F**** your thoughts and prayers?

[Chillicothe]

I can kill a lot of people with my truck and a snow plow can't I?

Oh you bet you can.
So stipulated.
But.....

But you can't plow your drive with your Glock17.
You can't haul Grandma to the doctor with your Beretta Citori.*

*At least, I don't think you can.....I've never tried it with mine. And beside Grammy is dead. So there is that.

Look, good poster Blues Man.....if you really think a gun is the same as a truck, or a truck is the same as a gun......well, mein freund, ----and I don't mean this disrespectfully, but........but I don't think I wanna go the trap range with you, or have you tailgating me on the freeway.

'Cause, really......I mean it -----guns are different.
Trust me.

 

[jc456]

Oh you bet you can.
So stipulated.
But.....

But you can't plow your drive with your Glock17.
You can't haul Grandma to the doctor with your Beretta Citori.*

*At least, I don't think you can.....I've never tried it with mine. And beside Grammy is dead. So there is that.

Look, good poster Blues Man.....if you really think a gun is the same as a truck, or a truck is the same as a gun......well, mein freund, ----and I don't mean this disrespectfully, but........but I don't think I wanna go the trap range with you, or have you tailgating me on the freeway.

'Cause, really......I mean it -----guns are different.
Trust me.

Anything with a gun can be replicated by any other weapon. Darrell Brooks proved that

 

[Blues Man]

Oh you bet you can.
So stipulated.
But.....

But you can't plow your drive with your Glock17.
You can't haul Grandma to the doctor with your Beretta Citori.*

*At least, I don't think you can.....I've never tried it with mine. And beside Grammy is dead. So there is that.

Look, good poster Blues Man.....if you really think a gun is the same as a truck, or a truck is the same as a gun......well, mein freund, ----and I don't mean this disrespectfully, but........but I don't think I wanna go the trap range with you, or have you tailgating me on the freeway.

'Cause, really......I mean it -----guns are different.
Trust me.

A gun is nothing but a tool. in that sense a gun is like any other tool be it a truck, a table saw or a drill press.

It isn't the gun that dictates the actions of its wielder.

Saying that every gun owner is responsible for every crime another person may commit with a gun is just as ludicrous as saying everyone with liquor in their homes is responsible for every drunk driving incident.

 

[Chillicothe]

"Saying that every gun owner is responsible for every crime another person may commit with a gun is just as ludicrous as saying everyone with liquor in their homes is responsible for every drunk driving incident."

--------------------------------------

Ummm, noper.
A gun is different.
Different than a table saw, different than your bottle of Wild Turkey.

I know you know that.

But, because a gun is uniquely different than any other 'tool' we may use......it therefore, need have 'unique' rules apply to it.
Think poisonous snakes. The OOR is responsible if his snake kills the paperboy. The OOR cannot blame the snake. Society will not blame the snake.

If you.....as the owner-of-record do not, will not, cannot......secure your weapon so that it will not be stolen or lost, then you are, by definition of these unique rules.....liable. Ipso facto. By law.

That is NOT to say the OOR is solely responsible for the death of the dead 7-11 clerk. The OOR shares liability....to some degree defined either by statute or court. But he is liable in shares.

He introduced this unique 'tool' into society. He would not, or could not....at any rate, did not adequately secure it from being lost or stolen. And then it was used to create harm. Parties --the trigger-puller and the OOR --- must make amends to society for that harm.

I hope I am clear.

 

[Blues Man]

--------------------------------------

Ummm, noper.
A gun is different.
Different than a table saw, different than your bottle of Wild Turkey.

I know you know that.

But, because a gun is uniquely different than any other 'tool' we may use......it therefore, need have 'unique' rules apply to it.
Think poisonous snakes. The OOR is responsible if his snake kills the paperboy. The OOR cannot blame the snake. Society will not blame the snake.

If you.....as the owner-of-record do not, will not, cannot......secure your weapon so that it will not be stolen or lost, then you are, by definition of these unique rules.....liable. Ipso facto. By law.

That is NOT to say the OOR is solely responsible for the death of the dead 7-11 clerk. The OOR shares liability....to some degree defined either by statute or court. But he is liable in shares.

He introduced this unique 'tool' into society. He would not, or could not....at any rate, did not adequately secure it from being lost or stolen. And then it was used to create harm. Parties --the trigger-puller and the OOR --- must make amends to society for that harm.

I hope I am clear.

I disagree.

And we already have rules for gun ownership that we do not enforce so more rules will do nothing.

And if I have a gun inside a locked home then that gun is secured. And if the gun was stolen and the owner reported it that is where his responsibility ends. After that the entire burden is on the criminal who committed a crime to steal the gun then committed another crime with the gun.

