Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 28, 2024 2:36:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 23:19:29 GMT
Where do you think illegal guns come from? I believe that illegal guns start out life as legal and in the course of their existence they become illegal. The question is how. Maybe a national data base will answer that question and cut down the number of illegal guns. My guess is a fair number of gun owners treat their guns like a pair of old shoes instead if the weapon that they are. Holding them responsible for the actions of their gun, including who they sell it to, may force them to treat guns in a truly responsible manner as they should be treated. Top of my hit list would be parents who leave their loaded guns where children can get their little hands on them. The most important roll of a parent is to keep their children safe. When they leave loaded guns around then they have failed. If their child dies from this failure then their sorry asses should be thrown in jail. Sorry in my world this is a preventable accident and there is no excuse. Especially since I firmly believe a large percentage of folks only own guns because of what I call a "just in case" or "what if" mentality. And these folks will never face a threat that would require them to own a gun. But instead create a threat because they own a gun. But where do you draw the line on holding people accountable for a criminal breaking into their home and stealing their things and holding them responsible for it? If someone breaks into your home and steals your car, are you going to be held liable for any crimes committed with that vehicle or for any damages to property or people from any accident that car is in?
I don't think you can easily pick and choose how you're going to hold people responsible for the actions of CRIMINALS who play by no rules.
You tell me. Did you know the gun that killed the woman in SF was stolen out of a car. The question is where was that gun in the car. Did the owner in some way leave evidence there was a gun in that car so the person knew he was going after a gun when he broke in? The gun was owned by a Bureau of Land Management Agent. He did report the gun stolen to the SF police. But look what the gun was used for after it was stolen. If this agent didn't take the necessary precautions with the gun he left in his car don't you think he should be held partially responsible for this woman's death? Or is it Oh well its a tragic accident as the agent never intended his gun be used to kill a woman out for a walk with her dad.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 28, 2024 2:36:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 23:24:00 GMT
But where do you draw the line on holding people accountable for a criminal breaking into their home and stealing their things and holding them responsible for it? If someone breaks into your home and steals your car, are you going to be held liable for any crimes committed with that vehicle or for any damages to property or people from any accident that car is in?
I don't think you can easily pick and choose how you're going to hold people responsible for the actions of CRIMINALS who play by no rules.
You tell me. Did you know the gun that killed the woman in SF was stolen out of a car. The question is where was that gun in the car. Did the owner in some way leave evidence there was a gun in that car so the person knew he was going after a gun when he broke in? The gun was owned by a Bureau of Land Management Agent. He did report the gun stolen to the SF police. But look what the gun was used for after it was stolen. If this agent didn't take the necessary precautions with the gun he left in his car don't you think he should be held partially responsible for this woman's death? Or is it Oh well its a tragic accident as the agent never intended his gun be used to kill a woman out for a walk with her dad. But that doesn't answer my question I posed...where do you draw the line?
Frankly, the killer should not have even been in the United States to even have the opportunity to steal a gun from someone's car.
Had the killer stolen the car instead and ran someone over, killing them, should the owner of the car be held liable for that as well? It's the same thing...but somehow, I'd guess you would not want to see someone whose car had been stolen held responsible for crimes or damages that happened with that stolen vehicle.
I don't fully object to holding people responsible for the weapons they choose to own, but I think there's a line there that tells us that we cannot be responsible for the criminal behavior of others. Criminals need to be held accountable for their criminal behavior.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 28, 2024 2:36:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 23:29:17 GMT
You can't compare the two Genny ( bolded).Having an insurance for the gun has nothing to do with your right to own one, The insurance is there to cover the possible liability that you ( general you) might encounter from owning one if it injures or kills someone. No different than to insure a car. Having insurance covers you for both legal & monetary responsibility. The insurance covers you if you are being sued by a third party or to protect the monetary value of that car to you. If you own and decide to deactivate a gun you wouldn't need insurance because it can't harm anyone. If it isn't, then your legal responsibility if that gun injures or kills someone would be covered by insurance. Owning a vehicle is not a constitutional right. Like it or not, owning a gun is. You're just being difficult now. I know full well that owning a vehicle is not a constitutional right. But owning a gun that injures or kills someone else isn't either. Your constiutional right doesn't give you the right to injure or kill anyone. We're discussing insurance or at least I thought we were!
