How do you know?
Now you are just being ridiculous.
Do you work for the insurance industry? Sounds like you are trying to drum up a new market.
Nah … I’d rather take the risk and be self insured. I will save a ton of money.
Actually, it seems that you want the Insurance companies to be responsible for the cost. Insurance is a means for individuals to escape financial responsibility.
What if a kid uses bicycle locks and gasoline containers to lock in and burn down a building full of people? Should parents have insurance on those items too? How about insurance on the lengths of pipe that this kid used to make bombs? Had they gone off, they could have killed more people than the guns.
You are off the rails with this insurance thing. If negligence by the parents can be shown to have contributed to the crime, insurance is not needed to assign punitive financial responsibility. All the insurance would do is make other policy owners share in the cost.
Yeah … and her death voided her liability insurance policy.
Gasoline, bike locks, bats, knives, cars, fertilizers etc, etc, etc, main purpose is to do something other than killing. Guns, OTOH, have no other purpose. They are specifically designed to kill or maim a living thing.
That is a good point.
1 Like
Where does it start and stop in your apples and zucchini comparison. Look…we just can’t find common ground so we are doomed to repeat this over and over…because gun owners don’t want to be responsible for safeguarding their firearms.
Nothing against you Samm. I don’t want to lose respect for you or from you. I can’t keep having this argument. It hits too close to home. Someone asked if anyone had a plan…and I gave it. End of story. Have a good night my friend. For me this thread is dead.
You will never get the gun owners here to accept any responsibility for the actions taken with their guns or just about any other gun owner.
If gun owner were responsible, we wouldn’t have millions of guns on the black market. They know that stolen firearms contribute, bigly, to the accessibility of guns used in crimes, but they will tell you it’s not their fault. In fact they will tell you that the gun owning community bears NO responsibility for this.
You aren’t debating people that will admit to basic logic.
2 Likes
So what? Dead is dead regardless of what was used as a weapon or what it was designed to do.
I respect you too, but when it comes to assigning responsibility to people who were not participants in the murders, you have to be very careful. If you can charge a parent for having a kid steal guns from the gun safe it is a short step to charging a parent for leaving the car keys where the kids can get them and go out and kill someone with it. The parents of the killer (whether it be by the gun or the car) are victims too you know.
1 Like
That is not true. The shooting a few weeks ago where the father returned guns to his son whom he knew was not supposed to have them, was absolutely partially responsible and gun owners here (at the old Hannity Forum) were unified in that opinion. We as a group also are very adamant that we keep our guns as secure as the threat against them warrants. In truth, even if the treat is no more than fire, the options for protecting guns from that threat are also quite effective at securing them from theft and from curious children (but not necessarily from grown children.) But NO safe is 100% secure from thieves. I personally know several people who had their guns safe with all contents stolen and in two cases, the thieves cut a hole through the side of the house to get it. I know another fellow who works weeks on end up on the slope who kept his guns in a supposedly secure storage facility because he was concerned about someone breaking into his apartment and getting them. Thieves were randomly breaking into units and hit the jackpot with his. They got about 20 high-end rifles and pistols.
Your generality that gun owners here do not (“will never”) accept responsibility for their guns is false and counterproductive to the discussion. We just don’t like people like you assigning responsibility to us when none is warranted and become defensive when you make such broad generalizations. If you really want to try to come up with answers to the school shooting phenomenon, you would do well to knock that ■■■■ off.
Do the law abiding gun owners bear any responsibility for the amount of guns on the black market?
Not much, no more than car owners have for having their vehicles stolen. Yeah, if you leave the car unlocked and the keys in the ignition or leave the doors of your house unlocked and guns lying out in plain sight, you share some responsibility.
By the way, only about 10 - 15% of guns used in crimes were stolen from individuals.
Try just for once being honest and not attributing things to me I never said.
There is no acceptable number of kids to be murdered. Infringing on my rights will not change the number of kids being murdered by even one and we both know it.
The bill was crap, you can easily have an injury or illness that requires you needing help with things like paying bills that in no way affects you ability to safely handle or use a firearm.
The bill had zero due process included.
In this country if you are going to lose you rights due to mental defect we have a process by which that is done, it’s called a court ordered evaluation. If after same the judge rules you are defective to the point you can’t be trusted with a firearm such a judgement is entered and you are rendered ineligible. In such a case an order can then also be issued to have whatever firearms the person already has to be removed as well.
Leaving it up to the stroke of a pen by some damned bureaucrat is an affront to everything the BOR stands for.
This claim:
The NRA bill, though, equates release with health and stability. Forget the doctors, the courts, and the wishes of family members – the NRA bill restores gun rights, and returns a person’s guns, immediately and automatically. That’s regardless of a person’s mental health condition, and regardless of the risks or likelihood of relapse.
These people were deprived of their rights without due process via EO which again is an affront to everything the BOR is supposed to stand for.
We don’t’ have to prove we are sane to keep our guns, such a prior restraint of rights would be insane.
It is up to the gov’t to first prove we are ineligible before they are taken, that’s how things work in a free country.
What do you think an “assault weapons ban” does?
Would you attempt to argue that a person who’s rights have been stripped without due process is free?
