Common Sense Crime Prevention... or "How best to organize your community"

[PubliusInfinitum]

He is?

STOP killing him, PubliusInfinitu.

That's the socialists' job.

That's true... thus it serves reason that when it's all said and done, that which IS actually killing her... is HER; OKA: A socialist; AKA: The Useful Idiot. Which begs the question: To whom is she useful? To which the answer naturally follows: The Socialists...

 

[Turboswede]

I admit that I am a liberal, but on the gun thing it’s not the place of the government to limit a law abiding citizen’s right to own a firearm.

My solution would be through personal responsibility on the part of the individuals owning guns, individuals using guns in the commission of a crime and the individuals selling guns.

For example, if you are a private individual that has your gun stolen you are now civilly (if not criminally) liable for the harms caused by that firearm due to your failure to adequately protect the public from the exercise of your 2nd amendment right. The individual still has the right to purchase the gun. There would be a presumption of negligence that the gun owner would need to overcome and we would apply a strict liability standard, just as we do to people in auto accidents, for harms caused by the firearm.

Similarly, if you are a retailer of firearms, in the event that a firearm is sold without the appropriate documentation or stolen, then civil liability for all harms caused by the firearm would be the responsibility of the seller, once again there would be a rebuttable presumption of negligence.

 

[del]

I admit that I am a liberal, but on the gun thing it’s not the place of the government to limit a law abiding citizen’s right to own a firearm.

My solution would be through personal responsibility on the part of the individuals owning guns, individuals using guns in the commission of a crime and the individuals selling guns.

For example, if you are a private individual that has your gun stolen you are now civilly (if not criminally) liable for the harms caused by that firearm due to your failure to adequately protect the public from the exercise of your 2nd amendment right. The individual still has the right to purchase the gun. There would be a presumption of negligence that the gun owner would need to overcome and we would apply a strict liability standard, just as we do to people in auto accidents, for harms caused by the firearm.

Similarly, if you are a retailer of firearms, in the event that a firearm is sold without the appropriate documentation or stolen, then civil liability for all harms caused by the firearm would be the responsibility of the seller, once again there would be a rebuttable presumption of negligence.

by this logic, if someone stole my car and killed someone while using it, i'd be liable.
or am i missing something?

 

[Turboswede]

by this logic, if someone stole my car and killed someone while using it, i'd be liable.
or am i missing something?

I know in WA, CA and NY you are liable, it would be PIP claim (insurance follows the car). Once your PIP is maxed out you would probably be sued personally for the remaining harm provided that the criminal who stole the vehicle was “judgment proof”, provided you took “reasonable precautions” such as not leaving the keys in the ignition, you would probably be able to avoid any additional liability providing you did not act in a grossly negligent or reckless manner in securing your car.

 

[del]

I know in WA, CA and NY you are liable, it would be PIP claim (insurance follows the car). Once your PIP is maxed out you would probably be sued personally for the remaining harm provided that the criminal who stole the vehicle was “judgment proof”, provided you took “reasonable precautions” such as not leaving the keys in the ignition, you would probably be able to avoid any additional liability providing you did not act in a grossly negligent or reckless manner in securing your car.

so would i not also be not liable if someone breaks into my house, busts open my gunsafe, takes my weapons, breaks out the trigger locks and commits a crime. or is it just my fault for having the gun in the first place?

 

[Turboswede]

so would i not also be not liable if someone breaks into my house, busts open my gunsafe, takes my weapons, breaks out the trigger locks and commits a crime. or is it just my fault for having the gun in the first place?

Right, you would not be liable unless you acted with Recklessness or negligence but it would be up to the original gun owner to rebut the presumption of negligence. In your example it’s clear that the gun owner took reasonable precautions and should not be liable. This would create an incentive for people to get gun safes and make sure that their firearms are protected.

The people who this would impact most are folks that keep loaded firearms in a desk drawer while the door is wide open. It is a right to have a gun, but with all rights come responsibilities and I think we should do everything we can to encourage responsible gun ownership.

 

[Chris]

Sensible regulation is all the is needed.

States that have stricter gun laws have a much lower rate of gun deaths.

 

[KGB]

Sensible regulation is all the is needed.

States that have stricter gun laws have a much lower rate of gun deaths.

false....

 

[KGB]

Right, you would not be liable unless you acted with Recklessness or negligence but it would be up to the original gun owner to rebut the presumption of negligence. In your example it’s clear that the gun owner took reasonable precautions and should not be liable. This would create an incentive for people to get gun safes and make sure that their firearms are protected.

