible gun owners accountable.
Again, my gun is stolen and used in a crime. How am I responsible?
With great power comes great responsibility. It's your gun and you're the responsible gun owner. It's known as vicarious liability. If you're that worried about it, perhaps there should be some sort of mandatory gun insurance. Although I'm betting it would be prohibitively expensive.
i m not worried about it all as it makes zero sense. So I m the responsible owner of my car. A drunk guy steals it and rams into another car and kills everyone on board. I m somehow responsible?
No, you wouldn't be held responsible under the current laws. In fact, some states have no fault laws which basically state injured parties will immediately receive compensation for medical treatment regardless of who is at fault. But that certainly won't stop anyone from suing you for wrongful death.
But we're not talking about cars, we're talking about guns. Try to keep up. I'm suggesting that if you own a gun, and it gets used in a crime, you should be held accountable as being party to that crime. You should be happy, this way to get to keep your shiny toy. Just keep track of it.
Do you REALLY want to use car ownership as an analogy?
Let's assume you're married. And you managed not to shoot your spouse with an accidental discharge or during a domestic quarrel. My money's on suicide, but I digress.
Now your spouse steals your car, runs a red light and gets a camera ticket. Or gets a parking ticket. You, as the owner of the vehicle, will be held responsible for those tickets until you can account for what actually happened. And if you can't, you're on the hook.
Why should this be any different than: "Sir, we found your gun at the scene of the murder and have a few questions we'd like to ask you."
Now let's take a look at the layers upon layers of laws and regulation that make that scenario unlikely. You need a driver's license. You need to take a test to get that license. You have to renew that license. You need to register that car when you purchase it. You have to register it when you sell it. You need to operate that vehicle within the rules of the road. That car has to have mirrors, seat belts, an airbag, and any number of safety features. You need to carry valid insurance on that car in the event something happens to your car, or if the driver of that vehicle causes damages to someone else.
If guns were regulated 1/2 as well as cars are, maybe we'd actually see a significant reduction in gun related violence and death.
Or do you just like to drag out the car analogy when it's convenient?
Your original thesis was, gun owners should be held responsible if their stolen guns are used in a crime. So yes I like the car analogy. If someone steals my car and kills four people I am not responsible. If someone breaks open my safe, cuts the gun lock/pried open the trigger lock and uses that gun in a crime, I am not responsible.
And what the hell are you talking about in your second paragraph?
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my position. My suggestion is: If the gun you own gets used in a crime, you should be held accountable. Whether your gun was stolen, lost, or loaned it to a friend; you should be considered an accomplice to whatever crime occurred.
and honestly bud, that is retarted thinking. It makes ZERO sense. Please try again.
Just because you don't understand, doesn't mean it's nonsensical.
We have all kinds of laws that don't make sense. Why can't I drive 100 mph on the highway, when my car goes 120 mph? Well, because someone realized the highway would be a safer place if we limited speeds allowed to drive on them.
This is a good compromise. You get to keep your gun, and it's 'well-regulated'. The part of the amendment your ilk seems to forget about. Lose your gun? You have to report it to the registry and pay a $50 fee. Gun gets stolen, you don't report it, and it turns up in a crime? You pay a $5000 fee. Give a gun to your minor/child and he shoots up a school full of children? You go to jail And so on.
You may not be able to outlaw stupidity, bet you can certainly find ways to tax it.
I know, I know, you don't want to reduce your voting base.
Ok fine, can we at least call it what it is?
I'm Chicago metro, all they talk about is gun violence, yet I think it's gang violence.
Does that make sense or am I misguided in wanted to address the source?
Exactly, and these gang members are getting their guns from the same places they're getting their drugs. I highly doubt they would all the sudden jump through legal hoops created by further buyer restrictions in order to obtain their firearms.
can i asked where they are getting their guns from?
stolen, then sold illegally
1) this isn't true 2) if your gun gets stolen and is used in a crime, you are not a responsible gun owner and should be held accountable
sorry what is not true?
Most guns used in crimes are not stolen. They are usually purchased through legal means, straw purchases, borrowed from friends, etc.
But let's assume most guns used in crimes are stolen - perhaps we should have some sort of national registry. That way we could keep track of who owns what guns where. This would help solve crime and hold irresponsible gun owners accountable.
Again, my gun is stolen and used in a crime. How am I responsible?
With great power comes great responsibility. It's your gun and you're the responsible gun owner. It's known as vicarious liability. If you're that worried about it, perhaps there should be some sort of mandatory gun insurance. Although I'm betting it would be prohibitively expensive.
This attitude rears it's head on a variety of issues. For example, responsible dog owners who raise a pitbull that chews a child's face off point at the dog claiming, "It had never done anything like that before. I don't know what got into it, but it's certainly not my fault" (as they run off to purchase another one).
Well. Thank gawd it had only chewed one kid's face off.
If you raise a dog, cougar, bear, snake, chimpanzee... or some other dangerous animal that chews a kid's face off... you are responsible. It was your decision to take responsibility for the care and ownership of the animal and you neglected that responsibility which resulted in bodily harm.
If you want a gun... fair enough. But don't shrug your shoulders when it is lifted from your glove compartment and say, "Meh. What are you gonna do" as you drive over to the Big 5 Sporting Goods to purchase two more in their 2 for 1 red light special event. Be prepared to face the consequences. For example, if all guns were registered and you were only allowed one handgun... and your handgun goes missing... then you don't get another one.
Dude you are saying it was STOLEN! How is this on me? What consequences could there be if it was stolen? Find me one case where a gun owner was sued because his gun was used in a crime after it was stolen. This is assinnine thinking. Hell with this type of thinking let s go with the ten club: you sell your extra ten club ticket to a member on the board for face value. They in turn sell that same ticket for ten times the face value to a scalper named "Kat". They trace that ticket to your account and your ten club privelages are now revoked for life.
If either scenario can demonstrate all precautions were taken and negligence of responsibility is not an issue, I would expect no consequences at all. If someone breaks into your home and manages to break open your gun vault and steal your gun... fair enough.
Dude if anything is stolen from your house regardless of how locked up it was how is it your responsibility?! How could you possibly be responsible?!
If you leave a gun lying on your coffee table and a child shoots another child with it... you're responsible (irresponsible is more appropriate). If a thief breaks into your house and steals a gun you left lying on your coffee table... you were irresponsible. And in both cases you never respected the level of responsibility necessary for such an item- you never should have had one.
Guns are supposed to be stored in a gun locker separate from ammunition. I would wager that the overwhelming majority of guns stolen were from the irresponsible variety; therefore begging for more responsible ownership.
A gun isn't a f**king vase or credit card.
Classic though. People want their toys, but they don't truly want the responsibility necessary to ensure they play safely with them.
Don't twist my words dirty. The thesis was: your gun gets stolen and you are responsible. No shit it s not a credit card. but if I have no kids and keep my 9mm under my pillow and a criminal steals how am I irresponsible?!
I know, I know, you don't want to reduce your voting base.
Ok fine, can we at least call it what it is?
I'm Chicago metro, all they talk about is gun violence, yet I think it's gang violence.
Does that make sense or am I misguided in wanted to address the source?
Exactly, and these gang members are getting their guns from the same places they're getting their drugs. I highly doubt they would all the sudden jump through legal hoops created by further buyer restrictions in order to obtain their firearms.
can i asked where they are getting their guns from?
stolen, then sold illegally
1) this isn't true 2) if your gun gets stolen and is used in a crime, you are not a responsible gun owner and should be held accountable
sorry what is not true?
Most guns used in crimes are not stolen. They are usually purchased through legal means, straw purchases, borrowed from friends, etc.
But let's assume most guns used in crimes are stolen - perhaps we should have some sort of national registry. That way we could keep track of who owns what guns where. This would help solve crime and hold irresponsible gun owners accountable.
Again, my gun is stolen and used in a crime. How am I responsible?