|
|
AnotherPea
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,968
Jan 4, 2015 1:47:52 GMT
|
Post by AnotherPea on Jul 24, 2015 23:29:08 GMT
So you're totally against requiring someone pay to obtain, or find a ride to an office to freely obtain an ID to exercise your right to vote, but totally for requiring insurance to exercise your right to own a gun? (And I don't have a problem with taxing guns...just like every other item we purchase is taxed) If it's unlawful to require an ID to vote, it should be unlawful to require insurance to own a gun. Both are constitutional rights.
Sounds to me like you're making excuses for fees for constitutional rights that you disagree with while strongly protecting other equally important rights that you believe strongly in.
You can't compare the two Genny ( bolded).Having an insurance for the gun has nothing to do with your right to own one, The insurance is there to cover the possible liability that you ( general you) might encounter from owning one if it injures or kills someone. No different than to insure a car. Having insurance covers you for both legal & monetary responsibility. The insurance covers you if you are being sued by a third party or to protect the monetary value of that car to you. If you own and decide to deactivate a gun you wouldn't need insurance because it can't harm anyone. If it isn't, then your legal responsibility if that gun injures or kills someone would be covered by insurance. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 28, 2024 2:36:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 23:30:20 GMT
I just heard Daniel Webster, director of Johns Hopkins U's gun policy and research center - he was on NPR talking about how gun laws have actually gotten stronger on the state level in reaction to shootings. He said 44% of people in the US lived in a state where the gun laws got stronger in 2013. I guess he's referring to a a number of states where collectively 44% of the country's population is concentrated. This week's perpetrator acted outside his home state and apparently traveled to buy the gun he used after first being turned away somewhere else. I couldn't follow that part very well, because I thought he bought the gun in Alabama, where he was from, but then he traveled to LA with it. If he had been blocked from buying from a pawn shop or a gun store, regardless of the state, would he have otherwise really not been able to obtain a gun? It sounds like he'd been trying for some time. I just thought it was an interesting segment - it's here if you want to listen to it, about 4.5 minutes long. Edited for clarity.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 28, 2024 2:36:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 23:36:59 GMT
Owning a vehicle is not a constitutional right. Like it or not, owning a gun is. You're just being difficult now. I know full well that owning a vehicle is not a constitutional right. But owning a gun that injures or kills someone else isn't either. Your constiutional right doesn't give you the right to injure or kill anyone. We're discussing insurance or at least I thought we were! I'm really sorry that you believe that someone stating the facts is just being difficult. Your disagreement does not negate the facts. And honestly think many states have laws on the books that state that you're within your right to shoot someone (injuring them or killing them) if you feel your safety is in jeopardy.
|
|
|
Post by melanell on Jul 24, 2015 23:38:15 GMT
I totally understand the idea that criminals kill people. Criminals don't give a crap about laws. Therefore even if we were able to actually ban all guns (And no, I'm not suggesting that we can or should.) criminals would laugh in the face of the ban and carry on as usual. So that leads me to ask, how do the other countries make this work? I don't care about their populations as opposed to ours. Because as was mentioned before, you can easily work out a ratio of expected deaths for Australia, Finland, or Scotland if they had gun availability as the citizens of the US do.
They say that in Scotland, the drop didn't happen right away. But later the number of shootings started to fall. What made them decide to stick with their new laws when things weren't immediately better?
Australia & Finland still do allow people to have guns, but with stricter regulations. How are they managing to get their numbers of gun related deaths lower? One would think that the criminals in Scotland, Finland, or Australia aren't much for rule following either, right?
Despite our basic right to bear arms and despite the size differences in the countries, it seems that we could still study what these other countries are doing, and see if any of it could be implemented in some form here. Are we doing that? I don't really know. Or are we just saying "Ehh, Americans want their guns. Nothing can be done about it."
