Gun sales way up.

#52
#52
transammann said:
The average American sees the **** hitting the fan and doesn’t want to face the near future unarmed. That’s the legacy of the Kenyan.

It was Obama with the knife to gunfight, get in their faces, we’ll handle this the Chicago Way etc that wrought this wonderful turnaround.
Click to expand...

no, people just freakout when a Democrat gets into the White House, gun sales went up when Clinton was the Pres because people were convinced that he would take away all of their guns. I go into an argument with a friend because he thought that Clinton manufactured Y2K to cause civil disorder to declare martial law and take guns.
 
#53
#53
orangestorm said:
no, people just freakout when a Democrat gets into the White House, gun sales went up when Clinton was the Pres because people were convinced that he would take away all of their guns. I go into an argument with a friend because he thought that Clinton manufactured Y2K to cause civil disorder to declare martial law and take guns.
Click to expand...

Abortion clinic bombings also went up...
 
#54
#54
Number of abortions (murder of unborn, partially born or newborn humans) is also up.



Gun makers baffled by ATF criteria - Washington Times

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is in charge of determining whether a gun model is legal, but the agency won’t say much about its criteria.

Despite overseeing an industry that includes machine guns and other deadly weapons, ATF regulations for the manufacture of weapons are often unclear, leading to reliance on a secretive system by which firearms manufacturers can submit proposed weapons for testing and find out one at a time whether they comply with the law, critics say.

The ATF recommends that manufacturers voluntarily submit weapons for case-by-case determination. But those judgments are private and, it turns out, sometimes contradictory. Critics say nearly identical prototypes can be approved for one manufacturer but denied for another.
Click to expand...

ATF-Convienence.jpg
 
#55
#55
Its odd to me that there are a lot of guns in households on your side of the pond... Maybe thats because it's completely unheard of over here.

Why are they so popular? Protection or hunting and clay pigeon shooting?

Do you think it would improve the country if it was like it is over here?
 
#56
#56
stephenk24 said:
Its odd to me that there are a lot of guns in households on your side of the pond... Maybe thats because it's completely unheard of over here.

Why are they so popular? Protection or hunting and clay pigeon shooting?

Do you think it would improve the country if it was like it is over here?
Click to expand...


Myth perpetuated by gun manufacturers and gun nuts that you stand a good chance of protecting yourself with a handgun in your dresser drawer.

Just ignore how many are stolen and used by criminals or how many people shoot their own family members by mistake/in a rage.
 
#57
#57
lawgator1 said:
Myth perpetuated by gun manufacturers and gun nuts that you stand a good chance of protecting yourself with a handgun in your dresser drawer.

Just ignore how many are stolen and used by criminals or how many people shoot their own family members by mistake/in a rage.
Click to expand...

Th manufacturers are allowed to say that? Are guns advertised heavily in the states? Do you need a licence to own one?
 
#58
#58
stephenk24 said:
Th manufacturers are allowed to say that? Are guns advertised heavily in the states? Do you need a licence to own one?
Click to expand...


Yes, if you are a law abiding citizen you need a license.

Unfortunately, there is no accountability should you possess it in an irresponsible manner and untold thousands are stolen every year.

Virtually every handgun used by a career criminal in the U.S. was at some point stolen from a licensed owner. This is because felons cannot legally own guns.

And yet they constantly end up with them.

I have theorized that a possible solution to this is to hold owners financially accountable for what happens if they negligently allow a gun to be stolen and it is then used in a crime.

For example, if a person lawfully buys a gun and it is stolen out of their car and then used to shoot and injure someone, that criminal victim can sue the original owner on the theory that it is completely foreseeable that a gun might be stolen and used in a crime, since it in fact happens so often.
 
#59
#59
lawgator1 said:
Yes, if you are a law abiding citizen you need a license.

Unfortunately, there is no accountability should you possess it in an irresponsible manner and untold thousands are stolen every year.

Virtually every handgun used by a career criminal in the U.S. was at some point stolen from a licensed owner. This is because felons cannot legally own guns.

And yet they constantly end up with them.

I have theorized that a possible solution to this is to hold owners financially accountable for what happens if they negligently allow a gun to be stolen and it is then used in a crime.

For example, if a person lawfully buys a gun and it is stolen out of their car and then used to shoot and injure someone, that criminal victim can sue the original owner on the theory that it is completely foreseeable that a gun might be stolen and used in a crime, since it in fact happens so often.
Click to expand...

Very interesting.... I think you may be onto something with that theory but whats the main reason guns are stolen? Because people are threathened to give it up, because they are on show in peoples houses?
 
#60
#60
stephenk24 said:
Very interesting.... I think you may be onto something with that theory but whats the main reason guns are stolen? Because people are threathened to give it up, because they are on show in peoples houses?
Click to expand...


Can happen a myriad of ways, obviously, but most frequently stolen out of homes and cars during burglaries.
 
#62
#62
lawgator1 said:
Yes, if you are a law abiding citizen you need a license.

Unfortunately, there is no accountability should you possess it in an irresponsible manner and untold thousands are stolen every year.

Virtually every handgun used by a career criminal in the U.S. was at some point stolen from a licensed owner. This is because felons cannot legally own guns.

And yet they constantly end up with them.

I have theorized that a possible solution to this is to hold owners financially accountable for what happens if they negligently allow a gun to be stolen and it is then used in a crime.

For example, if a person lawfully buys a gun and it is stolen out of their car and then used to shoot and injure someone, that criminal victim can sue the original owner on the theory that it is completely foreseeable that a gun might be stolen and used in a crime, since it in fact happens so often.
Click to expand...

So by this logic, if someone Carjacks me and then runs over a family with my car, I am not only at fault, but liable for damages. Sounds awesome. Who do I vote for to get this great idea accomplished?
 