With great power comes great responsibility. It's your gun and you're the responsible gun owner. It's known as vicarious liability. If you're that worried about it, perhaps there should be some sort of mandatory gun insurance. Although I'm betting it would be prohibitively expensive.
i m not worried about it all as it makes zero sense. So I m the responsible owner of my car. A drunk guy steals it and rams into another car and kills everyone on board. I m somehow responsible?
No, you wouldn't be held responsible under the current laws. In fact, some states have no fault laws which basically state injured parties will immediately receive compensation for medical treatment regardless of who is at fault. But that certainly won't stop anyone from suing you for wrongful death.
But we're not talking about cars, we're talking about guns. Try to keep up. I'm suggesting that if you own a gun, and it gets used in a crime, you should be held accountable as being party to that crime. You should be happy, this way to get to keep your shiny toy. Just keep track of it.
Do you REALLY want to use car ownership as an analogy?
Let's assume you're married. And you managed not to shoot your spouse with an accidental discharge or during a domestic quarrel. My money's on suicide, but I digress.
Now your spouse steals your car, runs a red light and gets a camera ticket. Or gets a parking ticket. You, as the owner of the vehicle, will be held responsible for those tickets until you can account for what actually happened. And if you can't, you're on the hook.
Why should this be any different than: "Sir, we found your gun at the scene of the murder and have a few questions we'd like to ask you."
Now let's take a look at the layers upon layers of laws and regulation that make that scenario unlikely. You need a driver's license. You need to take a test to get that license. You have to renew that license. You need to register that car when you purchase it. You have to register it when you sell it. You need to operate that vehicle within the rules of the road. That car has to have mirrors, seat belts, an airbag, and any number of safety features. You need to carry valid insurance on that car in the event something happens to your car, or if the driver of that vehicle causes damages to someone else.
If guns were regulated 1/2 as well as cars are, maybe we'd actually see a significant reduction in gun related violence and death.
Or do you just like to drag out the car analogy when it's convenient?
Your original thesis was, gun owners should be held responsible if their stolen guns are used in a crime. So yes I like the car analogy. If someone steals my car and kills four people I am not responsible. If someone breaks open my safe, cuts the gun lock/pried open the trigger lock and uses that gun in a crime, I am not responsible.
And what the hell are you talking about in your second paragraph?
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my position. My suggestion is: If the gun you own gets used in a crime, you should be held accountable. Whether your gun was stolen, lost, or loaned it to a friend; you should be considered an accomplice to whatever crime occurred.
and honestly bud, that is retarted thinking. It makes ZERO sense. Please try again.
Just because you don't understand, doesn't mean it's nonsensical.
We have all kinds of laws that don't make sense. Why can't I drive 100 mph on the highway, when my car goes 120 mph? Well, because someone realized the highway would be a safer place if we limited speeds allowed to drive on them.
This is a good compromise. You get to keep your gun, and it's 'well-regulated'. The part of the amendment your ilk seems to forget about. Lose your gun? You have to report it to the registry and pay a $50 fee. Gun gets stolen, you don't report it, and it turns up in a crime? You pay a $5000 fee. Give a gun to your minor/child and he shoots up a school full of children? You go to jail And so on.
You may not be able to outlaw stupidity, bet you can certainly find ways to tax it.
The solution to all problems: tax it. Got it.
It's one solution I offered for this specific problem.
I'll wait patiently for your counter proposal on how to reduce gun violence.
I know, I know, you don't want to reduce your voting base.
Ok fine, can we at least call it what it is?
I'm Chicago metro, all they talk about is gun violence, yet I think it's gang violence.
Does that make sense or am I misguided in wanted to address the source?
Exactly, and these gang members are getting their guns from the same places they're getting their drugs. I highly doubt they would all the sudden jump through legal hoops created by further buyer restrictions in order to obtain their firearms.
can i asked where they are getting their guns from?
stolen, then sold illegally
1) this isn't true 2) if your gun gets stolen and is used in a crime, you are not a responsible gun owner and should be held accountable
sorry what is not true?
Most guns used in crimes are not stolen. They are usually purchased through legal means, straw purchases, borrowed from friends, etc.
But let's assume most guns used in crimes are stolen - perhaps we should have some sort of national registry. That way we could keep track of who owns what guns where. This would help solve crime and hold irresponsible gun owners accountable.
Again, my gun is stolen and used in a crime. How am I responsible?
With great power comes great responsibility. It's your gun and you're the responsible gun owner. It's known as vicarious liability. If you're that worried about it, perhaps there should be some sort of mandatory gun insurance. Although I'm betting it would be prohibitively expensive.
i m not worried about it all as it makes zero sense. So I m the responsible owner of my car. A drunk guy steals it and rams into another car and kills everyone on board. I m somehow responsible?
No, you wouldn't be held responsible under the current laws. In fact, some states have no fault laws which basically state injured parties will immediately receive compensation for medical treatment regardless of who is at fault. But that certainly won't stop anyone from suing you for wrongful death.
But we're not talking about cars, we're talking about guns. Try to keep up. I'm suggesting that if you own a gun, and it gets used in a crime, you should be held accountable as being party to that crime. You should be happy, this way to get to keep your shiny toy. Just keep track of it.
Do you REALLY want to use car ownership as an analogy?
Let's assume you're married. And you managed not to shoot your spouse with an accidental discharge or during a domestic quarrel. My money's on suicide, but I digress.
Now your spouse steals your car, runs a red light and gets a camera ticket. Or gets a parking ticket. You, as the owner of the vehicle, will be held responsible for those tickets until you can account for what actually happened. And if you can't, you're on the hook.
Why should this be any different than: "Sir, we found your gun at the scene of the murder and have a few questions we'd like to ask you."
Now let's take a look at the layers upon layers of laws and regulation that make that scenario unlikely. You need a driver's license. You need to take a test to get that license. You have to renew that license. You need to register that car when you purchase it. You have to register it when you sell it. You need to operate that vehicle within the rules of the road. That car has to have mirrors, seat belts, an airbag, and any number of safety features. You need to carry valid insurance on that car in the event something happens to your car, or if the driver of that vehicle causes damages to someone else.
If guns were regulated 1/2 as well as cars are, maybe we'd actually see a significant reduction in gun related violence and death.
Or do you just like to drag out the car analogy when it's convenient?
Your original thesis was, gun owners should be held responsible if their stolen guns are used in a crime. So yes I like the car analogy. If someone steals my car and kills four people I am not responsible. If someone breaks open my safe, cuts the gun lock/pried open the trigger lock and uses that gun in a crime, I am not responsible.
And what the hell are you talking about in your second paragraph?
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my position. My suggestion is: If the gun you own gets used in a crime, you should be held accountable. Whether your gun was stolen, lost, or loaned it to a friend; you should be considered an accomplice to whatever crime occurred.
and honestly bud, that is retarted thinking. It makes ZERO sense. Please try again.
Just because you don't understand, doesn't mean it's nonsensical.
We have all kinds of laws that don't make sense. Why can't I drive 100 mph on the highway, when my car goes 120 mph? Well, because someone realized the highway would be a safer place if we limited speeds allowed to drive on them.
This is a good compromise. You get to keep your gun, and it's 'well-regulated'. The part of the amendment your ilk seems to forget about. Lose your gun? You have to report it to the registry and pay a $50 fee. Gun gets stolen, you don't report it, and it turns up in a crime? You pay a $5000 fee. Give a gun to your minor/child and he shoots up a school full of children? You go to jail And so on.
You may not be able to outlaw stupidity, bet you can certainly find ways to tax it.
The solution to all problems: tax it. Got it.
It's one solution I offered for this specific problem.
I'll wait patiently for your counter proposal on how to reduce gun violence.
I ve said it many times on this forum but one more: I live in New Jersey, we have the third strongest gun laws in the us. I don't agree with any sort of ban but here are some of my laws that I like. We have to go through these steps to buy a fire arm in nj. Now we still have shit ass cities like Camden, Newark, Atlantic city etc that continuely kill each other but these are the steps you need to follow to buy a gun legally in jersey: You must be finger printed You must get a criminal background check You must get a mental health background check You must get two references from non family members You must get a reference from your boss After you pass all this you get something called a firearms ID card. With the firearms ID card you can buy as many rifles and shotguns you want. But every time you buy a firearm you must pass one final background check. Whatever weapon you buy it is registered with the nj state police. The only thing nj doesn't have that i would like is you need to pass some sort of safety course in order to first buy a gun. Don't ban anything and don't ever hold me accountable for other people s actions if my firearm is stolen.