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 28, 2024 2:36:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 23:52:34 GMT
I totally understand the idea that criminals kill people. Criminals don't give a crap about laws. Therefore even if we were able to actually ban all guns (And no, I'm not suggesting that we can or should.) criminals would laugh in the face of the ban and carry on as usual. So that leads me to ask, how do the other countries make this work? I don't care about their populations as opposed to ours. Because as was mentioned before, you can easily work out a ratio of expected deaths for Australia, Finland, or Scotland if they had gun availability as the citizens of the US do. They say that in Scotland, the drop didn't happen right away. But later the number of shootings started to fall. What made them decide to stick with their new laws when things weren't immediately better? Australia & Finland still do allow people to have guns, but with stricter regulations. How are they managing to get their numbers of gun related deaths lower? One would think that the criminals in Scotland, Finland, or Australia aren't much for rule following either, right? Despite our basic right to bear arms and despite the size differences in the countries, it seems that we could still study what these other countries are doing, and see if any of it could be implemented in some form here. Are we doing that? I don't really know. Or are we just saying "Ehh, Americans want their guns. Nothing can be done about it." Good question...what are they doing that we can try.
The USA has a higher prison population than anywhere in the world.
The USA has 920 adults per 100,000 incarcerated.
In comparison England/Wales 155/100K Norway 71/100K Netherlands 94/100K Australia 133/100K NZ 203/100K
You can combine ALL of these numbers and still only be at about 2/3 of the prison population that the US has. I'm not wishing these other countries become as crime infested as the US is, but I'm not really sure you can compare how well gun control is working in other countries when the level of crime isn't even in the same ballpark.
|
|
|
Post by melanell on Jul 24, 2015 23:58:46 GMT
I totally understand the idea that criminals kill people. Criminals don't give a crap about laws. Therefore even if we were able to actually ban all guns (And no, I'm not suggesting that we can or should.) criminals would laugh in the face of the ban and carry on as usual. So that leads me to ask, how do the other countries make this work? I don't care about their populations as opposed to ours. Because as was mentioned before, you can easily work out a ratio of expected deaths for Australia, Finland, or Scotland if they had gun availability as the citizens of the US do. They say that in Scotland, the drop didn't happen right away. But later the number of shootings started to fall. What made them decide to stick with their new laws when things weren't immediately better? Australia & Finland still do allow people to have guns, but with stricter regulations. How are they managing to get their numbers of gun related deaths lower? One would think that the criminals in Scotland, Finland, or Australia aren't much for rule following either, right? Despite our basic right to bear arms and despite the size differences in the countries, it seems that we could still study what these other countries are doing, and see if any of it could be implemented in some form here. Are we doing that? I don't really know. Or are we just saying "Ehh, Americans want their guns. Nothing can be done about it." Good question...what are they doing that we can try.
The USA has a higher prison population than anywhere in the world.
The USA has 920 adults per 100,000 incarcerated.
In comparison England/Wales 155/100K Norway 71/100K Netherlands 94/100K Australia 133/100K NZ 203/100K
You can combine ALL of these numbers and still only be at about 2/3 of the prison population that the US has. I'm not wishing these other countries become as crime infested as the US is, but I'm not really sure you can compare how well gun control is working in other countries when the level of crime isn't even in the same ballpark.
Then perhaps we need to table the specifics of guns and just ask ourselves why crime is so much worse here in general. ![:-/](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/undecided.png) No matter what, they still have something going on that's working better for them than what we have going on.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 28, 2024 2:36:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 0:10:35 GMT
You're just being difficult now. I know full well that owning a vehicle is not a constitutional right. But owning a gun that injures or kills someone else isn't either. Your constiutional right doesn't give you the right to injure or kill anyone. We're discussing insurance or at least I thought we were! I'm really sorry that you believe that someone stating the facts is just being difficult. Your disagreement does not negate the facts. And honestly think many states have laws on the books that state that you're within your right to shoot someone (injuring them or killing them) if you feel your safety is in jeopardy. Nothing to do with self protection. I was answering this quote by Sarah*H orininally but you seem to have turned it around to comparing it to voters ID.which i disagreed with. Never mind,we'll leave it at that. I'm off to bed as it's very late here.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 28, 2024 2:36:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 0:19:27 GMT
I'm really sorry that you believe that someone stating the facts is just being difficult. Your disagreement does not negate the facts. And honestly think many states have laws on the books that state that you're within your right to shoot someone (injuring them or killing them) if you feel your safety is in jeopardy. Nothing to do with self protection. I was answering this quote by Sarah*H orininally but you seem to have turned it around to comparing it to voters ID.which i disagreed with. Never mind,we'll leave it at that. I'm off to bed as it's very late here. Comparing gun insurance being required and voter ID is quite relevant. (I think even Sarah realized it when several others mentioned the same issue.
