How much are NY's left wing gun laws to blame for this

#76
#76
KiffinKiller said:
I'm not advocating what LG was suggesting. I was merely pointing out that comparing the use of a stolen vehicle and stolen firearm isn't really viable.
Click to expand...

yet the purpose of stealing a car could be to kill right? Assuming you can understand a criminal's purpose is a dangerous game
 
#77
#77
VolDad said:
Could be argued that the primary use of a hand gun is protection.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Quote from the movie Shane;

"A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that."

The overwhelming # of defensive gun uses never involve firing the weapon. This is partially because most good people have very little interest in actually killing anyone and partially because very few criminals do not have a sudden urge to be somewhere else (Did I leave the stove on back at the crack house?) when confronted with the possibility of being shot. Of course, things are thown into even sharper relief when someone does have to shoot someone in self defense...and it's not terribly uncommon.
 
#78
#78
utvolpj said:
yet the purpose of stealing a car could be to kill right? Assuming you can understand a criminal's purpose is a dangerous game
Click to expand...


Its not its only purpose. In fact, I doubt very seriously that the number (or ratio) of stolen cars that end up being used in the intentional commission of a crime is anywhere near the number of stolen guns that end up being deployed in a bad way.

The stolen car/stolen gun analogy is poor.

I brought up the notion of civil and criminal liability as a means to bring home the point that hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year in this country and the majority of hand gun violent crime is driven by those guns.

If the argument is that its "too late" to try gun control because the criminals have guns already and that we as innocent civilians need to protect ourselves, then I think it a fair answer to say that we still need to do something to stop guns from getting to the criminals in the future.

We seem to be in a vicious cycle: 1) criminals can get guns; 2) we buy guns to protect ourselves from the stolen guns; 3) criminals end up getting a lot of these guns by stealing them from us; so 4) we need more guns.

Only way everyone can have their way is to make legal gun ownership a lot more dependent on doing it responsibly. Slow people down a little, make them think, not just about doing it in the first place, but much more importantly how they will be storing it five years from now.
 
#79
#79
lawgator1 said:
Its not its only purpose. In fact, I doubt very seriously that the number (or ratio) of stolen cars that end up being used in the intentional commission of a crime is anywhere near the number of stolen guns that end up being deployed in a bad way.

The stolen car/stolen gun analogy is poor.

I brought up the notion of civil and criminal liability as a means to bring home the point that hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year in this country and the majority of hand gun violent crime is driven by those guns.

If the argument is that its "too late" to try gun control because the criminals have guns already and that we as innocent civilians need to protect ourselves, then I think it a fair answer to say that we still need to do something to stop guns from getting to the criminals in the future.

We seem to be in a vicious cycle: 1) criminals can get guns; 2) we buy guns to protect ourselves from the stolen guns; 3) criminals end up getting a lot of these guns by stealing them from us; so 4) we need more guns.

Only way everyone can have their way is to make legal gun ownership a lot more dependent on doing it responsibly. Slow people down a little, make them think, not just about doing it in the first place, but much more importantly how they will be storing it five years from now.
Click to expand...

Personally I want stronger gun USE laws. Using a gun is already an aggravating circumstance but I'd go further. Far as I'm concerned the use of a gun in the commission of a felony should essentially be charged as what is now attempted murder. If you actually kill someone we DNA map you and divvy up your important organs to those more deserving of their use.
 
#80
#80
utvolpj said:
yet the purpose of stealing a car could be to kill right? Assuming you can understand a criminal's purpose is a dangerous game
Click to expand...

For the purpose of argument, I was stating that a gun and car can't be compared because their specific uses don't overlap. Yes a car can and has caused homicide but it was not invented to kill. Guns were invented to kill plain and simple.
 
#81
#81
My only question is what part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" do people not understand? Seems to me and I know I will get blasted but I don't think it is any of the governments business what guns I have or carry with me.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#82
#82
VOLFAN_MTSUALUM said:
My only question is what part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" do people not understand? Seems to me and I know I will get blasted but I don't think it is any of the governments business what guns I have or carry with me.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Everyone understands. We're not ratifying the constitution...this is a discussion.
 