I know, I know, you don't want to reduce your voting base.
Ok fine, can we at least call it what it is?
I'm Chicago metro, all they talk about is gun violence, yet I think it's gang violence.
Does that make sense or am I misguided in wanted to address the source?
Exactly, and these gang members are getting their guns from the same places they're getting their drugs. I highly doubt they would all the sudden jump through legal hoops created by further buyer restrictions in order to obtain their firearms.
can i asked where they are getting their guns from?
stolen, then sold illegally
1) this isn't true 2) if your gun gets stolen and is used in a crime, you are not a responsible gun owner and should be held accountable
sorry what is not true?
Most guns used in crimes are not stolen. They are usually purchased through legal means, straw purchases, borrowed from friends, etc.
But let's assume most guns used in crimes are stolen - perhaps we should have some sort of national registry. That way we could keep track of who owns what guns where. This would help solve crime and hold irresponsible gun owners accountable.
Again, my gun is stolen and used in a crime. How am I responsible?
With great power comes great responsibility. It's your gun and you're the responsible gun owner. It's known as vicarious liability. If you're that worried about it, perhaps there should be some sort of mandatory gun insurance. Although I'm betting it would be prohibitively expensive.
This attitude rears it's head on a variety of issues. For example, responsible dog owners who raise a pitbull that chews a child's face off point at the dog claiming, "It had never done anything like that before. I don't know what got into it, but it's certainly not my fault" (as they run off to purchase another one).
Well. Thank gawd it had only chewed one kid's face off.
If you raise a dog, cougar, bear, snake, chimpanzee... or some other dangerous animal that chews a kid's face off... you are responsible. It was your decision to take responsibility for the care and ownership of the animal and you neglected that responsibility which resulted in bodily harm.
If you want a gun... fair enough. But don't shrug your shoulders when it is lifted from your glove compartment and say, "Meh. What are you gonna do" as you drive over to the Big 5 Sporting Goods to purchase two more in their 2 for 1 red light special event. Be prepared to face the consequences. For example, if all guns were registered and you were only allowed one handgun... and your handgun goes missing... then you don't get another one.
Dude you are saying it was STOLEN! How is this on me? What consequences could there be if it was stolen? Find me one case where a gun owner was sued because his gun was used in a crime after it was stolen. This is assinnine thinking. Hell with this type of thinking let s go with the ten club: you sell your extra ten club ticket to a member on the board for face value. They in turn sell that same ticket for ten times the face value to a scalper named "Kat". They trace that ticket to your account and your ten club privelages are now revoked for life.
If either scenario can demonstrate all precautions were taken and negligence of responsibility is not an issue, I would expect no consequences at all. If someone breaks into your home and manages to break open your gun vault and steal your gun... fair enough.
Dude if anything is stolen from your house regardless of how locked up it was how is it your responsibility?! How could you possibly be responsible?!
If you leave a gun lying on your coffee table and a child shoots another child with it... you're responsible (irresponsible is more appropriate). If a thief breaks into your house and steals a gun you left lying on your coffee table... you were irresponsible. And in both cases you never respected the level of responsibility necessary for such an item- you never should have had one.
Guns are supposed to be stored in a gun locker separate from ammunition. I would wager that the overwhelming majority of guns stolen were from the irresponsible variety; therefore begging for more responsible ownership.
A gun isn't a f**king vase or credit card.
Classic though. People want their toys, but they don't truly want the responsibility necessary to ensure they play safely with them.
Don't twist my words dirty. The thesis was: your gun gets stolen and you are responsible. No shit it s not a credit card. but if I have no kids and keep my 9mm under my pillow and a criminal steals how am I irresponsible?!
Well read everything I've said then.
I've said a mechanism should be in place for the incidents where negligence can be disproved.
As well, regardless of anything, the protocol for storing guns is as I described. If you don't secure a gun and it goes missing... you were irresponsible with it. I'm assuming someone had stolen the weapon from under your pillow when you weren't home in your scenario? Lock it up when you leave the house.
I know, I know, you don't want to reduce your voting base.
Ok fine, can we at least call it what it is?
I'm Chicago metro, all they talk about is gun violence, yet I think it's gang violence.
Does that make sense or am I misguided in wanted to address the source?
Exactly, and these gang members are getting their guns from the same places they're getting their drugs. I highly doubt they would all the sudden jump through legal hoops created by further buyer restrictions in order to obtain their firearms.
can i asked where they are getting their guns from?
stolen, then sold illegally
1) this isn't true 2) if your gun gets stolen and is used in a crime, you are not a responsible gun owner and should be held accountable
sorry what is not true?
Most guns used in crimes are not stolen. They are usually purchased through legal means, straw purchases, borrowed from friends, etc.
But let's assume most guns used in crimes are stolen - perhaps we should have some sort of national registry. That way we could keep track of who owns what guns where. This would help solve crime and hold irresponsible gun owners accountable.
Again, my gun is stolen and used in a crime. How am I responsible?
With great power comes great responsibility. It's your gun and you're the responsible gun owner. It's known as vicarious liability. If you're that worried about it, perhaps there should be some sort of mandatory gun insurance. Although I'm betting it would be prohibitively expensive.
This attitude rears it's head on a variety of issues. For example, responsible dog owners who raise a pitbull that chews a child's face off point at the dog claiming, "It had never done anything like that before. I don't know what got into it, but it's certainly not my fault" (as they run off to purchase another one).
Well. Thank gawd it had only chewed one kid's face off.
If you raise a dog, cougar, bear, snake, chimpanzee... or some other dangerous animal that chews a kid's face off... you are responsible. It was your decision to take responsibility for the care and ownership of the animal and you neglected that responsibility which resulted in bodily harm.
If you want a gun... fair enough. But don't shrug your shoulders when it is lifted from your glove compartment and say, "Meh. What are you gonna do" as you drive over to the Big 5 Sporting Goods to purchase two more in their 2 for 1 red light special event. Be prepared to face the consequences. For example, if all guns were registered and you were only allowed one handgun... and your handgun goes missing... then you don't get another one.
Dude you are saying it was STOLEN! How is this on me? What consequences could there be if it was stolen? Find me one case where a gun owner was sued because his gun was used in a crime after it was stolen. This is assinnine thinking. Hell with this type of thinking let s go with the ten club: you sell your extra ten club ticket to a member on the board for face value. They in turn sell that same ticket for ten times the face value to a scalper named "Kat". They trace that ticket to your account and your ten club privelages are now revoked for life.
If either scenario can demonstrate all precautions were taken and negligence of responsibility is not an issue, I would expect no consequences at all. If someone breaks into your home and manages to break open your gun vault and steal your gun... fair enough.
Dude if anything is stolen from your house regardless of how locked up it was how is it your responsibility?! How could you possibly be responsible?!
If you leave a gun lying on your coffee table and a child shoots another child with it... you're responsible (irresponsible is more appropriate). If a thief breaks into your house and steals a gun you left lying on your coffee table... you were irresponsible. And in both cases you never respected the level of responsibility necessary for such an item- you never should have had one.
Guns are supposed to be stored in a gun locker separate from ammunition. I would wager that the overwhelming majority of guns stolen were from the irresponsible variety; therefore begging for more responsible ownership.
A gun isn't a f**king vase or credit card.
Classic though. People want their toys, but they don't truly want the responsibility necessary to ensure they play safely with them.
Don't twist my words dirty. The thesis was: your gun gets stolen and you are responsible. No shit it s not a credit card. but if I have no kids and keep my 9mm under my pillow and a criminal steals how am I irresponsible?!
Well read everything I've said then.
I've said a mechanism should be in place for the incidents where negligence can be disproved.