The right to vote - a constitutional right. Forcing people to obtain an ID in order to exercise their constitutional right to vote can be compared to a poll tax and is not cool.
The right to own a gun - a constitutional right. Forcing people to obtain insurance in order to exercise their constitutional right to own a gun is not cool.
I don't know how to explain why this correlation is important because you're the one that brought up having car insurance...which has nothing to do with the constitutional right to vote OR the constitutional right to own a gun. You're focusing on the process of insurance. I'm focusing on what is constitutional.
Edited to add...a person...not me...not Sarah doesn't have the right to infringe rules on constitutional rights they don't agree with just to make them more difficult. Protecting the constitutional right to vote is as important as the constitutional right to own a gun. (even if you don't agree with one or the other)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 28, 2024 2:36:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 0:22:00 GMT
I'll be admitting how ignorant* I am here, I'm sure, but I have never understood why requiring ID to vote was such a hot button issue - I get it now! Thank you. I'm so glad I read this. I feel really derpy that I didn't realize that.
*ETA ignorant about politics and history, I swear there are other things I'm pretty knowledgeable about!
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 25, 2015 0:28:09 GMT
Having an insurance for the gun has nothing to do with your right to own one, The insurance is there to cover the possible liability that you ( general you) might encounter from owning one if it injures or kills someone. No different than to insure a car. Having insurance covers you for both legal & monetary responsibility. The insurance covers you if you are being sued by a third party or to protect the monetary value of that car to you. Car insurance is required, gun insurance is not. Driving a car is a privilege, 2A is a right. The two don't compare. It is interesting, though, watching people try to attach things to an already given right. It doesn't need to be changed.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 28, 2024 2:36:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 0:31:58 GMT
You tell me. Did you know the gun that killed the woman in SF was stolen out of a car. The question is where was that gun in the car. Did the owner in some way leave evidence there was a gun in that car so the person knew he was going after a gun when he broke in? The gun was owned by a Bureau of Land Management Agent. He did report the gun stolen to the SF police. But look what the gun was used for after it was stolen. If this agent didn't take the necessary precautions with the gun he left in his car don't you think he should be held partially responsible for this woman's death? Or is it Oh well its a tragic accident as the agent never intended his gun be used to kill a woman out for a walk with her dad. But that doesn't answer my question I posed...where do you draw the line?
Frankly, the killer should not have even been in the United States to even have the opportunity to steal a gun from someone's car.
Had the killer stolen the car instead and ran someone over, killing them, should the owner of the car be held liable for that as well? It's the same thing...but somehow, I'd guess you would not want to see someone whose car had been stolen held responsible for crimes or damages that happened with that stolen vehicle.
I don't fully object to holding people responsible for the weapons they choose to own, but I think there's a line there that tells us that we cannot be responsible for the criminal behavior of others. Criminals need to be held accountable for their criminal behavior.