The people who this would impact most are folks that keep loaded firearms in a desk drawer while the door is wide open. It is a right to have a gun, but with all rights come responsibilities and I think we should do everything we can to encourage responsible gun ownership.

if someone steals your car, you will notice that right away....if someone steals a gun, it may occur without your knowledge....don't punish the gun owner for the crimes of the criminal.....

 

[Turboswede]

if someone steals your car, you will notice that right away....if someone steals a gun, it may occur without your knowledge....don't punish the gun owner for the crimes of the criminal.....

See that’s my point, in making a decision to buy a fire arm, a gun owner should accept responsibility for what purpose that firearm is put to. The very act of acquiring a firearm means acceptance that the weapon may eventually be used to harm someone and the responsibility should be placed on the gun owner to exercise every precaution to ensure that the weapon is not used to infringe on an innocent 3rd party’s right to life, liberty or property.

Besides, the vast majority of weapons acquired by criminals are not stolen but received willingly from some source. My method of insisting on personal responsibility on the part of the original owner may curb the number of guns used in crime.

I agree that the individual has a right to own firearms, but with individuals exercising that right should also accept personal responsibility for the harm the weapon may cause. If you wish to avoid potential liability you have 3 choices:

Secure you weapons so you can show that you have not acted in a negligent or reckless manner.
Do not give firearms as gifts to criminal family & friends.
Do not buy a gun in the 1st place.

 

[RoadVirus]

States that have stricter gun laws have a much lower rate of gun deaths.

DC had very strict gun laws, yet they still had high murder rates. Please explain that!

 

[WhiteLion]

DC had very strict gun laws, yet they still had high murder rates. Please explain that!

Black-market??? criminals love the shit out of weapons restrictions and bans.... criminals know law abiding citizens have no personal protection and become victims of both the state and the black-market crime syndicate... Here's a gun rights video featuring Ted Nugent [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv5HJkp5sY0]YouTube - Uncle Ted has a message for Hillary Clinton[/ame]

George Washington- Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon, and citizen's firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes; we need them every hour.

 

[RoadVirus]

Black-market??? criminals love the shit out of weapons restrictions and bans.... criminals know law abiding citizens have no personal protection and become victims of both the state and the black-market crime syndicate... Here's a gun rights video featuring Ted Nugent YouTube - Uncle Ted has a message for Hillary Clinton

Correct.

 

[pegwinn]

I have only one issue with "presumption of negligence". It runs counter to the "presumption of innocence" doctrine in American Jurisprudence. Basically, if you steal my car (or sword collection, or gun, or dog etc etc) and commit a crime with it... someone is going to have to prove in court that I am somehow liable for the actions of a third parties criminal action. If you steal from me, and then commit a crime, the reality is that there are now two victims and one perp.

Not a bad idea in theory. Needs refinement, but at least it is an attempt to address the problem.

 

[Chris]

DC had very strict gun laws, yet they still had high murder rates. Please explain that!

Poverty, urbanization, and the state of Virginia has some of the loosest gun laws in the nation.

D.C.'s murder rate has dropped in half since the early 1990's by the way, so that old argument doesn't fly.

 

[DiveCon]

Poverty, urbanization, and the state of Virginia has some of the loosest gun laws in the nation.

D.C.'s murder rate has dropped in half since the early 1990's by the way, so that old argument doesn't fly.

given your propensity for being wrong, you will need to provide some proof before you can claim that

 

[Chris]

given your propensity for being wrong, you will need to provide some proof before you can claim that

Given your propensity for being ignorant, click the link below...

District of Columbia Crime Rates 1960 - 2007

 

[DiveCon]

Given your propensity for being ignorant, click the link below...

District of Columbia Crime Rates 1960 - 2007

hey, i taught you a new word
wtg
LOL

btw, the murder rate has dropped, but the robbery rate has not

 

[Skull Pilot]

hey, i taught you a new word
wtg
LOL

btw, the murder rate has dropped, but the robbery rate has not

Gun deaths Chris

How many of the murders were via guns. isn't that your whole argument here?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

That's true... thus it serves reason that when it's all said and done, that which IS actually killing her... is HER; OKA: A socialist; AKA: The Useful Idiot. Which begs the question: To whom is she useful? To which the answer naturally follows: The Socialists...

It should be noted that Chris has through a rather flaccid neg-rep complained that she has been referred to as a she. It seems that she is a biological male and feels that her advocacy of the irrational feminine position; baseless, emotional, illogical, selfish, means/ends... means little to her and she rather snottily requests through this impotent back-handed slap that she be referenced with regard to her biology and decidedly not to that of her psychology.

Chris, I can't help you with that sis. If you feel that you're being recognized as an irrational female is an insult, you're mistaken, that's nature's problem, it falls under 'shit happens'; if you prefer to be recognized as a male, I suggest you 'butch up...'