 

[Chillicothe]

"And if I have a gun inside a locked home then that gun is secured. And if the gun was stolen and the owner reported it that is where his responsibility ends. After that the entire burden is on the criminal who committed a crime to steal the gun then committed another crime with the gun."

Well, yes. And no.
Yes, the thief and shooter bears most of the liability for both crimes....likely ALL of the liability for the breaking and entering and theft.
And too, he bears most of the liability for the dead 7-11 clerk.

("Strict Liability"....does not.....DOES NOT..... lessen the culpability nor the punishment of the thief/shooter.)

If if I was king. Or if my suggestion of "strict liability" becomes the law of the land,
locking up a gun in you desk drawer, or in your basement gun-safe is not the same as 'securing' it.
It was stolen.
Therefore, by definiton it was not 'secured'.
The Owner-of-Record did not 'secure' it adequately. By law.
The gun-safe may mitigate the punishment levied but it does not erase the strict-liability burden.

If it is stolen; if it is lost; if it is forcefully wrestled away.......it was, by definition NOT secured....thus the O-O-R is on the hook for a share of the harm that weapon/tool causes.

That is the nature...and the intent ...of "strict liability". If you brought the gun into our society you assume the risk and the liability of that unique tool causing harm.

That is just the unique nature of this unique tool......it comes burdened with unique liability for whoever happens to be the owner-of-record at the time.

Guns are different than any other tool. Thus need be addressed differently.

IMHO

 

[Blues Man]

Well, yes. And no.
Yes, the thief and shooter bears most of the liability for both crimes....likely ALL of the liability for the breaking and entering and theft.
And too, he bears most of the liability for the dead 7-11 clerk.

("Strict Liability"....does not.....DOES NOT..... lessen the culpability nor the punishment of the thief/shooter.)

If if I was king. Or if my suggestion of "strict liability" becomes the law of the land,
locking up a gun in you desk drawer, or in your basement gun-safe is not the same as 'securing' it.
It was stolen.
Therefore, by definiton it was not 'secured'.
The Owner-of-Record did not 'secure' it adequately. By law.
The gun-safe may mitigate the punishment levied but it does not erase the strict-liability burden.

If it is stolen; if it is lost; if it is forcefully wrestled away.......it was, by definition NOT secured....thus the O-O-R is on the hook for a share of the harm that weapon/tool causes.

That is the nature...and the intent ...of "strict liability". If you brought the gun into our society you assume the risk and the liability of that unique tool causing harm.

That is just the unique nature of this unique tool......it comes burdened with unique liability for whoever happens to be the owner-of-record at the time.

Guns are different than any other tool. Thus need be addressed differently.

IMHO

Again I disagree.

That clerk was shot because of the actions of a criminal committing at least 2 crimes. The homeowner has no culpability whatsoever.

If a person hot wired your car then picked up 4 of his buddies and they all died because the car thief was driving like an idiot or if they used your car to rob a string of liquor stores and ran over and killed people while making their getaway do you bear any responsibility?

I don't think so.

 

[leftwinger]

In Prison guards have 24-7 complete control. Still rapes, stabbings, fights, murders, beatings occur

Yet "trust us" LW say. Give up your guns. We will protect you. Bad guys wont get guns. Uh.....they get Heroin, coke. Yet both banned.

 

[Blues Man]

In Prison guards have 24-7 complete control. Still rapes, stabbings, fights, murders, beatings occur

Yet "trust us" LW say. Give up your guns. We will protect you. Bad guys wont get guns. Uh.....they get Heroin, coke. Yet both banned.

The Supreme Court has ruled that no police officer or police department has a legal obligation to come to the aid of the public.

Knowing that and still refusing to own a firearm for self defense is felony stupidity.

 

[Chillicothe]

That clerk was shot because of the actions of a criminal committing at least 2 crimes. The homeowner has no culpability whatsoever.

Well, yes. And no.
The clerk WAS shot due to the primary actions of the thief/shooter. I agree wholeheartedly.
But no, the Owner-of-Record of the weapon used...DOES......bear a legally defined share of liability for not securing adequately his weapon/tool.
He owned it.
He owns it's benefits and its' harms.
-----------------------------------------------------------

If a person hot wired your car

Well, we ain't really talking about cars, or trucks, or motorcycles, or stolen cable-cars.
Today's topic is guns.
Privately owned guns that were not adequately secured to prevent their possession and use by another party to commit a shooting of an innocent person.
As such, in my scenario, because firearms are uniquely different than all other tools society uses.....they qualify for a uniquely different burden of 'strict liability'.