The line is how easy is it for someone to steal the gun. Doesn't matter if it's in a car, in a house, in your purse. The line is if I sell you a gun and I know you are a serial killer but sell the gun to you anyway. The line is I sell a gun to someone I see on the street without knowing anything about them. The line is if I leave a loaded gun in a place a child can find it. If their actions in how they handle their gun results in the injury or death of others then yes nail their asses to the wall. Folks guns are were invented for one purpose and that is to kill and they should be treated as such. Doesn't really matter if the killer of Kate Steinle was here legally or not because undocumented folks are not the only people who kill others in this country. In this one case he happened to be here illegally. However regardless of his status he wouldn't have been able to kill anyone if someone hadn't stole the gun out of the car. Which brings us back to my question. Did the owner of the gun do all he could have done to secure the gun and if not should he be held partially responsible for her death? As as to cars. I imagine if a car owner left his keys in an unlocked vehicle and a drunk got in the car and drove off and ran through a crosswalk and killed several school children the owner of the car would be held accountable because he left the keys in an unlocked car. Whether he intended to or not he gave the drunk the means to kill the children through his negligence. But the reality is very rarely is a car used by a third party to do the damage a gun does. If a car does a lot of damage or kill someone usually the owner is involved and they are held accountable.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,989
Jun 25, 2014 20:07:06 GMT
|
Post by Sarah*H on Jul 25, 2015 0:41:11 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 28, 2024 2:36:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 0:51:27 GMT
This idea first introduced in March, 2013 that died in a previous Congress.
www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1369
It seems the new bill has a 0% chance of being enacted.
www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr2546
Why did it die in 2013? Why is there 0% of being enacted in 2015? Maybe those in Congress (even other Democrats) know that it's not constitutional.
I wonder how (D) Rep. Carolyn Maloney feels about enacting a poll tax required to vote?
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 25, 2015 0:59:35 GMT
So? They've been trying various things for years. It won't hold up. 2A is a right that shall not be infringed.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 28, 2024 2:36:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 1:08:01 GMT
Insurance requirement may have died because after working in commercial insurance for a long time I'm not sure if any insurance company or companies would be willing to write individual gun coverage.
Which would mean the government would have to back it the way they do with flood and terrorism (TRIA) insurance. It would not be profitable as any loss would most certainly be for policy limits.
And if you think your health care premiums and deductibles are high I suspect the premium/ deductibles for individual gun coverage would make them look like a real bargain.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 28, 2024 2:36:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 1:57:44 GMT
So charging people $10 to get an ID card to exercise their right to vote is awful, but charging people hundreds or thousands of dollars to exercise their right to own a gun is a-ok with you?
Can we discuss other constitutional rights and which list they'd be on because it seems that if it's a right that we disagree with, it's okay to charge money to those wanting to exercise that right. If it's a right that we strongly support, by golly there better never be any discussion on limiting the rights of those who cannot afford to pay to exercise that specific right.
I understand that many people hate guns. I'm not a gun fan and have never even touched one and never plan to purchase one. But it's no less a constitutional right for me to have one as it is for the elderly woman without a car or driver's license to go and vote. You're either for constitutional rights or you're not...I think it's disingenuous to think it's okay to pick and choose what's a constitutional right and what's not based solely on your own personal beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by gossamer on Jul 25, 2015 2:25:58 GMT
Maybe not but if you fail to secure your weapon and that enables them to commit more crimes, IMO that makes you an accessory. Illegal guns do not come from a vacuum - many of them come from "responsible" gun owners who really weren't but are never held to account for their lack of personal responsibility. Should you be held an accessory if someone steals your car and kills someone with it? Your doors are locked, car or home.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jul 25, 2015 3:31:27 GMT
Of the 204 mass shootings that are being thrown about in the this thread 16 were in New York and 14 were in each California and Florida. The state with the highest number of guns percentage/per person is Wyoming, I couldn't find any mass shootings attributed to Wyoming in 2015, but the map thing from the source above seems to put it in the 0-3 category. New York has a low percentage of registered gun ownership as do California and Florida. Maybe it isn't the amount of guns, but something else. ![](https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/mass-shootings-in-the-us-jan-1-to-july-23-2015_mapbuilder.png?w=1024)
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jul 25, 2015 4:50:32 GMT
@dottyscrapper, you left out a some very important words from your phrase:
"But owning a gun that injures or kills someone else isn't either." It should be 'owning a gun that is capable of injure[ing] or kill[ing] someone'
...just like owning a car that is capable of injuring or killing someone...
A GUN IS NOT INHERENTLY, IN AND OF ITSELF, AN INSTRUMENT SOLELY OF DEATH OR INJURY. No more than a CAR is an instrument solely of death or injury. A small distinction, but an important one. So, what you said is not factual.
