Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
CA renter
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter]
It wouldn’t matter if the driver was unlicensed or licensed. The fact would be that they took/borrowed your car (with or without permission) and killed somebody. Should you be held responsible?[/quote]
If he is doing something on your behalf (ie your agent), like picking up your drycleaning or your kids, then you would be responsible.[/quote]
Fine, if a person with a gun owned by me were to do something “on my behalf,” then I would absolutely agree that I should be held liable; but that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about unauthorized use of another person’s weapon.
Participant[quote=ocrenter]
If you allowed an unlicensed driver to borrow your car and that person gets into an accident, of course you will be responsible. Not necessarily manslaughter but you will have to bear some responsibility. Even the owner of a pit bull that was not properly caged would be responsible if it mulls down a passerby. Guns are weapons, if the weapon is not stored safely and was accessed by a teen in a shooting or in an accident involving kids, why shouldn’t we blame the gun owner?[/quote]It wouldn’t matter if the driver was unlicensed or licensed. The fact would be that they took/borrowed your car (with or without permission) and killed somebody. Should you be held responsible?
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]i am willing to bet cash that many people who report using a gun successfully in selfdefense are actually guilty of an assault witha deadly weapon or perhaps a brandishing during some incident.
[/quote]
Forgot to address this… I think you’re right. They are probably brandishing weapons during some sort of “incident.” The question is whether or not it would have remained a simple “incident” if they didn’t use/brandish a gun. There’s a significant likelihood that it would have escalated if not for the weapon.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]Yes, millions a year. No bullshit. Most incidents where guns are used in self-defense are never reported (I’m one of them). Even the most conservative estimates show tens or hundreds of thousands of crimes thwarted every year by guns. Something from dailykos/Mother Jones for you, lest anyone suggest we are “cherry picking” our sources:
MJ also points out how the gun lobby claims around 2.5 million instances of ‘defensive gun use’ or self-defense using a gun. The comparison to federal crime data from the Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey, in chart form, is downright ridiculous. The federal crime data from 2007-2011 tallies 338,700 uses of guns in self-defense, but if you believe the gun lobby, that number should be 12,500,000 — more than 36 times as many. Lies, damn lies and statistics, eh?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/19/1203254/-More-NRA-mythbusting-do-guns-prevent-crime
As a former victim of violent criminals, and also one who supports the Second Amendment because TYRANNY CAN HAPPEN HERE, I fully support the people’s right to own guns. That ownership should not be registered or tracked by the government in any way. Gun registration has NEVER prevented a single crime; the only reason for registration is to ensure the soldiers/police know where to go to confiscate weapons if a tyrant (or tyrants) ever comes into power and they want to prevent a revolution or stop a resistance effort.[/quote]
I think maybe that article you linked to doesn’t say what you think it says. Or at very least, it doesn’t support your “millions a year”. The part you bolded indicates, on average, over a 5 year period, it was fewer than 70,000 defensive gun uses per year.
And nowhere near 60% of the population owns guns. The percentage of homes with guns has very recently risen a little bit (with the very small increase possibly being statistically insignificant), after falling for the last 4 decades. Depending on which survey, it’s somewhere between 34 and 39% of households that have guns. Not individual ownership, but households with at least 1 gun. Note that the falling ownership rate correlates with the falling murder rate over that same time period. Fewer households with guns, fewer murders.[/quote]
You didn’t read the first quote completely. It says that gun lobbyists claim ~2.5 million, and that **conservative** estimates by those who are anti-gun say that they are used tens of thousands of times in a year.
The drop in crime over the past couple of decades has more to do with “Three Strikes” and other similar laws, and also with more of a law enforcement focus on gangs, etc. It has nothing to do with fewer guns, IMO, because it would be the law-abiding citizens who would be most likely to get rid of their guns, not criminals.
As for the percentage of gun owners, I think that the percentage of the overall population counts more than households. We’re talking about support for an anti-gun agenda, so it’s the raw population numbers (especially voters) that matters.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]i am willing to bet cash that many people who report using a gun successfully in selfdefense are actually guilty of an assault witha deadly weapon or perhaps a brandishing during some incident.
it’s difficult for me to imagine generally likely scenarios where a normal person will be able to get their gun in their hand in a useful way during an actual justifiable situation outside the home.