As well, regardless of anything, the protocol for storing guns is as I described. If you don't secure a gun and it goes missing... you were irresponsible with it. I'm assuming someone had stolen the weapon from under your pillow when you weren't home in your scenario? Lock it up when you leave the house.
So based on your thinking I should probably lock up my prescription drugs too. Because God forbid that criminal who steals my drugs over doses on them I might be liable!
I know, I know, you don't want to reduce your voting base.
Ok fine, can we at least call it what it is?
I'm Chicago metro, all they talk about is gun violence, yet I think it's gang violence.
Does that make sense or am I misguided in wanted to address the source?
Exactly, and these gang members are getting their guns from the same places they're getting their drugs. I highly doubt they would all the sudden jump through legal hoops created by further buyer restrictions in order to obtain their firearms.
can i asked where they are getting their guns from?
stolen, then sold illegally
1) this isn't true 2) if your gun gets stolen and is used in a crime, you are not a responsible gun owner and should be held accountable
sorry what is not true?
Most guns used in crimes are not stolen. They are usually purchased through legal means, straw purchases, borrowed from friends, etc.
But let's assume most guns used in crimes are stolen - perhaps we should have some sort of national registry. That way we could keep track of who owns what guns where. This would help solve crime and hold irresponsible gun owners accountable.
Again, my gun is stolen and used in a crime. How am I responsible?
With great power comes great responsibility. It's your gun and you're the responsible gun owner. It's known as vicarious liability. If you're that worried about it, perhaps there should be some sort of mandatory gun insurance. Although I'm betting it would be prohibitively expensive.
This attitude rears it's head on a variety of issues. For example, responsible dog owners who raise a pitbull that chews a child's face off point at the dog claiming, "It had never done anything like that before. I don't know what got into it, but it's certainly not my fault" (as they run off to purchase another one).
Well. Thank gawd it had only chewed one kid's face off.
If you raise a dog, cougar, bear, snake, chimpanzee... or some other dangerous animal that chews a kid's face off... you are responsible. It was your decision to take responsibility for the care and ownership of the animal and you neglected that responsibility which resulted in bodily harm.
If you want a gun... fair enough. But don't shrug your shoulders when it is lifted from your glove compartment and say, "Meh. What are you gonna do" as you drive over to the Big 5 Sporting Goods to purchase two more in their 2 for 1 red light special event. Be prepared to face the consequences. For example, if all guns were registered and you were only allowed one handgun... and your handgun goes missing... then you don't get another one.
Dude you are saying it was STOLEN! How is this on me? What consequences could there be if it was stolen? Find me one case where a gun owner was sued because his gun was used in a crime after it was stolen. This is assinnine thinking. Hell with this type of thinking let s go with the ten club: you sell your extra ten club ticket to a member on the board for face value. They in turn sell that same ticket for ten times the face value to a scalper named "Kat". They trace that ticket to your account and your ten club privelages are now revoked for life.
If either scenario can demonstrate all precautions were taken and negligence of responsibility is not an issue, I would expect no consequences at all. If someone breaks into your home and manages to break open your gun vault and steal your gun... fair enough.
Dude if anything is stolen from your house regardless of how locked up it was how is it your responsibility?! How could you possibly be responsible?!
If you leave a gun lying on your coffee table and a child shoots another child with it... you're responsible (irresponsible is more appropriate). If a thief breaks into your house and steals a gun you left lying on your coffee table... you were irresponsible. And in both cases you never respected the level of responsibility necessary for such an item- you never should have had one.
Guns are supposed to be stored in a gun locker separate from ammunition. I would wager that the overwhelming majority of guns stolen were from the irresponsible variety; therefore begging for more responsible ownership.
A gun isn't a f**king vase or credit card.
Classic though. People want their toys, but they don't truly want the responsibility necessary to ensure they play safely with them.
Don't twist my words dirty. The thesis was: your gun gets stolen and you are responsible. No shit it s not a credit card. but if I have no kids and keep my 9mm under my pillow and a criminal steals how am I irresponsible?!
Well read everything I've said then.
I've said a mechanism should be in place for the incidents where negligence can be disproved.
As well, regardless of anything, the protocol for storing guns is as I described. If you don't secure a gun and it goes missing... you were irresponsible with it. I'm assuming someone had stolen the weapon from under your pillow when you weren't home in your scenario? Lock it up when you leave the house.
So based on your thinking I should probably lock up my prescription drugs too. Because God forbid that criminal who steals my drugs over doses on them I might be liable!
I know, I know, you don't want to reduce your voting base.
Ok fine, can we at least call it what it is?
I'm Chicago metro, all they talk about is gun violence, yet I think it's gang violence.
Does that make sense or am I misguided in wanted to address the source?
Exactly, and these gang members are getting their guns from the same places they're getting their drugs. I highly doubt they would all the sudden jump through legal hoops created by further buyer restrictions in order to obtain their firearms.
can i asked where they are getting their guns from?
stolen, then sold illegally
1) this isn't true 2) if your gun gets stolen and is used in a crime, you are not a responsible gun owner and should be held accountable
sorry what is not true?
Most guns used in crimes are not stolen. They are usually purchased through legal means, straw purchases, borrowed from friends, etc.
But let's assume most guns used in crimes are stolen - perhaps we should have some sort of national registry. That way we could keep track of who owns what guns where. This would help solve crime and hold irresponsible gun owners accountable.
Again, my gun is stolen and used in a crime. How am I responsible?
With great power comes great responsibility. It's your gun and you're the responsible gun owner. It's known as vicarious liability. If you're that worried about it, perhaps there should be some sort of mandatory gun insurance. Although I'm betting it would be prohibitively expensive.
i m not worried about it all as it makes zero sense. So I m the responsible owner of my car. A drunk guy steals it and rams into another car and kills everyone on board. I m somehow responsible?
No, you wouldn't be held responsible under the current laws. In fact, some states have no fault laws which basically state injured parties will immediately receive compensation for medical treatment regardless of who is at fault. But that certainly won't stop anyone from suing you for wrongful death.
But we're not talking about cars, we're talking about guns. Try to keep up. I'm suggesting that if you own a gun, and it gets used in a crime, you should be held accountable as being party to that crime. You should be happy, this way to get to keep your shiny toy. Just keep track of it.
Do you REALLY want to use car ownership as an analogy?
Let's assume you're married. And you managed not to shoot your spouse with an accidental discharge or during a domestic quarrel. My money's on suicide, but I digress.
Now your spouse steals your car, runs a red light and gets a camera ticket. Or gets a parking ticket. You, as the owner of the vehicle, will be held responsible for those tickets until you can account for what actually happened. And if you can't, you're on the hook.
Why should this be any different than: "Sir, we found your gun at the scene of the murder and have a few questions we'd like to ask you."
Now let's take a look at the layers upon layers of laws and regulation that make that scenario unlikely. You need a driver's license. You need to take a test to get that license. You have to renew that license. You need to register that car when you purchase it. You have to register it when you sell it. You need to operate that vehicle within the rules of the road. That car has to have mirrors, seat belts, an airbag, and any number of safety features. You need to carry valid insurance on that car in the event something happens to your car, or if the driver of that vehicle causes damages to someone else.
If guns were regulated 1/2 as well as cars are, maybe we'd actually see a significant reduction in gun related violence and death.
Or do you just like to drag out the car analogy when it's convenient?
Your original thesis was, gun owners should be held responsible if their stolen guns are used in a crime. So yes I like the car analogy. If someone steals my car and kills four people I am not responsible. If someone breaks open my safe, cuts the gun lock/pried open the trigger lock and uses that gun in a crime, I am not responsible.
And what the hell are you talking about in your second paragraph?
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my position. My suggestion is: If the gun you own gets used in a crime, you should be held accountable. Whether your gun was stolen, lost, or loaned it to a friend; you should be considered an accomplice to whatever crime occurred.
and honestly bud, that is retarted thinking. It makes ZERO sense. Please try again.
Just because you don't understand, doesn't mean it's nonsensical.