#63
#63
lawgator1 said:
Yes, if you are a law abiding citizen you need a license.

Unfortunately, there is no accountability should you possess it in an irresponsible manner and untold thousands are stolen every year.

Virtually every handgun used by a career criminal in the U.S. was at some point stolen from a licensed owner. This is because felons cannot legally own guns.

And yet they constantly end up with them.

I have theorized that a possible solution to this is to hold owners financially accountable for what happens if they negligently allow a gun to be stolen and it is then used in a crime.

For example, if a person lawfully buys a gun and it is stolen out of their car and then used to shoot and injure someone, that criminal victim can sue the original owner on the theory that it is completely foreseeable that a gun might be stolen and used in a crime, since it in fact happens so often.
Click to expand...

You're scarier than the Patriot Act.
 
#64
#64
VolsNSkinsFan said:
So by this logic, if someone Carjacks me and then runs over a family with my car, I am not only at fault, but liable for damages. Sounds awesome. Who do I vote for to get this great idea accomplished?
Click to expand...

While his idea is too much, this is not a solid comparison.

A gun's inherent purpose is to harm. A car's inherent purpose is merely to transport.
 
#66
#66
VolsNSkinsFan said:
The comparison is legit. People use both to make a living
Click to expand...

Just because there's a relative trait between the two doesn't make them comparable. Again, a gun's only purpose is to fire rounds at a target for the sake of causing harm. Cars, carriages, and bikes were made for transportation. Guns, swords, and bombs were made to kill.
 
#67
#67
VolsNSkinsFan said:
So by this logic, if someone Carjacks me and then runs over a family with my car, I am not only at fault, but liable for damages. Sounds awesome. Who do I vote for to get this great idea accomplished?
Click to expand...


No, because the purpose of a handgun is to shoot another human being. It is not the purpose of a car to run people over. Moreover, the frequency with which a stolen gun is used to murder or injure some innocent third party is literally every single day, many times a day. Whereas the frequency with which someone steals a car to run someone over is virtually unheard of.

Your understanding of logic is predictably extremely poor.
 
#68
#68
lawgator1 said:
No, because the purpose of a handgun is to shoot another human being. It is not the purpose of a car to run people over. Moreover, the frequency with which a stolen gun is used to murder or injure some innocent third party is literally every single day, many times a day. Whereas the frequency with which someone steals a car to run someone over is virtually unheard of.

Your understanding of logic is predictably extremely poor.
Click to expand...

You are a lawyer, of course you want more laws so you can sue, your bias is showing
 
#69
#69
VolsNSkinsFan said:
You are a lawyer, of course you want more laws so you can sue, your bias is showing
Click to expand...

I could have sworn you wanted more laws as well. Do you not support laws banning texting while driving? If the majority of criminals get guns that are stolen from law-abidin citizens the why are you opposed to LGs suggestion? Not all law-abiding citizens have their guns stolen; not al individuals who text while the drive cause accidents.
 
#71
#71
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Pretty simple... I don't think I am liable for something that is stolen from me
Click to expand...

Do you think Pakistan should be held liable if someone who is sympathetic with the Taliban steals some type of weapons grade nuclear material and then it is used against Israel, the US, or the UK?
 
#73
#73
lawgator1 said:
Yes, if you are a law abiding citizen you need a license.

False, or more accurately "depends". Some places do, some places don't. Some states do not even require a permit to carry concealed.

Virtually every handgun used by a career criminal in the U.S. was at some point stolen from a licensed owner. This is because felons cannot legally own guns.

I would be very interested in some credible sources on the "virtually every handgun" part. You do realize that in many states sales between individuals is not regulated in the same way as going through an FFL, right?

And yet they constantly end up with them.

Kinda like most illegal things that people that want they get anyway.

I have theorized that a possible solution to this is to hold owners financially accountable for what happens if they negligently allow a gun to be stolen and it is then used in a crime.

For example, if a person lawfully buys a gun and it is stolen out of their car and then used to shoot and injure someone, that criminal victim can sue the original owner on the theory that it is completely foreseeable that a gun might be stolen and used in a crime, since it in fact happens so often.
Click to expand...

It is hard to describe the vehemence with which I reject the idea that the victim of a criminal act (having something stolen) can then be held liable for it's criminal use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#74
#74
There is a fundamentally very conservative aspect to what I am suggesting here.

Hear me out:

A fundamental proposition of current conservatives is that we, as a society, ought not have to be taxed to pay for others' poor decisions, that individuals are responsible for their own errors in judgment, well-being, etc.

If someone uses a stolen gun to shoot someone else, who pays for it? You and me may well pay for it. If the victim is poor or not well insured, we pay the hospital bills, and in the event of a death we pay for the social programs for the guy's kids.

If we trace some part of responsibility for the injury to the original gun owner, who did not act prudently to prevent the gun from being stolen, does it not make sense that the original gun owner compensate the person inured due to the predictable negligence associated with the theft of the gun?

This could easily be accomplished by requiring that when a person buy a gun, they prove they have insurance to cover its theft. You could add it as a rider to a homeowner's policy, or buy it with your auto insurance.

Yes, a person would have a choice to make. They would weigh their desire to have a gun against the true cost associated with that. There is enough gun violence in this country that we ought to be able to agree that owning a gun carries with it some risk.

All I'm saying is let's put that risk on the person who introduces the gun into the private sector. The worst thing that happens is people who buy guns have an incentive to be MUCH more careful about how and where they store it, which has to be a good thing.

It also means that at least some portion of the expense associated with gun related injuries and deaths is paid for, not by taxpayers but rather spread across those who decided they wanted to own one, placing everyone else at risk.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top