A super well trained hypervigilant dude who is approaching all movement through society as if he were about to engage in gun battle might have a chance. but not an average schlump walking about.
you don’t get to pull a gun on someone and shoot unless theya re presenting you with deadly force. yelling, screaming, being scary or minority, not enough.
id like to hear more about actual anecdotes of successful self defense witha gun. I havea feeling selfreported successful incidents would in large part not stand up to analysis…
http://shivworks.com/ im going for the edged weapons overview in october. i would like to learn practical ways to dole out deadly force if im actually physically attacked short of fumbling about for a pistol while im getting bit on the face[/quote]In addition to spdrun’s comment about robbers/burglars entering one’s home, there are many people who have a CCW permit and know and when to use a gun in self defense. You’re 100% correct about things happening VERY quickly in most assaults. Criminals will almost always use the element of surprise against a victim. Most people with CCW permits know that certain situations lend themselves more often to violent encounters: walking alone at night, parking lots, alleys, etc. They know that they need to have the safety off and their finger on the trigger ahead of time.
People who have stalkers or know that someone is a threat to them will usually be carrying a weapon in a way that gives them easy and quick access, and most of those people will train and practice what they would do in various situations.
Participant[quote=ocrenter]
Point is accountability of the gun owners and elevating the bar of ownership. If my gun was used and accidentally killed a neighbor’s little girl, I should be at fault. And guns should be just as hard to obtain as a car. And just as every car is registered, every gun should be too.[/quote]Sure, as long as the same standards are applied regarding any medications you have, the car you own, the knives you own, items used in the manufacture of weapons, etc.
Someone borrowed your car, had a drink with the wife, and got into an accident? You’re on the hook for manslaughter charges. Your kid (or a neighbor’s kid) took some of your meds and gave them to a friend who died? You’re on the hook for that, as well. You have gasoline stored in your garage that someone used to light someone else or a building on fire? You’re responsible. Someone borrowed a knife from your drawer and they, or another person, used it to kill someone? You’re responsible. Would you agree to that?
Participant[quote=Jazzman]I don’t think “will” or lack of it has anything to do with mass slayings. If anything, the reserve could be argued. Hitler an Stalin spring to mind. Many simple cultures don’t exercise “will” in the cultural sense referred to, and yet don’t suffer the same cultural ills. I also don’t believe making guns too expensive would be a practical solution. You may as well just ban guns, if you are going to do that. The focus should be on an immediate solution to prevent callous killings. Gun control is as clear cut as any solution to address that problem. Apparently, 90% of Americans believe that to be the case. Yet, the legislation that was to bring about greater gun control failed. So whatever you think is the problem or likely solution, you are possibly going to be denied the means do deal with it, if your detractors are more powerful than you. I think that is a concern and needs to be addressed before philosophizing.[/quote]
Gun control, or gun bans? If they require registration for all guns, how long until they are knocking at everyone’s door because the “powers that be” decide to ban guns, altogether? I’d give it 5-10 years, at most. Nobody in established power likes the unwashed masses to be armed.
And who makes up this 90% when 60% of the population is armed? That only counts those who are willing to admit to gun ownership (I’m willing to bet the number is quite a bit higher).
Participant[quote=Dukehorn][quote=CA renter]
Millions of crimes are thwarted every year because people use guns in self-defense. Why would we want to prevent people from protecting themselves, especially when killers, rapists, and other violent criminals will not be tamed by taking away guns?[/quote]
Millions a year?? Bullshit. Stop with the hyperbole and debate with facts.
Going to use those false analogies about cars and knives? Again, bullshit. You have arms specifically designated in the 2nd amendment, we all know it’s a defined category and gun owners have rights. Argue this appropriately.
As for the 2nd amendment, I want the lawyers here to debate it based on the actual wording. There is a clause stating the right to bear arms but it’s still modified by the “well regulated” militia language in the introduction. That means there should be some regulation (I would like registration and wait period). In fact the NRA from 50 years ago agreed with this proposition. I want any lawyers here to argue whether the 2nd amendment right is truly unfettered.
Gun control doesn’t mean banning guns. I refuse to argue with the current NRA types that use language like police state to argue that no regulation is necessary for firearms. Again, it’s bullshit.
Open carry prevents crimes? Maybe, but it also increases the likelihood of anger related killings. Like the ex-cop who shot the dad for texting in the movie theater. Or the guy who sprayed the SUV of black kids for playing their music too loud. Hard to judge the numbers since Congress won’t let any gun related violence research be conducted.
As for the police state hyperbole. Get back to me after you visit the “police states” like: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the UK, Canada, Argentina. Then look up the definition of police state and see if it works.