We have all kinds of laws that don't make sense. Why can't I drive 100 mph on the highway, when my car goes 120 mph? Well, because someone realized the highway would be a safer place if we limited speeds allowed to drive on them.
This is a good compromise. You get to keep your gun, and it's 'well-regulated'. The part of the amendment your ilk seems to forget about. Lose your gun? You have to report it to the registry and pay a $50 fee. Gun gets stolen, you don't report it, and it turns up in a crime? You pay a $5000 fee. Give a gun to your minor/child and he shoots up a school full of children? You go to jail And so on.
You may not be able to outlaw stupidity, bet you can certainly find ways to tax it.
The solution to all problems: tax it. Got it.
It's one solution I offered for this specific problem.
I'll wait patiently for your counter proposal on how to reduce gun violence.
I ve said it many times on this forum but one more: I live in New Jersey, we have the third strongest gun laws in the us. I don't agree with any sort of ban but here are some of my laws that I like. We have to go through these steps to buy a fire arm in nj. Now we still have shit ass cities like Camden, Newark, Atlantic city etc that continuely kill each other but these are the steps you need to follow to buy a gun legally in jersey: You must be finger printed You must get a criminal background check You must get a mental health background check You must get two references from non family members You must get a reference from your boss After you pass all this you get something called a firearms ID card. With the firearms ID card you can buy as many rifles and shotguns you want. But every time you buy a firearm you must pass one final background check. Whatever weapon you buy it is registered with the nj state police. The only thing nj doesn't have that i would like is you need to pass some sort of safety course in order to first buy a gun. Don't ban anything and don't ever hold me accountable for other people s actions if my firearm is stolen.
So that's it? Add a safety course to the existing NJ gun laws and gun related violence disappears?
I know, I know, you don't want to reduce your voting base.
Ok fine, can we at least call it what it is?
I'm Chicago metro, all they talk about is gun violence, yet I think it's gang violence.
Does that make sense or am I misguided in wanted to address the source?
Exactly, and these gang members are getting their guns from the same places they're getting their drugs. I highly doubt they would all the sudden jump through legal hoops created by further buyer restrictions in order to obtain their firearms.
can i asked where they are getting their guns from?
stolen, then sold illegally
1) this isn't true 2) if your gun gets stolen and is used in a crime, you are not a responsible gun owner and should be held accountable
sorry what is not true?
Most guns used in crimes are not stolen. They are usually purchased through legal means, straw purchases, borrowed from friends, etc.
But let's assume most guns used in crimes are stolen - perhaps we should have some sort of national registry. That way we could keep track of who owns what guns where. This would help solve crime and hold irresponsible gun owners accountable.
Again, my gun is stolen and used in a crime. How am I responsible?
With great power comes great responsibility. It's your gun and you're the responsible gun owner. It's known as vicarious liability. If you're that worried about it, perhaps there should be some sort of mandatory gun insurance. Although I'm betting it would be prohibitively expensive.
i m not worried about it all as it makes zero sense. So I m the responsible owner of my car. A drunk guy steals it and rams into another car and kills everyone on board. I m somehow responsible?
No, you wouldn't be held responsible under the current laws. In fact, some states have no fault laws which basically state injured parties will immediately receive compensation for medical treatment regardless of who is at fault. But that certainly won't stop anyone from suing you for wrongful death.
But we're not talking about cars, we're talking about guns. Try to keep up. I'm suggesting that if you own a gun, and it gets used in a crime, you should be held accountable as being party to that crime. You should be happy, this way to get to keep your shiny toy. Just keep track of it.
Do you REALLY want to use car ownership as an analogy?
Let's assume you're married. And you managed not to shoot your spouse with an accidental discharge or during a domestic quarrel. My money's on suicide, but I digress.
Now your spouse steals your car, runs a red light and gets a camera ticket. Or gets a parking ticket. You, as the owner of the vehicle, will be held responsible for those tickets until you can account for what actually happened. And if you can't, you're on the hook.
Why should this be any different than: "Sir, we found your gun at the scene of the murder and have a few questions we'd like to ask you."
Now let's take a look at the layers upon layers of laws and regulation that make that scenario unlikely. You need a driver's license. You need to take a test to get that license. You have to renew that license. You need to register that car when you purchase it. You have to register it when you sell it. You need to operate that vehicle within the rules of the road. That car has to have mirrors, seat belts, an airbag, and any number of safety features. You need to carry valid insurance on that car in the event something happens to your car, or if the driver of that vehicle causes damages to someone else.
If guns were regulated 1/2 as well as cars are, maybe we'd actually see a significant reduction in gun related violence and death.
Or do you just like to drag out the car analogy when it's convenient?
Your original thesis was, gun owners should be held responsible if their stolen guns are used in a crime. So yes I like the car analogy. If someone steals my car and kills four people I am not responsible. If someone breaks open my safe, cuts the gun lock/pried open the trigger lock and uses that gun in a crime, I am not responsible.
And what the hell are you talking about in your second paragraph?
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my position. My suggestion is: If the gun you own gets used in a crime, you should be held accountable. Whether your gun was stolen, lost, or loaned it to a friend; you should be considered an accomplice to whatever crime occurred.
and honestly bud, that is retarted thinking. It makes ZERO sense. Please try again.
Just because you don't understand, doesn't mean it's nonsensical.
We have all kinds of laws that don't make sense. Why can't I drive 100 mph on the highway, when my car goes 120 mph? Well, because someone realized the highway would be a safer place if we limited speeds allowed to drive on them.
This is a good compromise. You get to keep your gun, and it's 'well-regulated'. The part of the amendment your ilk seems to forget about. Lose your gun? You have to report it to the registry and pay a $50 fee. Gun gets stolen, you don't report it, and it turns up in a crime? You pay a $5000 fee. Give a gun to your minor/child and he shoots up a school full of children? You go to jail And so on.
You may not be able to outlaw stupidity, bet you can certainly find ways to tax it.
The solution to all problems: tax it. Got it.
It's one solution I offered for this specific problem.
I'll wait patiently for your counter proposal on how to reduce gun violence.
It's funny...if gun owners were as violent as you anti goofs thought we were...
I know, I know, you don't want to reduce your voting base.
Ok fine, can we at least call it what it is?
I'm Chicago metro, all they talk about is gun violence, yet I think it's gang violence.
Does that make sense or am I misguided in wanted to address the source?
Exactly, and these gang members are getting their guns from the same places they're getting their drugs. I highly doubt they would all the sudden jump through legal hoops created by further buyer restrictions in order to obtain their firearms.
can i asked where they are getting their guns from?
stolen, then sold illegally
1) this isn't true 2) if your gun gets stolen and is used in a crime, you are not a responsible gun owner and should be held accountable
sorry what is not true?
Most guns used in crimes are not stolen. They are usually purchased through legal means, straw purchases, borrowed from friends, etc.
But let's assume most guns used in crimes are stolen - perhaps we should have some sort of national registry. That way we could keep track of who owns what guns where. This would help solve crime and hold irresponsible gun owners accountable.
Again, my gun is stolen and used in a crime. How am I responsible?
With great power comes great responsibility. It's your gun and you're the responsible gun owner. It's known as vicarious liability. If you're that worried about it, perhaps there should be some sort of mandatory gun insurance. Although I'm betting it would be prohibitively expensive.
This attitude rears it's head on a variety of issues. For example, responsible dog owners who raise a pitbull that chews a child's face off point at the dog claiming, "It had never done anything like that before. I don't know what got into it, but it's certainly not my fault" (as they run off to purchase another one).
Well. Thank gawd it had only chewed one kid's face off.
If you raise a dog, cougar, bear, snake, chimpanzee... or some other dangerous animal that chews a kid's face off... you are responsible. It was your decision to take responsibility for the care and ownership of the animal and you neglected that responsibility which resulted in bodily harm.
If you want a gun... fair enough. But don't shrug your shoulders when it is lifted from your glove compartment and say, "Meh. What are you gonna do" as you drive over to the Big 5 Sporting Goods to purchase two more in their 2 for 1 red light special event. Be prepared to face the consequences. For example, if all guns were registered and you were only allowed one handgun... and your handgun goes missing... then you don't get another one.