(And yes, I know some people don't think there's any reason for anyone else to have a gun other than we must all want to blow someone's head off if they look at us wrong. But that isn't true.)
eta:
Then perhaps we need to table the specifics of guns and just ask ourselves why crime is so much worse here in general.
^^^ this is the tough one, and I'm afraid there isn't an easy answer. Look at all the threads about welfare, education, low-wage jobs, etc. I think the answer is how different socio-economic conditions are in some of the other countries as opposed to the US-- don't we rank down there with third-world countries in terms of our educational standards and things such as paid maternity leave, vacation, availability of health care, etc.?? While there are a lot of great things about this country, there's a lot of not-so-great things, too, and they never seem to get addressed to move us forward as a society.
|
|
|
Post by gossamer on Jul 25, 2015 5:04:19 GMT
Where do you think illegal guns come from? I believe that illegal guns start out life as legal and in the course of their existence they become illegal. The question is how. Maybe a national data base will answer that question and cut down the number of illegal guns. My guess is a fair number of gun owners treat their guns like a pair of old shoes instead if the weapon that they are. Holding them responsible for the actions of their gun, including who they sell it to, may force them to treat guns in a truly responsible manner as they should be treated. Top of my hit list would be parents who leave their loaded guns where children can get their little hands on them. The most important roll of a parent is to keep their children safe. When they leave loaded guns around then they have failed. If their child dies from this failure then their sorry asses should be thrown in jail. Sorry in my world this is a preventable accident and there is no excuse. Especially since I firmly believe a large percentage of folks only own guns because of what I call a "just in case" or "what if" mentality. And these folks will never face a threat that would require them to own a gun. But instead create a threat because they own a gun. How does a national data base cut down on illegal weapons? What about our government who handed guns to the Mexican cartel and ended in a death of at least one American law enforcement officer? Do we hold Obama or Holder for any deaths from those guns? So do you believe your local police is close enough to save you? My brother is a Liberal and saw no need for anyone to own a gun.. until someone broke into his house. He lives in a low crime area, but crime travels. Not all of us live in safe cities with no crime, my area has lots of drugs and home invasions. And the police are 20 min away. Do you plan for "what if" or do you hope that it's never you? A guy knocked on my moms door asking for money, his car broke down and needed cash for a tow truck.. she was scared and put him in her car and drove to a store and cashed a check for $20. (she never has cash) After she dropped him off she went to the police station and looked through their books. Apparently he had robbed and stabbed someone that didn't give him money.. and she put him in her CAR!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 28, 2024 2:36:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 5:16:57 GMT
Having trouble quoting...maybe I've already reached my limit on quoting people in this thread.
Anyway...I don't know how I missed this gem from krazyscrapper, but she said
"Especially since I firmly believe a large percentage of folks only own guns because of what I call a "just in case" or "what if" mentality. And these folks will never face a threat that would require them to own a gun."
I must say how thankful I am that my constitutional rights aren't based on what krazyscrapper (or anyone else) thinks is necessary. Can you imagine if I thought that the majority of people living in the state of IL don't vote, so why not revoke their rights to do so. Crazy? Perhaps. But seriously...someone thinks that because THEY don't think somebody "needs" something, that it's their right to make that determination for someone else...and in regards to someone's constitutional rights?
