Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[Teallaura]

Teal I have my wallet on me. If someone steals it how am I responsible?

Read what I wrote - on your person. Not responsible. f

You up and decide to hand it to someone without duress - it's your own stupid fault.

Same laws that apply to animals - you are responsible for your possession. Now, go buy a real gun safe and make sure the door is locked when you leave. That's a wholly reasonable expectation of any responsible owner.

[Teallaura]

Not exactly what you were thinking...

[TheWall]

Teal if I am under duress I can use that as a legal defense in court. Besides am I stealing from myself?

[Teallaura]

Teal if I am under duress I can use that as a legal defense in court. Besides am I stealing from myself?

TW, what are you talking about? I excluded duress. I excluded reasonable actions to secure the weapon. If you are a responsible gun owner and take reasonable precautions against theft, I have no issue.

You leave guns on the sofa and the door unlocked, it danged well is your fault - falls under attractive nuisance.

[TheWall]

TW, what are you talking about? I excluded duress. I excluded reasonable actions to secure the weapon. If you are a responsible gun owner and take reasonable precautions against theft, I have no issue.

You leave guns on the sofa and the door unlocked, it danged well is your fault - falls under attractive nuisance.

Oh my mistake then. As far as duress goes.

[rogue06]

TW, what are you talking about? I excluded duress. I excluded reasonable actions to secure the weapon. If you are a responsible gun owner and take reasonable precautions against theft, I have no issue.

And yet just yesterday you said that you are "not convinced that 'responsible gun owners' exist in the wild - never seen one"

[JimL]

I don't recall ever saying that militias were not part of the amendment's intent (and, historically, those were state militias). I sort of agree with you that you only need to use common sense here; common sense tells me that, when attempting to closely parse words in a legal document, it helps to understand the intent of those who wrote the words and the audience for which they were written.

Good, then you understand that the right to bear arms, the government not being able to infringe upon that right, had to do with the need of a militia. And you also understand that the arms in question were basically muskets which the greater society didn't need protection from in the case of a mad man on the loose.

[Joel]

Guns are weapons. They are regulated because they are very good at increasing the deadliness of human violence. In fact, they can do so so well that humans with no training can kill humans bigger and stronger than themselves - which would be shear luck in the case of an armed conflict with a knife.

Which is why people steal them for use (as opposed to financial gain) - unlike knives, fertilizer and gasoline. Also unlike the same, no particular knowledge beyond 'point this way' is necessary for a gun to do what it's supposed to do - kill.

A fire arm is a different class of weapon. I owned swords and bows/arrows - but frankly, only with a gun could I have killed anyone (okay, maybe the long bow - that thing had an incredible range!). Swords and bows require a lot of training to be effective weapons in the majority of cases - guns simply don't.

There is a parallel case, however - dogs. You are responsible for your pet's actions. It bites someone, guess who pays?

So you need to keep your dog in a safe, so it doesn't get stolen and bite someone after being stolen?

It seems like it would be pretty easy to kill any unsuspecting person with a kitchen knife. The fact that happens so rarely is a testament to how non-murderous people are.
When you say "sheer luck" I'm guessing you had more in mind a situation in which the other person is fighting back?

And it may depend on the crime. If the thief is going to commit arson, for example, your gasoline is perhaps a better tool than your gun.

[Jedidiah]

Allow me to re-phrase - the argument is a straw man and always has been. Yes, we know full well guns can't pull their own triggers - honestly, that would probably be SAFER than letting humans do it.

GUNS are WEAPONS and do in fact kill people. No human can throw a bullet fast enough to cause penetration, let alone death. It's not only a straw man - it's stupid.

It is not really a straw man since everyone on either side knows how guns work. It is just aimed at revealing the dishonesty of most anti gun folks.

[TheWall]

Oh my mistake then. As far as duress goes.

It is not really a straw man since everyone on either side knows how guns work. It is just aimed at revealing the dishonesty of most anti gun folks.

Automatic turrets do still have a trigger in proximity. Look at the ones on the 38th parrelell. Even then no gun fires without a trigger being pulled.

[Jedidiah]

Are you trying to annoy me? I am really not seeing the point to rehashing this. I already specified what augmentations I would make - and I have no objection to the IT (not tech) making appropriate adjustments to the AWB so that Rogue can buy his scary looking single shot.

The problem comes from the all or nothing gun proponent side that won't make even reasonable concessions. See this whole freaking thread for proof - eight people dog piling two - one of whom agreed with them more than not! The AWB is just a talking point now - proponents want to use it as a means of reversing gun restrictions. They don't want it adjusted to ban only the weapons it was supposed to apply to.

I certainly want it to be used to reverse gun restrictions. Focus on misuse of guns, not ownership of guns.

[Jedidiah]

I love you Sister in the Lord, but I'll never agree with you on this...(and that's fine, it's America) but I know 5 times more people killed in car wrecks (that I can think of off the top of my head) (11-1) and the one who was shot and killed happened just last month. And I know 2 people who died from electricity...so twice as many as guns. I'm sorry you feel dog piled on, but, we responsible gun owners get really tired of these same old cliche arguments.

And as for adjusting the ban to include "assault rifles" that makes little sense. FAR more are killed by handguns than any sort of rifle or assault rifle. In fact, two of my hunting buddies bring this gun to deer camp and hunt deer, turkey feral hogs and coyotes with it.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]24415[/ATTACH]

And there are lots of "responsible gun owners" regardless of what some may believe. Most gun owners fall in that category I expect.

[Jedidiah]

Tell that to the Korean and Cambodian owners of businesses in Los Angeles that were being specifically targeted for looting and destruction during the rioting after the Rodney King verdict. They stood up on top of their stores allowing the rioters to clearly see that they were armed with AR-15s and even some old M-1 rifles. That was enough to turn back the thugs and FWIU they never fired a shot.

It isn't an action that I would recommend but when the police are essentially standing down (or ordered to do so like when the mayor of Baltimore recently told them to give them space to loot and riot) you really are limited in your choices if you want to defend yourself and property

If a rioter/looter is killed by someone in defense of self or property it should automatically be justified.

[Jedidiah]

Forget criminal law - it's the civil side that needs correction. You (general) own it - YOU are responsible for it. It gets stolen because you didn't bother to lock it away, you are responsible for any and all damages done for the next year. ALL. No bankruptcy protection.

Gun owners would quickly invest in decent gun safes.

Conversely, if you did take reasonable precautions (decent safe, locked doors) and it still gets stolen, then that's the price we pay for a free society.

YOU fire that weapon, YOU are responsible for where the bullet ends up. No excuses - you shoot someone, you at a minimum pay damages assuming no civil or criminal action.

But all that controls the weapon, not just the person. If you want to own a weapon, then you have to feed and water it. You have to know where it is - and make sure it is secure when not on your person.

If I do not keep my gun in a special safe it is still not my responsibility if someone breaks into my locked house and steals it. A gun in a safe is not available for defense of self or family.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yeah! In addition to creating an oppressive police state we just can not eliminate all danger.


[ATTACH=CONFIG]24407[/ATTACH]

Precisely and the stats do show a downward slide in crime even when people perceive crime rates are increasing. Why? I suspect it has a lot to do with the 24 hour news media chasing any drama story they can get ahold of and running with it as long as possible.