Dude you are saying it was STOLEN! How is this on me? What consequences could there be if it was stolen? Find me one case where a gun owner was sued because his gun was used in a crime after it was stolen. This is assinnine thinking. Hell with this type of thinking let s go with the ten club: you sell your extra ten club ticket to a member on the board for face value. They in turn sell that same ticket for ten times the face value to a scalper named "Kat". They trace that ticket to your account and your ten club privelages are now revoked for life.
If either scenario can demonstrate all precautions were taken and negligence of responsibility is not an issue, I would expect no consequences at all. If someone breaks into your home and manages to break open your gun vault and steal your gun... fair enough.
Dude if anything is stolen from your house regardless of how locked up it was how is it your responsibility?! How could you possibly be responsible?!
If you leave a gun lying on your coffee table and a child shoots another child with it... you're responsible (irresponsible is more appropriate). If a thief breaks into your house and steals a gun you left lying on your coffee table... you were irresponsible. And in both cases you never respected the level of responsibility necessary for such an item- you never should have had one.
Guns are supposed to be stored in a gun locker separate from ammunition. I would wager that the overwhelming majority of guns stolen were from the irresponsible variety; therefore begging for more responsible ownership.
A gun isn't a f**king vase or credit card.
Classic though. People want their toys, but they don't truly want the responsibility necessary to ensure they play safely with them.
Don't twist my words dirty. The thesis was: your gun gets stolen and you are responsible. No shit it s not a credit card. but if I have no kids and keep my 9mm under my pillow and a criminal steals how am I irresponsible?!
Well read everything I've said then.
I've said a mechanism should be in place for the incidents where negligence can be disproved.
As well, regardless of anything, the protocol for storing guns is as I described. If you don't secure a gun and it goes missing... you were irresponsible with it. I'm assuming someone had stolen the weapon from under your pillow when you weren't home in your scenario? Lock it up when you leave the house.
So based on your thinking I should probably lock up my prescription drugs too. Because God forbid that criminal who steals my drugs over doses on them I might be liable!
The examples you offer simply aren't congruent.
Medicine designed to help people vs a gun designed to kill? Come on, man.
Don't you think a gun requires a heightened level of responsibility? Wouldn't you feel a little shitty if you left a gun on your coffee table... in your house which was locked and broken into... and it was stolen and used on some young kid at a gas store... when you should have locked it in a gun locker separate from its ammunition?
I know, I know, you don't want to reduce your voting base.
Ok fine, can we at least call it what it is?
I'm Chicago metro, all they talk about is gun violence, yet I think it's gang violence.
Does that make sense or am I misguided in wanted to address the source?
Exactly, and these gang members are getting their guns from the same places they're getting their drugs. I highly doubt they would all the sudden jump through legal hoops created by further buyer restrictions in order to obtain their firearms.
can i asked where they are getting their guns from?
stolen, then sold illegally
1) this isn't true 2) if your gun gets stolen and is used in a crime, you are not a responsible gun owner and should be held accountable
sorry what is not true?
Most guns used in crimes are not stolen. They are usually purchased through legal means, straw purchases, borrowed from friends, etc.
But let's assume most guns used in crimes are stolen - perhaps we should have some sort of national registry. That way we could keep track of who owns what guns where. This would help solve crime and hold irresponsible gun owners accountable.
Again, my gun is stolen and used in a crime. How am I responsible?
With great power comes great responsibility. It's your gun and you're the responsible gun owner. It's known as vicarious liability. If you're that worried about it, perhaps there should be some sort of mandatory gun insurance. Although I'm betting it would be prohibitively expensive.
i m not worried about it all as it makes zero sense. So I m the responsible owner of my car. A drunk guy steals it and rams into another car and kills everyone on board. I m somehow responsible?
No, you wouldn't be held responsible under the current laws. In fact, some states have no fault laws which basically state injured parties will immediately receive compensation for medical treatment regardless of who is at fault. But that certainly won't stop anyone from suing you for wrongful death.
But we're not talking about cars, we're talking about guns. Try to keep up. I'm suggesting that if you own a gun, and it gets used in a crime, you should be held accountable as being party to that crime. You should be happy, this way to get to keep your shiny toy. Just keep track of it.
Do you REALLY want to use car ownership as an analogy?
Let's assume you're married. And you managed not to shoot your spouse with an accidental discharge or during a domestic quarrel. My money's on suicide, but I digress.
Now your spouse steals your car, runs a red light and gets a camera ticket. Or gets a parking ticket. You, as the owner of the vehicle, will be held responsible for those tickets until you can account for what actually happened. And if you can't, you're on the hook.
Why should this be any different than: "Sir, we found your gun at the scene of the murder and have a few questions we'd like to ask you."
Now let's take a look at the layers upon layers of laws and regulation that make that scenario unlikely. You need a driver's license. You need to take a test to get that license. You have to renew that license. You need to register that car when you purchase it. You have to register it when you sell it. You need to operate that vehicle within the rules of the road. That car has to have mirrors, seat belts, an airbag, and any number of safety features. You need to carry valid insurance on that car in the event something happens to your car, or if the driver of that vehicle causes damages to someone else.
If guns were regulated 1/2 as well as cars are, maybe we'd actually see a significant reduction in gun related violence and death.
Or do you just like to drag out the car analogy when it's convenient?
Your original thesis was, gun owners should be held responsible if their stolen guns are used in a crime. So yes I like the car analogy. If someone steals my car and kills four people I am not responsible. If someone breaks open my safe, cuts the gun lock/pried open the trigger lock and uses that gun in a crime, I am not responsible.
And what the hell are you talking about in your second paragraph?
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my position. My suggestion is: If the gun you own gets used in a crime, you should be held accountable. Whether your gun was stolen, lost, or loaned it to a friend; you should be considered an accomplice to whatever crime occurred.
and honestly bud, that is retarted thinking. It makes ZERO sense. Please try again.
Just because you don't understand, doesn't mean it's nonsensical.
We have all kinds of laws that don't make sense. Why can't I drive 100 mph on the highway, when my car goes 120 mph? Well, because someone realized the highway would be a safer place if we limited speeds allowed to drive on them.
This is a good compromise. You get to keep your gun, and it's 'well-regulated'. The part of the amendment your ilk seems to forget about. Lose your gun? You have to report it to the registry and pay a $50 fee. Gun gets stolen, you don't report it, and it turns up in a crime? You pay a $5000 fee. Give a gun to your minor/child and he shoots up a school full of children? You go to jail And so on.
You may not be able to outlaw stupidity, bet you can certainly find ways to tax it.
The solution to all problems: tax it. Got it.
It's one solution I offered for this specific problem.
I'll wait patiently for your counter proposal on how to reduce gun violence.
It's funny...if gun owners were as violent as you anti goofs thought we were...
But no seriously, you're funny.
What's funny- actually... kind of sad- is the genuine paranoia pro kooks demonstrate on these boards. And their failure to see the problem for what it is. Try and justify all you want- any argument falls well short of maintaining the status quo.
I've argued for the death penalty countless times. As convinced as I am that there is a time and place for such an event, I can admit that the possibility of executing an innocent man is enough of a reason to at least pause for thought. In this debate there is nothing... nothing... that makes me think your paranoid, delusional, self serving argument carries any weight at all.
Shooting shit and 'it's ma right I reckon' just aren't good enough.
And there's nothing wrong with being a gun owner. Shotguns and hunting rifles are fair game in my mind (with small capacity magazines- enough to hunt competently and safely).
Handguns? Why? Assault rifles? Why? Because they're cool? Give me a f**king break.
I know, I know, you don't want to reduce your voting base.
Ok fine, can we at least call it what it is?
I'm Chicago metro, all they talk about is gun violence, yet I think it's gang violence.
Does that make sense or am I misguided in wanted to address the source?