Frankly, I'm shocked. I'm beyond shocked. I'm shocked that someone would even think like that...and then even go so far as to "say it out loud" (meaning typing it here) for others to read.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jul 25, 2015 5:23:07 GMT
I am not trying to be obstructive to a solution. I actually agree with these ideas. I'm not afraid to have my gun in a database, as it's already legal and registered. I've got nothing to hide. I'm not sure how we are going to get the criminals to register their guns though. Where do you think illegal guns come from? I believe that illegal guns start out life as legal and in the course of their existence they become illegal. The question is how. Maybe a national data base will answer that question and cut down the number of illegal guns. My guess is a fair number of gun owners treat their guns like a pair of old shoes instead if the weapon that they are. Holding them responsible for the actions of their gun, including who they sell it to, may force them to treat guns in a truly responsible manner as they should be treated. Top of my hit list would be parents who leave their loaded guns where children can get their little hands on them. The most important roll of a parent is to keep their children safe. When they leave loaded guns around then they have failed. If their child dies from this failure then their sorry asses should be thrown in jail. Sorry in my world this is a preventable accident and there is no excuse. Especially since I firmly believe a large percentage of folks only own guns because of what I call a "just in case" or "what if" mentality. And these folks will never face a threat that would require them to own a gun. But instead create a threat because they own a gun. I think your "guess" may be incorrect. Most people that I know who own guns (and I am willing to bet that I know more people who own guns than you do) keep them for quite a long time. They aren't discarded willy-nilly. Often an older gun is used as a trade in on a newer gun. People buy used guns from stores all the time. As my kid grows out of his gun, we upgrade him to a better or bigger one. When DH wants a new .357 he trades in his older one for a better model. When DH has sold or bought guns from to or from a private party it has always been someone he knows. You cannot post on ad on craigslist to sell a gun. Many newspapers do not run ads selling weapons. What leads you to your belief that a large percentage of folks own guns because of the what if mentality? We own guns because DH and now both DSs hunt. There is no what if there. DH bought a handgun to take to the shooting range. He doesn't have a CC permit and the gun stays locked in a gun safe at our house when not being used. It is not in our rifle/shotgun case, but is kept in a gun safe in our room which is locked. The gun is loaded. He didn't buy it for what if, but when one night someone came to our door late at night and we realized that with all the guns we had, none were loaded or accessible, we decided to keep this one upstairs. I keep getting accused of having privilege in the other thread, I wonder if there isn't some privilege of living in a suburban area that has quick police response time and enough officers to cover an area. Maybe there are some areas who have long response times. My area has one to two cops on duty at any time (except during our fall festival) and that officer can be anywhere in a large radius. He covers my town, the town near us, and all the rural surrounding areas. It could be 20-40 minutes before he is at my house if I dial 911 and I live mere blocks from the station.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jul 25, 2015 5:23:53 GMT
Having trouble quoting...maybe I've already reached my limit on quoting people in this thread. Anyway...I don't know how I missed this gem from krazyscrapper, but she said "Especially since I firmly believe a large percentage of folks only own guns because of what I call a "just in case" or "what if" mentality. And these folks will never face a threat that would require them to own a gun." I must say how thankful I am that my constitutional rights aren't based on what krazyscrapper (or anyone else) thinks is necessary. Can you imagine if I thought that the majority of people living in the state of IL don't vote, so why not revoke their rights to do so. Crazy? Perhaps. But seriously...someone thinks that because THEY don't think somebody "needs" something, that it's their right to make that determination for someone else...and in regards to someone's constitutional rights? Frankly, I'm shocked. I'm beyond shocked. I'm shocked that someone would even think like that...and then even go so far as to "say it out loud" (meaning typing it here) for others to read. lol, I just had to quote you for the bolded part.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 28, 2024 2:36:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 5:31:52 GMT