It is "strict liability" of "firearms".
THAT is what we are discussing.
NOT planes, trains or automobiles.

 

[Blues Man]

Well, yes. And no.
The clerk WAS shot due to the primary actions of the thief/shooter. I agree wholeheartedly.
But no, the Owner-of-Record of the weapon used...DOES......bear a legally defined share of liability for not securing adequately his weapon/tool.
He owned it.
He owns it's benefits and its' harms.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Well, we ain't really talking about cars, or trucks, or motorcycles, or stolen cable-cars.
Today's topic is guns.
Privately owned guns that were not adequately secured to prevent their possession and use by another party to commit a shooting of an innocent person.
As such, in my scenario, because firearms are uniquely different than all other tools society uses.....they qualify for a uniquely different burden of 'strict liability'.


It is "strict liability" of "firearms".
THAT is what we are discussing.
NOT planes, trains or automobiles.

If his weapon was in a locked house it was secured properly.

And why is it that a person getting killed with a stolen gun somehow more egregious than a person getting killed with a stolen car?

The point is that you want some sort of extra culpability for crimes placed on innocent gun owners but you do not want to apply that same standard in all cases.

 

[Chillicothe]

"If his weapon was in a locked house it was secured properly.
And why is it that a person getting killed with a stolen gun somehow more egregious than a person getting killed with a stolen car?"

----------------------------------------
Ah, no. And no.
It it was stolen, borrowed, wrestled away......then it was, by definition, NOT Adequately Secured.
By legal definition under my avatar's proposed 'Strict Liability' regime. Ipso facto.

'Egregiousness' has nothing to do with it. Nor is the fact that both victims are dead.
The issue is the Owner-of-Record would not/did not....adequately secure his unique weapon/tool/gun......and thus it ended up being used by another party to cause harm.

THAT is the issue. Not whether one victim is more unworthily dead than another.

Let's keep our eye on the ball. If one owns a gun....one owns its benefits and one owns it harms. By law. That is what 'strict liability' does. It increases the burden of responsibility upon the owner of record.

And THAT....in my opinion.....will benefit society. And make it safer to a yet unknown degree, but still....safer.

 

[Blues Man]

----------------------------------------
Ah, no. And no.
It it was stolen, borrowed, wrestled away......then it was, by definition, NOT Adequately Secured.
By legal definition under my avatar's proposed 'Strict Liability' regime. Ipso facto.

'Egregiousness' has nothing to do with it. Nor is the fact that both victims are dead.
The issue is the Owner-of-Record would not/did not....adequately secure his unique weapon/tool/gun......and thus it ended up being used by another party to cause harm.

THAT is the issue. Not whether one victim is more unworthily dead than another.

Let's keep our eye on the ball. If one owns a gun....one owns its benefits and one owns it harms. By law. That is what 'strict liability' does. It increases the burden of responsibility upon the owner of record.

And THAT....in my opinion.....will benefit society. And make it safer to a yet unknown degree, but still....safer.

Once again placing an extra burden of culpability on an innocent person.

Nothing, no home, no lock box, is 100% theft proof. It is an unreasonable standard for the average person to meet. To say that being overpowered by a person or persons and having a gun taken away is the exact same thing as leaving it an unlocked home in plain sight is beyond ridiculous.

That you refuse to apply that same standard in all cases of criminal action is again you placing an additional burden of culpability on the innocent victim of a crime for no other reason than he happens to own a gun.

 

[jc456]

A gun is different

You didn’t explain how it’s different?

How’s it different than a car?

 

[jc456]

--------------------------------------

Ummm, noper.
A gun is different.
Different than a table saw, different than your bottle of Wild Turkey.

I know you know that.

But, because a gun is uniquely different than any other 'tool' we may use......it therefore, need have 'unique' rules apply to it.
Think poisonous snakes. The OOR is responsible if his snake kills the paperboy. The OOR cannot blame the snake. Society will not blame the snake.

If you.....as the owner-of-record do not, will not, cannot......secure your weapon so that it will not be stolen or lost, then you are, by definition of these unique rules.....liable. Ipso facto. By law.

That is NOT to say the OOR is solely responsible for the death of the dead 7-11 clerk. The OOR shares liability....to some degree defined either by statute or court. But he is liable in shares.

He introduced this unique 'tool' into society. He would not, or could not....at any rate, did not adequately secure it from being lost or stolen. And then it was used to create harm. Parties --the trigger-puller and the OOR --- must make amends to society for that harm.

I hope I am clear.

Noper. Loser demofks

 

[Chillicothe]

You didn’t explain how it’s different?
How’s it different than a car?