Exactly, and these gang members are getting their guns from the same places they're getting their drugs. I highly doubt they would all the sudden jump through legal hoops created by further buyer restrictions in order to obtain their firearms.
can i asked where they are getting their guns from?
stolen, then sold illegally
1) this isn't true 2) if your gun gets stolen and is used in a crime, you are not a responsible gun owner and should be held accountable
sorry what is not true?
Most guns used in crimes are not stolen. They are usually purchased through legal means, straw purchases, borrowed from friends, etc.
But let's assume most guns used in crimes are stolen - perhaps we should have some sort of national registry. That way we could keep track of who owns what guns where. This would help solve crime and hold irresponsible gun owners accountable.
Again, my gun is stolen and used in a crime. How am I responsible?
With great power comes great responsibility. It's your gun and you're the responsible gun owner. It's known as vicarious liability. If you're that worried about it, perhaps there should be some sort of mandatory gun insurance. Although I'm betting it would be prohibitively expensive.
This attitude rears it's head on a variety of issues. For example, responsible dog owners who raise a pitbull that chews a child's face off point at the dog claiming, "It had never done anything like that before. I don't know what got into it, but it's certainly not my fault" (as they run off to purchase another one).
Well. Thank gawd it had only chewed one kid's face off.
If you raise a dog, cougar, bear, snake, chimpanzee... or some other dangerous animal that chews a kid's face off... you are responsible. It was your decision to take responsibility for the care and ownership of the animal and you neglected that responsibility which resulted in bodily harm.
If you want a gun... fair enough. But don't shrug your shoulders when it is lifted from your glove compartment and say, "Meh. What are you gonna do" as you drive over to the Big 5 Sporting Goods to purchase two more in their 2 for 1 red light special event. Be prepared to face the consequences. For example, if all guns were registered and you were only allowed one handgun... and your handgun goes missing... then you don't get another one.
Dude you are saying it was STOLEN! How is this on me? What consequences could there be if it was stolen? Find me one case where a gun owner was sued because his gun was used in a crime after it was stolen. This is assinnine thinking. Hell with this type of thinking let s go with the ten club: you sell your extra ten club ticket to a member on the board for face value. They in turn sell that same ticket for ten times the face value to a scalper named "Kat". They trace that ticket to your account and your ten club privelages are now revoked for life.
If either scenario can demonstrate all precautions were taken and negligence of responsibility is not an issue, I would expect no consequences at all. If someone breaks into your home and manages to break open your gun vault and steal your gun... fair enough.
Dude if anything is stolen from your house regardless of how locked up it was how is it your responsibility?! How could you possibly be responsible?!
If you don't report the gun stolen, you should be held responsible.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
I know, I know, you don't want to reduce your voting base.
Ok fine, can we at least call it what it is?
I'm Chicago metro, all they talk about is gun violence, yet I think it's gang violence.
Does that make sense or am I misguided in wanted to address the source?
Exactly, and these gang members are getting their guns from the same places they're getting their drugs. I highly doubt they would all the sudden jump through legal hoops created by further buyer restrictions in order to obtain their firearms.
can i asked where they are getting their guns from?
stolen, then sold illegally
1) this isn't true 2) if your gun gets stolen and is used in a crime, you are not a responsible gun owner and should be held accountable
sorry what is not true?
Most guns used in crimes are not stolen. They are usually purchased through legal means, straw purchases, borrowed from friends, etc.
But let's assume most guns used in crimes are stolen - perhaps we should have some sort of national registry. That way we could keep track of who owns what guns where. This would help solve crime and hold irresponsible gun owners accountable.
Again, my gun is stolen and used in a crime. How am I responsible?
With great power comes great responsibility. It's your gun and you're the responsible gun owner. It's known as vicarious liability. If you're that worried about it, perhaps there should be some sort of mandatory gun insurance. Although I'm betting it would be prohibitively expensive.
i m not worried about it all as it makes zero sense. So I m the responsible owner of my car. A drunk guy steals it and rams into another car and kills everyone on board. I m somehow responsible?
No, you wouldn't be held responsible under the current laws. In fact, some states have no fault laws which basically state injured parties will immediately receive compensation for medical treatment regardless of who is at fault. But that certainly won't stop anyone from suing you for wrongful death.
But we're not talking about cars, we're talking about guns. Try to keep up. I'm suggesting that if you own a gun, and it gets used in a crime, you should be held accountable as being party to that crime. You should be happy, this way to get to keep your shiny toy. Just keep track of it.
Do you REALLY want to use car ownership as an analogy?
Let's assume you're married. And you managed not to shoot your spouse with an accidental discharge or during a domestic quarrel. My money's on suicide, but I digress.
Now your spouse steals your car, runs a red light and gets a camera ticket. Or gets a parking ticket. You, as the owner of the vehicle, will be held responsible for those tickets until you can account for what actually happened. And if you can't, you're on the hook.
Why should this be any different than: "Sir, we found your gun at the scene of the murder and have a few questions we'd like to ask you."
Now let's take a look at the layers upon layers of laws and regulation that make that scenario unlikely. You need a driver's license. You need to take a test to get that license. You have to renew that license. You need to register that car when you purchase it. You have to register it when you sell it. You need to operate that vehicle within the rules of the road. That car has to have mirrors, seat belts, an airbag, and any number of safety features. You need to carry valid insurance on that car in the event something happens to your car, or if the driver of that vehicle causes damages to someone else.
If guns were regulated 1/2 as well as cars are, maybe we'd actually see a significant reduction in gun related violence and death.
Or do you just like to drag out the car analogy when it's convenient?
Your original thesis was, gun owners should be held responsible if their stolen guns are used in a crime. So yes I like the car analogy. If someone steals my car and kills four people I am not responsible. If someone breaks open my safe, cuts the gun lock/pried open the trigger lock and uses that gun in a crime, I am not responsible.
And what the hell are you talking about in your second paragraph?
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my position. My suggestion is: If the gun you own gets used in a crime, you should be held accountable. Whether your gun was stolen, lost, or loaned it to a friend; you should be considered an accomplice to whatever crime occurred.
and honestly bud, that is retarted thinking. It makes ZERO sense. Please try again.
Just because you don't understand, doesn't mean it's nonsensical.
We have all kinds of laws that don't make sense. Why can't I drive 100 mph on the highway, when my car goes 120 mph? Well, because someone realized the highway would be a safer place if we limited speeds allowed to drive on them.
This is a good compromise. You get to keep your gun, and it's 'well-regulated'. The part of the amendment your ilk seems to forget about. Lose your gun? You have to report it to the registry and pay a $50 fee. Gun gets stolen, you don't report it, and it turns up in a crime? You pay a $5000 fee. Give a gun to your minor/child and he shoots up a school full of children? You go to jail And so on.
You may not be able to outlaw stupidity, bet you can certainly find ways to tax it.
The solution to all problems: tax it. Got it.
It's one solution I offered for this specific problem.
I'll wait patiently for your counter proposal on how to reduce gun violence.
It's funny...if gun owners were as violent as you anti goofs thought we were...
But no seriously, you're funny.
Gun owners aren't violent? Tell that to the deer.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
I know, I know, you don't want to reduce your voting base.
Ok fine, can we at least call it what it is?
I'm Chicago metro, all they talk about is gun violence, yet I think it's gang violence.
Does that make sense or am I misguided in wanted to address the source?
Exactly, and these gang members are getting their guns from the same places they're getting their drugs. I highly doubt they would all the sudden jump through legal hoops created by further buyer restrictions in order to obtain their firearms.
can i asked where they are getting their guns from?
stolen, then sold illegally
1) this isn't true 2) if your gun gets stolen and is used in a crime, you are not a responsible gun owner and should be held accountable
sorry what is not true?
Most guns used in crimes are not stolen. They are usually purchased through legal means, straw purchases, borrowed from friends, etc.
But let's assume most guns used in crimes are stolen - perhaps we should have some sort of national registry. That way we could keep track of who owns what guns where. This would help solve crime and hold irresponsible gun owners accountable.
Again, my gun is stolen and used in a crime. How am I responsible?