#83
#83
lawgator1 said:
Its not its only purpose.
Click to expand...

and as I've said, a gun's only purpose is not to kill people. In fact very few (as a % it would be near zero) are ever used for this purpose. What criminals do with property they have stolen is not my responsibility. Creating an absurd idea to try and justify taking guns doesn't help your case at all.

lawgator1 said:
I brought up the notion of civil and criminal liability as a means to bring home the point that hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year in this country and the majority of hand gun violent crime is driven by those guns.

If the argument is that its "too late" to try gun control because the criminals have guns already and that we as innocent civilians need to protect ourselves, then I think it a fair answer to say that we still need to do something to stop guns from getting to the criminals in the future.

We seem to be in a vicious cycle: 1) criminals can get guns; 2) we buy guns to protect ourselves from the stolen guns; 3) criminals end up getting a lot of these guns by stealing them from us; so 4) we need more guns.

Only way everyone can have their way is to make legal gun ownership a lot more dependent on doing it responsibly. Slow people down a little, make them think, not just about doing it in the first place, but much more importantly how they will be storing it five years from now.
Click to expand...

still on this absurd idea. Instead of tying up the overburdened courts for some kind of 3rd hand liability cases how about making the criminals pay for their actions. They did it knowing full well what the consequences were. If I lock all my guns up in my gun safe I also know what the consequences are. I am choosing to protect myself from the very people you want to take responsibility away from

"well that person wouldn't have died if Joe Gunowner had locked his gun away" is absolutely the wrong direction. You probably know it but are still on this campaign to make criminals of legal gun owners. Lefty politics at work
 
#86
#86
utvolpj said:
and as I've said, a gun's only purpose is not to kill people. In fact very few (as a % it would be near zero) are ever used for this purpose. What criminals do with property they have stolen is not my responsibility. Creating an absurd idea to try and justify taking guns doesn't help your case at all.



still on this absurd idea. Instead of tying up the overburdened courts for some kind of 3rd hand liability cases how about making the criminals pay for their actions. They did it knowing full well what the consequences were. If I lock all my guns up in my gun safe I also know what the consequences are. I am choosing to protect myself from the very people you want to take responsibility away from

"well that person wouldn't have died if Joe Gunowner had locked his gun away" is absolutely the wrong direction. You probably know it but are still on this campaign to make criminals of legal gun owners. Lefty politics at work
Click to expand...

I don't think LG is intending to criminalize all legal gun owners. Most people who agree with LG on this believe that the majority of Americans aren't responsible enough to own/carry weapons. I would agree with that statement (not the one about sending gun owners to jail) - doesn't mean I'm going to send you to jail.
 
#87
#87
KiffinKiller said:
I don't think LG is intending to criminalize all legal gun owners. Most people who agree with LG on this believe that the majority of Americans aren't responsible enough to own/carry weapons. I would agree with that statement (not the one about sending gun owners to jail) - doesn't mean I'm going to send you to jail.
Click to expand...

really?

lawgator1 said:
1) You can be held civilly liable for the damage caused by use of the gun.

2) If the circumstances of the theft and your negligence in allowing it are sufficiently egregious, i.e. you left it in a car, or you did not have it locked away in a gun safe at your residence, then you can also be held criminally liable and face prison terms if someone steals your gun and then uses it to kill or injure someone.
Click to expand...

he has already stated that you can't consider being in a locked house sufficient. So in LG's example someone breaking into my house and stealing my gun would have me prosecuted as a criminal equal to the thief/killer. Sounds like a great place to live
 
#88
#88
KiffinKiller said:
I don't think LG is intending to criminalize all legal gun owners. Most people who agree with LG on this believe that the majority of Americans aren't responsible enough to own/carry weapons. I would agree with that statement (not the one about sending gun owners to jail) - doesn't mean I'm going to send you to jail.
Click to expand...