-------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, oops. I though I had.
So let me try again: A firearm inherently posses the potential of high lethality when employed against victims....both individually, and in multiples; it is easily portable; it is easily concealed; it offers ease of use. Those all, in varying degrees, differentiate firearms from say, a Bowie knife, a Ford F-150, or Cain's rock.

Witness: Stephen Paddock did not take up to the 33rd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel 47 rocks, or 47 knives. If only he did, there wouldn't have been near 600 casualties.

I hope I am clear on that now.

 

[jc456]

-------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, oops. I though I had.
So let me try again: A firearm inherently posses the potential of high lethality when employed against victims....both individually, and in multiples; it is easily portable; it is easily concealed; it offers ease of use. Those all, in varying degrees, differentiate firearms from say, a Bowie knife, a Ford F-150, or Cain's rock.

Witness: Stephen Paddock did not take up to the 33rd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel 47 rocks, or 47 knives. If only he did, there wouldn't have been near 600 casualties.

I hope I am clear on that now.

How’s it different than a knife, a car?

Fire? Poison?

 

[Chillicothe]

"Nothing, no home, no lock box, is 100% theft proof. It is an unreasonable standard for the average person to meet."

To say that being overpowered by a person or persons and having a gun taken away is the exact same thing as leaving it an unlocked home in plain sight is beyond ridiculous.

'..... placing an additional burden of culpability on the innocent victim of a crime for no other reason than he happens to own a gun.'

---------------------------------------
We are coming to the end of our discussions, poster Blues Man. Neither your position, nor mine....is persuasive to the other. And that's OK. Neither of us come here as proselytizers. And both have had the opportunity to articulate our positions.

I'll finish my participation here with the following. Keying off of your comments in the above pulled quote.

"burden of culpability on an innocent person"....... is not the issue. Rather than 'culpability'....it is acknowledged 'responsibility'. If you decide to bring such a high lethality tool into society you do so with the full understanding that if it is allowed to fall into the wrong but mendacious or careless hands....it CAN cause great harm. You know that going in. It is commonly understood by all gun owners. Me included. I do know that.

And the harm can be much greater than Cain's rock, or your table-saw. We both know that too. As such then, society must interpret and define firearms differently than that saw or those rocks.
Under my proposal, by definition a gun is different. Uniquely different.
Accordingly, it must be uniquely burdened with a 'strict liability' mandate. Because the owner-of-record is introducing into society with his own full knowledge of its' potential to cause harm. The Owner-of-Record is not 'innocent' of knowledge of the gun's potential.

And yes, being overpowered and having your gun taken away by a bad guy is unfortunate, but it is a risk that one acknowledges when one decides to own a gun. Not unlike the risk one acknowledges when buying a Rolex watch. Other people covet such things...guns and expensive watches. Thus, it CAN be taken away from you. And I know you know that. You don't seek it....but you know it is a possibility. So do I.

Accordingly, with that knowledge one also understands that that violently removed gun could harm a third party. An innocent third party. Hence, with that pre-purchase knowledge.....'strict liability' is applied.

Oh sure, a judge, or a jury, can view the violent removal from your person as a mitigating factor in reducing your penalty. I'm OK with that. There can be mitigating ....but not eliminating.....aspects within 'strict liability'. You having the Glock wrestled away from you is different than you leaving it under the seat of your F-150 when you stop in the DewDrop for a beer. Hence, a jury can consider it when doing the calculus....either criminally, or financially.....on your liability burden.

I'll end this with my firm belief that firearms are uniquely different than any other 'tool' we use in our societies. As such a unique view of their burden of liability can be properly applied. A gun is different. Our laws can be different towards its' use, ownership......and any harms it may cause.

As I come to the end of this thread, I've found your contributions here, Blues Man, interesting, thoughtful, and civil. I compliment you on your demeanor and forbearance of employing ad hominins, f-bombs, or other profanity.

Unfortunately, too many of our fellow posters on this chatroom use such as their own specific 'unique tools'. True that?

Bes2u, Ch.

 

[Dragonlady]

Anything with a gun can be replicated by any other weapon. Darrell Brooks proved that

No it cannot. Unless you have a really big ass bomb, nothing kills as fast as a weapon that can fire 30 rounds in 30 seconds.

 

[2aguy]

Again I disagree.

That clerk was shot because of the actions of a criminal committing at least 2 crimes. The homeowner has no culpability whatsoever.

If a person hot wired your car then picked up 4 of his buddies and they all died because the car thief was driving like an idiot or if they used your car to rob a string of liquor stores and ran over and killed people while making their getaway do you bear any responsibility?

I don't think so.

You can just sense the hate they have for the sin of owning a gun......they want to punish the gun owner no matter how far removed they are from the actual criminal who actually commits the crime.......