With great power comes great responsibility. It's your gun and you're the responsible gun owner. It's known as vicarious liability. If you're that worried about it, perhaps there should be some sort of mandatory gun insurance. Although I'm betting it would be prohibitively expensive.
i m not worried about it all as it makes zero sense. So I m the responsible owner of my car. A drunk guy steals it and rams into another car and kills everyone on board. I m somehow responsible?
No, you wouldn't be held responsible under the current laws. In fact, some states have no fault laws which basically state injured parties will immediately receive compensation for medical treatment regardless of who is at fault. But that certainly won't stop anyone from suing you for wrongful death.
But we're not talking about cars, we're talking about guns. Try to keep up. I'm suggesting that if you own a gun, and it gets used in a crime, you should be held accountable as being party to that crime. You should be happy, this way to get to keep your shiny toy. Just keep track of it.
Do you REALLY want to use car ownership as an analogy?
Let's assume you're married. And you managed not to shoot your spouse with an accidental discharge or during a domestic quarrel. My money's on suicide, but I digress.
Now your spouse steals your car, runs a red light and gets a camera ticket. Or gets a parking ticket. You, as the owner of the vehicle, will be held responsible for those tickets until you can account for what actually happened. And if you can't, you're on the hook.
Why should this be any different than: "Sir, we found your gun at the scene of the murder and have a few questions we'd like to ask you."
Now let's take a look at the layers upon layers of laws and regulation that make that scenario unlikely. You need a driver's license. You need to take a test to get that license. You have to renew that license. You need to register that car when you purchase it. You have to register it when you sell it. You need to operate that vehicle within the rules of the road. That car has to have mirrors, seat belts, an airbag, and any number of safety features. You need to carry valid insurance on that car in the event something happens to your car, or if the driver of that vehicle causes damages to someone else.
If guns were regulated 1/2 as well as cars are, maybe we'd actually see a significant reduction in gun related violence and death.
Or do you just like to drag out the car analogy when it's convenient?
Your original thesis was, gun owners should be held responsible if their stolen guns are used in a crime. So yes I like the car analogy. If someone steals my car and kills four people I am not responsible. If someone breaks open my safe, cuts the gun lock/pried open the trigger lock and uses that gun in a crime, I am not responsible.
And what the hell are you talking about in your second paragraph?
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my position. My suggestion is: If the gun you own gets used in a crime, you should be held accountable. Whether your gun was stolen, lost, or loaned it to a friend; you should be considered an accomplice to whatever crime occurred.
and honestly bud, that is retarted thinking. It makes ZERO sense. Please try again.
Just because you don't understand, doesn't mean it's nonsensical.
We have all kinds of laws that don't make sense. Why can't I drive 100 mph on the highway, when my car goes 120 mph? Well, because someone realized the highway would be a safer place if we limited speeds allowed to drive on them.
This is a good compromise. You get to keep your gun, and it's 'well-regulated'. The part of the amendment your ilk seems to forget about. Lose your gun? You have to report it to the registry and pay a $50 fee. Gun gets stolen, you don't report it, and it turns up in a crime? You pay a $5000 fee. Give a gun to your minor/child and he shoots up a school full of children? You go to jail And so on.
You may not be able to outlaw stupidity, bet you can certainly find ways to tax it.
The solution to all problems: tax it. Got it.
It's one solution I offered for this specific problem.
I'll wait patiently for your counter proposal on how to reduce gun violence.
It's funny...if gun owners were as violent as you anti goofs thought we were...
But no seriously, you're funny.
Gun owners aren't violent? Tell that to the deer.
Shooting a deer is more ethical and respectable than eating chicken nuggets or a hamburger.
We shouldn't apologize for our existence: we eat meat. Procuring it from the wild is fairer than caging animals and abusing them until we harvest them.
So if the aliens invaded tomorrow and said,"we are not going to apologize for our existence. We must eat humans." You would say,"do not eat the third world people. They have had it rough. Eat my people for we've only known comfort." Is that what you would say?
Comments
Guns are supposed to be stored in a gun locker separate from ammunition. I would wager that the overwhelming majority of guns stolen were from the irresponsible variety; therefore begging for more responsible ownership.
A gun isn't a f**king vase or credit card.
Classic though. People want their toys, but they don't truly want the responsibility necessary to ensure they play safely with them.
We have all kinds of laws that don't make sense. Why can't I drive 100 mph on the highway, when my car goes 120 mph? Well, because someone realized the highway would be a safer place if we limited speeds allowed to drive on them.
This is a good compromise. You get to keep your gun, and it's 'well-regulated'. The part of the amendment your ilk seems to forget about.
Lose your gun? You have to report it to the registry and pay a $50 fee.
Gun gets stolen, you don't report it, and it turns up in a crime? You pay a $5000 fee.
Give a gun to your minor/child and he shoots up a school full of children? You go to jail
And so on.
You may not be able to outlaw stupidity, bet you can certainly find ways to tax it.
Presumably, you are keeping a gun at home to protect your family and personal possessions. If someone comes and steals your gun, one could argue that you were being negligent, and should responsible for the subsequent damages.
People pull this shit all the time. Say you're walking through a parking lot and trip on a giant pothole and injure yourself. Was the person being negligent because they weren't watching where they were going? Or was the store negligent in maintaining the condition of it's parking lot. Likely, both parties have some responsibility, and both were negligent to some extent. Either way someone is going to pay for the injuries. The store may accept 10% of the responsibility, and offer to pay 1/2 the hospital bills. Your health insurance picks up the 80% co-pay for your ER visit. And you pay 10% for not watching where you were going.
It's like that.
Some of the people you guys are arguing with here... I've found myself arguing with in other threads. I'm about as middle as it could be.
In short, I'm about letting common sense prevail. Or, in short, I'm always right lol!
Glad you're back unsung.
I'll wait patiently for your counter proposal on how to reduce gun violence.
I live in New Jersey, we have the third strongest gun laws in the us. I don't agree with any sort of ban but here are some of my laws that I like. We have to go through these steps to buy a fire arm in nj. Now we still have shit ass cities like Camden, Newark, Atlantic city etc that continuely kill each other but these are the steps you need to follow to buy a gun legally in jersey:
You must be finger printed
You must get a criminal background check
You must get a mental health background check
You must get two references from non family members
You must get a reference from your boss
After you pass all this you get something called a firearms ID card.
With the firearms ID card you can buy as many rifles and shotguns you want. But every time you buy a firearm you must pass one final background check.
Whatever weapon you buy it is registered with the nj state police.
The only thing nj doesn't have that i would like is you need to pass some sort of safety course in order to first buy a gun.
Don't ban anything and don't ever hold me accountable for other people s actions if my firearm is stolen.
I've said a mechanism should be in place for the incidents where negligence can be disproved.
As well, regardless of anything, the protocol for storing guns is as I described. If you don't secure a gun and it goes missing... you were irresponsible with it. I'm assuming someone had stolen the weapon from under your pillow when you weren't home in your scenario? Lock it up when you leave the house.
I am proposing a law specific to gun ownership.
But no seriously, you're funny.
Medicine designed to help people vs a gun designed to kill? Come on, man.
Don't you think a gun requires a heightened level of responsibility? Wouldn't you feel a little shitty if you left a gun on your coffee table... in your house which was locked and broken into... and it was stolen and used on some young kid at a gas store... when you should have locked it in a gun locker separate from its ammunition?
I've argued for the death penalty countless times. As convinced as I am that there is a time and place for such an event, I can admit that the possibility of executing an innocent man is enough of a reason to at least pause for thought. In this debate there is nothing... nothing... that makes me think your paranoid, delusional, self serving argument carries any weight at all.
Shooting shit and 'it's ma right I reckon' just aren't good enough.
Handguns? Why? Assault rifles? Why? Because they're cool? Give me a f**king break.
we will find a way, we will find our place
we will find a way, we will find our place
We shouldn't apologize for our existence: we eat meat. Procuring it from the wild is fairer than caging animals and abusing them until we harvest them.
The second strongest argument the pro side has: it's fun.
Lol