Frankly this kid was in a tough spot. His mom made peanuts in the world they lived in. Dad had declared bankruptcy. He was the poor kid in a world of rich kids, which explained his fixation with money (and how winning the lottery would improve his world).[/quote]
Yes, millions a year. No bullshit. Most incidents where guns are used in self-defense are never reported (I’m one of them). Even the most conservative estimates show tens or hundreds of thousands of crimes thwarted every year by guns. Something from dailykos/Mother Jones for you, lest anyone suggest we are “cherry picking” our sources:
MJ also points out how the gun lobby claims around 2.5 million instances of ‘defensive gun use’ or self-defense using a gun. The comparison to federal crime data from the Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey, in chart form, is downright ridiculous. The federal crime data from 2007-2011 tallies 338,700 uses of guns in self-defense, but if you believe the gun lobby, that number should be 12,500,000 — more than 36 times as many. Lies, damn lies and statistics, eh?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/19/1203254/-More-NRA-mythbusting-do-guns-prevent-crime
As a former victim of violent criminals, and also one who supports the Second Amendment because TYRANNY CAN HAPPEN HERE, I fully support the people’s right to own guns. That ownership should not be registered or tracked by the government in any way. Gun registration has NEVER prevented a single crime; the only reason for registration is to ensure the soldiers/police know where to go to confiscate weapons if a tyrant (or tyrants) ever comes into power and they want to prevent a revolution or stop a resistance effort.
May 30, 2014 at 10:34 PM in reply to: Moving money to another country for better interest rates #774605ParticipantSorry to hear about this, Jazzman. 🙁
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]These mass shootings are unavoidable says only nation with mass shootings.
This week’s headline from the onion.
Absolutely….nothing we could possibly do….[/quote]
Are we the only country with mass murders? Again, most of us couldn’t care less about the method of killing.
Participant[quote=ocrenter][quote=livinincali][quote=ocrenter]
American rate of death by gun (homocide and suicide) is at 10/100k, most of the OECD countries are below 1/100k.You do the math on that one.[/quote]
Here’s a recent study with graphs. If do some cherry picking you can arrive at a conclusion that more guns = more deaths. Of course we can always cherry pick data to suit our agenda.
I never said guns increase crime rate. I’m saying you get more gun death with more gun ownership. Not all gun death are criminal. Crime rate is actually falling over the last 40-50 years over the entire country, but regardless of per-capita gun ownership.
As for your Chicago example. We do know poverty increases crime rate. Now poverty wih guns, that’s the perfect storm. That’s why places like Nicaraga has something like 40+/100k gun deaths.
A city is not going to be able to enforce gun control, you just have to drive a block out of the city and you will not be subject to that control. You know that, but of course you will use that to justify zero control, because that fits with your narrative.[/quote]
Why do the anti-gun folks always want to focus on “gun-related” homicides? I don’t care how someone chooses to kill, I only care that he kills. Conversely, the #1 way for a person (especially a weaker person) to defend him/herself is with a gun. Millions of crimes are thwarted every year because people use guns in self-defense. Why would we want to prevent people from protecting themselves, especially when killers, rapists, and other violent criminals will not be tamed by taking away guns?
Even if you could eliminate every gun in the world, do you think that would prevent a killer from killing? That’s totally naive and unrealistic, IMHO.
ParticipantWhere was this, MM? That totally sucks!
They’ve come up with new inverters where you can plug something in (up to 1500 watts, IIRC).
ParticipantAnd there’s this:
“Guns aren’t even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.
The U.S. mass murder rate does not seem to rise or fall with the availability of automatic weapons. It reached its highest level in 1929, when fully automatic firearms were expensive and mostly limited to soldiers and organized criminals. The rate dipped in the mid-1930s, staying relatively low before surging again in the 1970s through 1990s. Some criminologists attribute the late-century spike to the potential for instant notoriety: Beginning with Charles Whitman’s 1966 shooting spree from atop a University of Texas tower, mass murderers became household names. Others point out that the mass murder rate fairly closely tracks the overall homicide rate. In the 2000s, for example, both the mass murder and the homicide rates dropped to their lowest levels since the 1960s.”
ParticipantFor the gun ban proponents, how do you address the fact that the most of the serial killers with the highest death counts and the most dangerous mass murderers didn’t use guns?
1. Of serial killers, only two of the top 13 (Wournous and Son of Sam) used guns consistently. Almost all of them used other methods (strangulation, stabbing, drowning, drugging).
2. Worst mass murder in a school? Bombs/explosives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
3. Calgary’s worst mass killing (stabbing):
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/04/15/calgary-worst-mass-murder_n_5154950.html
4. And the worst mass murder event in U.S. history? Airplanes (911). This is followed, I believe, by the Oklahoma City bombing.
————-
So, how in the world can anybody say, with a straight face, that if you got rid of guns, you’d stop murderous rampages?
-
AuthorPosts