If you were in that pharmacy when the killers started firing, would you prefer to be armed or unarmed?

If you were in the pharmacy when the killers started firing and for some reason was unarmed, would you prefer one of your fellow intended victims be armed?

The topic and your user name are ironic.
 
#89
#89
utvolpj said:
really?



he has already stated that you can't consider being in a locked house sufficient. So in LG's example someone breaking into my house and stealing my gun would have me prosecuted as a criminal equal to the thief/killer. Sounds like a great place to live
Click to expand...

I'm advocating his solution - I just think that most people aren't responsible enough to own/carry guns. The problem we have is far too complex to solve by simply pointing the finger at gun owners.
 
#90
#90
KiffinKiller said:
I'm advocating his solution - I just think that most people aren't responsible enough to own/carry guns. The problem we have is far too complex to solve by simply pointing the finger at gun owners.
Click to expand...

I'll assume you meant "not advocating" :)

and I've always agreed that there are too many dumb gun owners. My first elk hunt in AZ was a very scary time and I didn't even have a gun
 
#92
#92
lawgator1 said:
Its not its only purpose. In fact, I doubt very seriously that the number (or ratio) of stolen cars that end up being used in the intentional commission of a crime is anywhere near the number of stolen guns that end up being deployed in a bad way.

The stolen car/stolen gun analogy is poor..
Click to expand...

KiffinKiller said:
This is a great analogy...if the primary use of a car wasn't travel.
Click to expand...

If someone breaks into a house and during the course of the robbery steals a box of condoms. He then has sex with his woman the condom fails and she gets pregnant.
Who is responsible for the baby and should bear the financial burden; the homeowner who was robbed or the criminal? After all the condoms were being used for their primary purpose.
 
#93
#93
VolDad said:
If you were in that pharmacy when the killers started firing, would you prefer to be armed or unarmed?

If you were in the pharmacy when the killers started firing and for some reason was unarmed, would you prefer one of your fellow intended victims be armed?

The topic and your user name are ironic.
Click to expand...

First, my user name is a tongue-in-cheek comment on the mattress burning/kiffin's departure.

To answer you're question, I would have my head down. The situation is very arguable. Trying to be a hero could get other people killed. Aggravating criminals wouldn't be my goal in that situation.
 
#94
#94
VolDad said:
If someone breaks into a house and during the course of the robbery steals a box of condoms. He then has sex with his woman the condom fails and she gets pregnant.
Who is responsible for the baby and should bear the financial burden; the homeowner who was robbed or the criminal? After all the condoms were being used for their primary purpose.
Click to expand...


That's an even worse analogy than the car one.

First, there is not an epidemic of stolen condoms being used to commit crimes in a completely predictable and never-ending cycle of more guns and more violence.

Second, in your scenario, the condom "falls off." That is, the condom doesn't work as intended, whereas the purpose of the gun is to shoot someone, and that purpose is, again, predictably served by its theft and then deployment in a crime.

Third, the use of a stolen gun in the commission of a crime is a highly foreseeable, if not predictable, event. When a person buys a gun these days, if it does not occur to him that it is possible it might get stolen and then used during the commission of a crime, then that person is clearly a moron who had no business owning a slingshot, much less a gun.

Fourth, guns are regulated for this purpose. That is, anyone can buy condoms. But not everyone can buy guns. And the reason for that is that we recognize the risk associated with guns, especially stolen ones.

Fifth, the reason guns get stolen at all is for use in crimes or resale. They are expensive and a pain to buy. A condom is a few dollars and can be bought in any grocery or convenience store or pharmacy.

Shall I continue?
 
#96
#96
lawgator1 said:
Part of the problem is that gun rights advocates have this movie-induced, wild west, fantasy view of the way these situations develop. They think Dirty Harry or Sylvester Stallone just walks in with his own firearm, says a cute line to the thug, shoots and kills him, and then the hot girl hostage goes home with him to show her appreciation.
Click to expand...