Where do you think illegal guns come from? I believe that illegal guns start out life as legal and in the course of their existence they become illegal. The question is how. Maybe a national data base will answer that question and cut down the number of illegal guns. My guess is a fair number of gun owners treat their guns like a pair of old shoes instead if the weapon that they are. Holding them responsible for the actions of their gun, including who they sell it to, may force them to treat guns in a truly responsible manner as they should be treated. Top of my hit list would be parents who leave their loaded guns where children can get their little hands on them. The most important roll of a parent is to keep their children safe. When they leave loaded guns around then they have failed. If their child dies from this failure then their sorry asses should be thrown in jail. Sorry in my world this is a preventable accident and there is no excuse. Especially since I firmly believe a large percentage of folks only own guns because of what I call a "just in case" or "what if" mentality. And these folks will never face a threat that would require them to own a gun. But instead create a threat because they own a gun. I think your "guess" may be incorrect. Most people that I know who own guns (and I am willing to bet that I know more people who own guns than you do) keep them for quite a long time. They aren't discarded willy-nilly. Often an older gun is used as a trade in on a newer gun. People buy used guns from stores all the time. As my kid grows out of his gun, we upgrade him to a better or bigger one. When DH wants a new .357 he trades in his older one for a better model. When DH has sold or bought guns from to or from a private party it has always been someone he knows. You cannot post on ad on craigslist to sell a gun. Many newspapers do not run ads selling weapons. What leads you to your belief that a large percentage of folks own guns because of the what if mentality? We own guns because DH and now both DSs hunt. There is no what if there. DH bought a handgun to take to the shooting range. He doesn't have a CC permit and the gun stays locked in a gun safe at our house when not being used. It is not in our rifle/shotgun case, but is kept in a gun safe in our room which is locked. The gun is loaded. He didn't buy it for what if, but when one night someone came to our door late at night and we realized that with all the guns we had, none were loaded or accessible, we decided to keep this one upstairs. I keep getting accused of having privilege in the other thread, I wonder if there isn't some privilege of living in a suburban area that has quick police response time and enough officers to cover an area. Maybe there are some areas who have long response times. My area has one to two cops on duty at any time (except during our fall festival) and that officer can be anywhere in a large radius. He covers my town, the town near us, and all the rural surrounding areas. It could be 20-40 minutes before he is at my house if I dial 911 and I live mere blocks from the station. HA! Quoting now. IDK what I was doing wrong...I tried several times, honest.
I don't understand why anyone thinks they are qualified or have any right to decide who gets what constitutional rights based on their opinion. (and remember...we've all got opinions)
I hereby declare that I don't like how krazyscrapper votes...so I revoke her constitutional right to vote.
|
|
|
Post by betty on Jul 25, 2015 6:22:54 GMT
BUT I can OWN & BUY as many cars as I want without insurance. I can own them, use them, restore them, destroy them and drive them on my own personal property without insurance. I can drive around my own private property without a seatbelt or a license without any insurance... My cars don't require any insurance to own or collect only to drive on a public road.
|
|
|
Post by gar on Jul 25, 2015 9:11:55 GMT
@dottyscrapper, you left out a some very important words from your phrase: "But owning a gun that injures or kills someone else isn't either." It should be 'owning a gun that is capable of injure[ing] or kill[ing] someone' ...just like owning a car that is capable of injuring or killing someone... A GUN IS NOT INHERENTLY, IN AND OF ITSELF, AN INSTRUMENT SOLELY OF DEATH OR INJURY. No more than a CAR is an instrument solely of death or injury. A small distinction, but an important one. So, what you said is not factual. (And yes, I know some people don't think there's any reason for anyone else to have a gun other than we must all want to blow someone's head off if they look at us wrong. But that isn't true.) eta: Then perhaps we need to table the specifics of guns and just ask ourselves why crime is so much worse here in general. ^^^ this is the tough one, and I'm afraid there isn't an easy answer. Look at all the threads about welfare, education, low-wage jobs, etc. I think the answer is how different socio-economic conditions are in some of the other countries as opposed to the US-- don't we rank down there with third-world countries in terms of our educational standards and things such as paid maternity leave, vacation, availability of health care, etc.?? While there are a lot of great things about this country, there's a lot of not-so-great things, too, and they never seem to get addressed to move us forward as a society. A gun is intended to kill or maim, that's what it is designed to do regardless of whether that's for hunting food, sport or whatever. It doesn't have any other use. A car is designed for transportation and while it can also cause death or injury during an accident/by drunk driver, that isn't it's primary purpose - that is a misuse of the car. A gun is designed to blow a hole in whatever it's pointed and fired at. It discharges a bullet with massive force and to do massive damage on impact. A gun doesn't accidentally kill someone while it was being used to do anything else because you don't use a gun for anything else. All sorts of everyday objects could accidentally or inadvertently or by misuse cause death but a gun has no other use other than to destroy/kill. The bottom line seems to be constitutional rights. Many people aren't prepared to see them altered/adapted in any way, shape or form. IMO that is a fundamental difference between the USA and say, Australia. They were prepared to change things dramatically.
|
|
|
Post by maureen on Jul 25, 2015 11:55:23 GMT
Freedom of assembly is a constitutional right and yet people still have to get permits to picket or have parades. How would gun insurance be any different?
|
|