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

#151
#151
Am I having deja vu all over again? I swear LG has touted this notion in the past.

by the way, what if someone breaks into my house, while I'm home, and at gunpoint, demands that I unlock my gun safe and give him my guns? he goes out and kills someone with my gun. am I still liable because my gun safe wasn't buried underground so the criminal couldn't see it?
 
#152
#152
lawgator1 said:
Your intent is irrelevant.

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

This is true, but not what you are arguing. Imagine if all of us, well aware of how people do run red lights, and sometimes kill people in the process, started saying "screw it" and just started coming to a stop and looking both ways at green lights. We go through green lights (hopefully being at least periperally aware of someone acting like they might blow through their red) with a reasonable expectation of not getting T-boned. If I've secured a weapon out of sight in a locked vehicle (trunks are better than glove boxes, under the seat, etc) then yeah, I've taken reasonable steps to prevent the weapon being stolen. If it happens and is used in a crime I didn't run any red lights...the criminal did.


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.

That you keep insisting this is the case doesn't make it true or even reasonable.

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

.
Click to expand...

Your last statement above makes perfect sense. Even if one has no intention of carrying guilt for someone else's criminal behavior there should be plenty of incentive to not have valuable property stolen in the first place.
 
#153
#153
Gang on gang homicide statistics easily refute the notion that concealed carry is a deterrent to criminals.
 
#154
#154
therealUT said:
Gang on gang homicide statistics easily refute the notion that concealed carry is a deterrent to criminals.
Click to expand...

That's a very interesting observation but I think it's outside "normal" parameters of that discussion. Gang violence is intended violence where everybody knows the score. You're armed, they're armed, both sides are fully aware.

I would posit that whatever influence CC has with criminals under "normal" circumstances is that the overwhelming number of burglars, assaulters, rapists etc have no desire to tangle with someone they have reason to believe might be armed. I think most crime (not to say all) is committed by people trying to get what they want the easy way. Having to get what you want from someone with a gun ups the ante a bit.

How great an impact CC has is one of those things that seems fairly difficult to quantify and certainly not enough to sway those on either side of the discussion.
 
#155
#155
Now we're taking a look at why somebody commits a crime, which is a deeper subject... There are a series of great Nat'Geo/Nova/etc. docs on this subject, and IMO is highly pertinent to the discussion.
 
#156
#156
kev20 said:
Am I having deja vu all over again? I swear LG has touted this notion in the past.

by the way, what if someone breaks into my house, while I'm home, and at gunpoint, demands that I unlock my gun safe and give him my guns? he goes out and kills someone with my gun. am I still liable because my gun safe wasn't buried underground so the criminal couldn't see it?
Click to expand...


Admittedly a tough one.

Hmmmmm ....

Could write in an exception for that, but then everyone who came home to find their place ransacked and a gun missing would call it in and contend that they were there when it happened.

Got think about that one.
 
#157
#157
lawgator1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, in which case you seemed to be more worried about me instead of the criminal. Backwards as usually, but whats new.
 
#158
#158
BeecherVol said:
Yes, in which case you seemed to be more worried about me instead of the criminal. Backwards as usually, but whats new.
Click to expand...


I am very worried that you, a family member, or a close friend will be gunned down during a robbery by some punk with a hand gun stolen out of the glove compartment from someone's car on the other side of town. If that happens, then you or your survivors should have the right to seek compensation from the guy that so irresponsibly set the chain of events in motion.


I am very worried that you, a family member, or a close friend will have a gun stolen out of your glove compartment, and then used to kill some poor unfortunate soul in a neighboring city. If that were to happen, I'd like for you to have the ability to pay damages to the victim's survivors so that both you and they might have some peace.
 
#159
#159
lawgator1 said:
I am very worried that you, a family member, or a close friend will be gunned down during a robbery by some punk with a hand gun stolen out of the glove compartment from someone's car on the other side of town. If that happens, then you or your survivors should have the right to seek compensation from the guy that so irresponsibly set the chain of events in motion.


I am very worried that you, a family member, or a close friend will have a gun stolen out of your glove compartment, and then used to kill some poor unfortunate soul in a neighboring city. If that were to happen, I'd like for you to have the ability to pay damages to the victim's survivors so that both you and they might have some peace.
Click to expand...

Tuh-wiz-ded

:crazy:
 
#160
#160
lawgator1 said:
I am very worried that you, a family member, or a close friend will be gunned down during a robbery by some punk with a hand gun stolen out of the glove compartment from someone's car on the other side of town. If that happens, then you or your survivors should have the right to seek compensation from the guy that so irresponsibly set the chain of events in motion.


I am very worried that you, a family member, or a close friend will have a gun stolen out of your glove compartment, and then used to kill some poor unfortunate soul in a neighboring city. If that were to happen, I'd like for you to have the ability to pay damages to the victim's survivors so that both you and they might have some peace.
Click to expand...

If there is intent to do harm, weapons will be had however they can be obtained. Its been that way for a long time, and is not going to change anytime soon. Intent is relevant.

I will keep mine, thanks.
 
#161
#161
OP was about NY's law being too strict - thinks everyone should be off duty police officers in order to stop crime. Forget LG's nonsense.
 
#162
#162
NEOCON said:
Tuh-wiz-ded

:crazy:
Click to expand...

If that happens, then you or your survivors should have the right to seek compensation from the guy that so irresponsibly set the chain of events in motion.
Click to expand...

It's the guy's wholly inexplicable ability to view something that took a criminal act of force (breaking into a locked vehicle) to obtain as being essentially the same as, IDK, leaving your piece on a park bench that's so utterly bewildering.

Actually LG didn't just tip his hand he dropped all his cards face up on the table back in post #156 when he described the call "a tough one" if a criminal took your gun from you during an armed home invasion when you were forced to open your safe at gunpoint. Any hope of this ever being a rational topic with LG was loaded onto a rocket and shot into space right there.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top