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

#126
#126
i'm surprised oakland is so high. there are lots of very nice areas in oakland (and no i'm not joking).
 
#127
#127
droski said:
i'm surprised oakland is so high. there are lots of very nice areas in oakland (and no i'm not joking).
Click to expand...

I guess the "bad" areas are bad enough to make up for it.

Maybe the Raiders being so bad recently has bumped things up a bit?
 
#133
#133
Just an FYI if you go by "total violent crime" as opposed to just murder rate the top 10 looks like this. (again '09 numbers)

St Louis
Detroit
Memphis
Oakland
Baltimore
Buffalo
Cleveland
KC
Stockton (CA)
DC

As an aside it's worth noting that being cold doesn't bode well for not wanting to get raped as Minneapolis is way out in front of "forcible rape" followed by Anchorage. Other surprise appearances in that catagory (to me anyway) are Colorado Springs at #4 and Wichita (KS) at #10.
 
#134
#134
So what you are saying LG is that the POTUS and Holder are accountable for the deaths that arised from Operation Fast and Furious because they "allowed" the gun to be taken and used in illegal ways which is worse than having your gun stolen? It's like handing my gun to the guy who went and robbed the pharmacy knowing full well he was about to go use it to kill someone. The guns weren't just stolen, they were allowed to be taken by your favorite guy.
 
#136
#136
JTrainDavis said:
Give me an instance where gun legislation has had a noticeable affect on gun crime?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I was arguing for not arming everyone with concealed weapons. Gun crime aside, most Americans can't drink responsibly let alone carry a concealed fire arm at all times.
 
#137
#137
KiffinKiller said:
I was arguing for not arming everyone with concealed weapons. Gun crime aside, most Americans can't drink responsibly let alone carry a concealed fire arm at all times.
Click to expand...



Most Americans can drink responsibly, I also don't see how that supports your view on concealed sidearms.
 
#139
#139
NEOCON said:
So what you are saying LG is that the POTUS and Holder are accountable for the deaths that arised from Operation Fast and Furious because they "allowed" the gun to be taken and used in illegal ways which is worse than having your gun stolen? It's like handing my gun to the guy who went and robbed the pharmacy knowing full well he was about to go use it to kill someone. The guns weren't just stolen, they were allowed to be taken by your favorite guy.
Click to expand...

Crickets. The condom and stolen car hypotheticals didn't seem to gain any traction. Fortunately, we have a real life example!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#140
#140
lawgator1 said:
Didn't say that.

I think a reasonable solution is to make the law such that, if you own a legal handgun and it gets stolen and is later used in a crime:

1) You can be held civilly liable for the damage caused by use of the gun. This is very similar to laws concerning lending your car to someone. It is a dangerous instrumentality and, because of that, you owe a duty of care to everyone else to make sure that it does not fall into the wrong hands.

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.

This way, if you want to go buy a hand gun you can. But at the same time, you have a tremendous incentive to keep it either on you at all times and safely so, or locked away where it won't hurt anyone.

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...

1. No its not. Lending does not equal stealing.
If your car was stolen and used to commit a crime would/should you be held liable?

2. If you overlook the criminal part I guess you might be right, but thats not even certain.

Edit: I have noticed that much of what you have posted skips over intent and goes after the instrument used. (which could be many things other than a gun)
I have 5 different types of firearms. It is not my intent to shoot anyone, nor allow anyone to take my firearms and shoot anyone. Do I have complete and total control over the later? No, not totally. Should I be held responsible for something that is not totally in my control, even if that is my intent? Am I willing to use my firearm to protect my 2 daughters and wife? I wouldn't test my resolve in that case.
 
Last edited:
#142
#142
utvolpj said:
clearly LG is saying that if no one had guns there would be no crime. Sounds like a solid theory to me
Click to expand...

No gun crimes. It's much easier to defend yourself against a knife or similar weapon of close proximity.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#148
#148
BeecherVol said:
1. No its not. Lending does not equal stealing.
If your car was stolen and used to commit a crime would/should you be held liable?

2. If you overlook the criminal part I guess you might be right, but thats not even certain.

Edit: I have noticed that much of what you have posted skips over intent and goes after the instrument used. (which could be many things other than a gun)
I have 5 different types of firearms. It is not my intent to shoot anyone, nor allow anyone to take my firearms and shoot anyone. Do I have complete and total control over the later? No, not totally. Should I be held responsible for something that is not totally in my control, even if that is my intent? Am I willing to use my firearm to protect my 2 daughters and wife? I wouldn't test my resolve in that case.
Click to expand...


Your intent is irrelevant.

People don't intend to run red lights, but are held accountable when they do.

People don't intend to negligently maintain the parking lot in front of their store, but are held accountable when they do.

Just because you intend to use your five firearms for lawful things does not exclude the distinct possibility (and with five one could make a good argument that statistically its a probability) that one will be stolen from you and that gun might well be used to hurt or kill someone.

Bottom line: If you want to possess a firearm, knowing everything we know about how many are stolen every year and used in crimes, then you must accept the concomitant risk that the gun you buy will end up being used in that fashion.

So, if you choose to own anyway, then the incentive is really high for you to be as careful as you should be, anyway.

BTW, I think that this is something that you should be able to insure for as a rider on your homeowner's. If you buy a gun, you should get a disclosure form that tells you the potential liability risks and advises you to contact your insurer to see what coverages are available in the event your gun is stolen and traceably used such that a claim is made against you.

Your insurer could give you breaks for how you store the gun, what kind it is, where you live relative to crime, an alarm system. Those are things they do anyway but they could easily track that and establish your category of risk.
 
#149
#149
your examples don't match your first line. Your argument around guns is that they have the ability but choose not to do it.

still stupid though
 
#150
#150
utvolpj said:
your examples don't match your first line. Your argument around guns is that they have the ability but choose not to do it.

still stupid though
Click to expand...


I am saying that his intent as to how his guns get used is not relevant to my argument that he should be held liable if they are misused. Even if directly contrary to his intent.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top