Gun sales way up.

#76
#76
I stole my first can of dip so can I sue Weigels when I get cancer?
 
#79
#79
If it were left up to the Libs, only criminals would have guns.

Thought you dems had learned by now, "gun control" is a loser issue for you.
 
#80
#80
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
If it were left up to the Libs, only criminals would have guns.

Thought you dems had learned by now, "gun control" is a loser issue for you.
Click to expand...


I don't think that gun control, in the traditional sense, is politically doable. It may not even be basically practical.

But I do think there is a lot to be said for holding people who buy guns accountable for the entirely predictable albeit unintended consequences of making that choice.

As I say, that is actually a fundamentally conservative point of view.
 
#81
#81
accountable for their actions not the actions of others. That's a lib POV
 
#84
#84
therealUT said:
Is this because your stance would be inconsistent, much like everything else you post on here?
Click to expand...

Says the guy who is against talking on the cell phone while driving b/c it infringes on our rights but guns are bad b/c they "promote violence"

Also people and nations are not the same thing
 
#85
#85
utvolpj said:
accountable for their actions not the actions of others. That's a lib POV
Click to expand...


Handgun theft has two unique charatceristics to it that warrant this: 1) frequency with which it happens makes it predictable, and therefore responsibility for injury justifiably placed on the person who introduced the danger in the first place; and, 2) the cost of a theft is so high, that its worth it to society to spend the resources necessary to assign responsibility to the person who bought the gun and then did not safeguard it with the vigilance he/she should have.
 
#86
#86
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Says the guy who is against talking on the cell phone while driving b/c it infringes on our rights but guns are bad b/c they "promote violence"

Also people and nations are not the same thing
Click to expand...

1. I support the right to talk on the phone and drive; I support the right to buy and own guns. I can support rights and at the same time disagree with practicing those rights.

2. 'People' and 'nations' are the same. 'Persons' and 'nations' are not; however, nations are simply the collection of persons (people) and should have the same rights, responsibilities, and duties.
 
#87
#87
lawgator1 said:
Handgun theft has two unique charatceristics to it that warrant this: 1) frequency with which it happens makes it predictable, and therefore responsibility for injury justifiably placed on the person who introduced the danger in the first place; and, 2) the cost of a theft is so high, that its worth it to society to spend the resources necessary to assign responsibility to the person who bought the gun and then did not safeguard it with the vigilance he/she should have.
Click to expand...

Something worth your time to read LG.

frontline: hot guns: "How Criminals Get Guns" | PBS
 
#88
#88
lawgator1 said:
Handgun theft has two unique charatceristics to it that warrant this: 1) frequency with which it happens makes it predictable, and therefore responsibility for injury justifiably placed on the person who introduced the danger in the first place; and, 2) the cost of a theft is so high, that its worth it to society to spend the resources necessary to assign responsibility to the person who bought the gun and then did not safeguard it with the vigilance he/she should have.
Click to expand...

always blame the victim huh? I hope one day you see how craptastic your idea is (but it's doubtful).

The criminal makes the conscious decision to steal and then use a gun in a crime. That is not on the legal owner in any way.

also please explain "introduced the danger" to me. I have introduced no danger by owning guns (unless someone comes into my house uninvited)
 
#90
#90
lawgator1 said:
Handgun theft has two unique charatceristics to it that warrant this: 1) frequency with which it happens makes it predictable, and therefore responsibility for injury justifiably placed on the person who introduced the danger in the first place; and, 2) the cost of a theft is so high, that its worth it to society to spend the resources necessary to assign responsibility to the person who bought the gun and then did not safeguard it with the vigilance he/she should have.
Click to expand...

How are we to look at cities and states that ban guns all together, leaving their citizens at the mercy of thugs? In your legal opinion, could the state then be held liable for the death and injury of the innocent?
Left with no means to defend theirselves.
After all, criminals will find a gun, that is what makes them criminals.
 
#93
#93
lawgator1 said:
Read that a little more closely than you apparently initially did. I think you will find it supports my argument.
Click to expand...

Maybe I simply misunderstood your argument? This seemed to directly contradict your stolen from citizens assertion.

"In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list."
 
#95
#95
hndog609 said:
Maybe I simply misunderstood your argument? This seemed to directly contradict your stolen from citizens assertion.

"In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list."
Click to expand...


You are talking, much like VolsNskinsFan, about people who use the gun they PERSONALLY stole. That ignores the HUGE percentage of guns stolen at the outset, and then bought, one criminal to another.

Moreover, these FFLs discussed in your article as a major source? All that would prove is that the people getting those licenses ought to have to be heavily insured. The gretaer the volume of guns they put into the stream of illicit commerce, the more accountable they should be held.

This is not saying you can't own a gun. This is saying that, if you do, you have a big incentive to keep it under effective control. And if you don't, and it is predictably stolen, and then predictably ends up injuring someone, you (and not me and our fellow taxpayers) have to pay for the consequences of your own negligence.
 
#96
#96
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Add them all up and they still don't come close to family.
Click to expand...


What percentage "borrowed from family" are illegally owned by the family member?

And to boot, this appears to be self reporting by inmates.

Yeah, that's a dependable study. I am sure guys in prison, when asked where they got their guns, admitted they stole it or bought it from a drug dealer.

Come on.
 
#97
#97
it's almost as likely the criminal got a gun by stealing it as he did from a licensed dealer. But please, go on about the need for gun insurance :lol:
 
#98
#98
lawgator1 said:
You are talking, much like VolsNskinsFan, about people who use the gun they PERSONALLY stole. That ignores the HUGE percentage of guns stolen at the outset, and then bought, one criminal to another.

Moreover, these FFLs discussed in your article as a major source? All that would prove is that the people getting those licenses ought to have to be heavily insured. The gretaer the volume of guns they put into the stream of illicit commerce, the more accountable they should be held.

This is not saying you can't own a gun. This is saying that, if you do, you have a big incentive to keep it under effective control. And if you don't, and it is predictably stolen, and then predictably ends up injuring someone, you (and not me and our fellow taxpayers) have to pay for the consequences of your own negligence.
Click to expand...

Having a firearm stolen from your home or vehicle by an intruder is in no way "negligence".
 
#100
#100
utvolpj said:
it's almost as likely the criminal got a gun by stealing it as he did from a licensed dealer. But please, go on about the need for gun insurance :lol:
Click to expand...


Why not require a person who negligently stores his gun pay for injuries caused by the gun if it is stolen? And, in turn, why not ensure financial responsibility by requiring insurance?

You have to buy insurance to drive a car, primarily because we know that accidents are predictable. And so we spread the costs of the accidents across drivers.

Similarly, all who own guns can buy insurance to spread the cost of injuries caused by owning guns. Not that each owner pays a premiumn equal to the very high cost of a gun wound. Rather, you spread the cost of the injuries across all owners.

Again, all this does is CORRECTLY shift the cost of owning a gun that is stolen to those people who own a gun that simply might be stolen. This is just as we share the cost of those who do have accidents with the entire universe of those who might have accidents. And again, that is merely by virtue of having owned a car.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top