Not sure what gun rights advocates you listen to. Something tells me you don't based on this statement. The point would be you're in a situation where someone pulls a weapon, whether it be on you or in some location you happen to be (like this pharmacy). If you're unarmed, that criminal now has the option to do whatever he pleases because he has the gun and you have jack. If the criminal discovers you are armed, then you now have the option to defend yourself. Whatever the criminal does is then up to him, but I would much rather get shot with the option on self defense than get shot while not being allowed to carry anything.

lawgator1 said:
Its people who have them in dresser drawers under their socks, or who have them in a glove compartment, that are the problem.
Click to expand...

My grandfather does both and has never had to pull his firearm on anyone and has never had one stolen. Tell me how he has contributed to crime rates?
 
#97
#97
DynamiteMcGhee said:
Not sure what gun rights advocates you listen to. Something tells me you don't based on this statement. The point would be you're in a situation where someone pulls a weapon, whether it be on you or in some location you happen to be (like this pharmacy). If you're unarmed, that criminal now has the option to do whatever he pleases because he has the gun and you have jack. If the criminal discovers you are armed, then you now have the option to defend yourself. Whatever the criminal does is then up to him, but I would much rather get shot with the option on self defense than get shot while not being allowed to carry anything.



My grandfather does both and has never had to pull his firearm on anyone and has never had one stolen. Tell me how he has contributed to crime rates?
Click to expand...

He hasn't. I don't think LG is trying to toss your gramps in the slammer. I could be mistaken though...
 
#98
#98
lawgator1 said:
That's an even worse analogy than the car one.

First, there is not an epidemic of stolen condoms being used to commit crimes in a completely predictable and never-ending cycle of more guns and more violence.

Second, in your scenario, the condom "falls off." That is, the condom doesn't work as intended, whereas the purpose of the gun is to shoot someone, and that purpose is, again, predictably served by its theft and then deployment in a crime.

Third, the use of a stolen gun in the commission of a crime is a highly foreseeable, if not predictable, event. When a person buys a gun these days, if it does not occur to him that it is possible it might get stolen and then used during the commission of a crime, then that person is clearly a moron who had no business owning a slingshot, much less a gun.

Fourth, guns are regulated for this purpose. That is, anyone can buy condoms. But not everyone can buy guns. And the reason for that is that we recognize the risk associated with guns, especially stolen ones.

Fifth, the reason guns get stolen at all is for use in crimes or resale. They are expensive and a pain to buy. A condom is a few dollars and can be bought in any grocery or convenience store or pharmacy.

Shall I continue?
Click to expand...

Agreed on the condom analogy being useless. the proper analogy would be having said person steal the condom and use it to not impregnate someone - where, in the analogy, not impregnating someone during sex is illegal.
 
#99
#99
KiffinKiller said:
He hasn't. I don't think LG is trying to toss your gramps in the slammer. I could be mistaken though...
Click to expand...

My grandfather is the most pro gun person I know and he has the common sense to know you don't draw your weapon unless it is absolutely necessary. He once told me something along the lines of "The only time I have ever had the chance to point a gun at a human being was in Vietnam and I hope to never have that opportunity again." I honestly believe the majority of people carry as a "just in case" kind of measure. They don't go looking for situations to flash their handgun, but if the crap ever hits the fan bad enough they are prepared.
 
#100
#100
DynamiteMcGhee said:
My grandfather is the most pro gun person I know and he has the common sense to know you don't draw your weapon unless it is absolutely necessary. He once told me something along the lines of "The only time I have ever had the chance to point a gun at a human being was in Vietnam and I hope to never have that opportunity again." I honestly believe the majority of people carry as a "just in case" kind of measure. They don't go looking for situations to flash their handgun, but if the crap ever hits the fan bad enough they are prepared.
Click to expand...

Your grandfather sounds like a great man. Unfortunately, I don't believe the majority of Americans are even close to as responsible as your grandfather. My point in the beginning was regulating who could have a concealed weapon because, quite frankly, I don't trust half of you all with concealed guns.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top