Father of Newtown Victim Heckled

[eflatminor]

I said I support holding gun owners responsible if they have been grossly neglegent in securing their weapon and that weapon is used in the commission a crime.

That is the case currently. If you are the victim of a crime and can prove that the owner of the firearm used in that crime was liable for your injuries, that gun owner will be forced to compensate you.

Good luck.

That's four fails dude...

 

[nodoginnafight]

That is the case currently. If you are the victim of a crime and can prove that the owner of the firearm used in that crime was liable for your injuries, that gun owner will be forced to compensate you.

No it is not.
Your being clueless doesn't constitute a "fail" on my part.
(even if you add cutesy emoticons)
Sorry.

 

[eflatminor]

That is the case currently. If you are the victim of a crime and can prove that the owner of the firearm used in that crime was liable for your injuries, that gun owner will be forced to compensate you.

No it is not.

Oh really? Care to back that up? I have over 20 years in the insurance industry. I know how liability works. But please, tells us exactly how it works...

Your being clueless doesn't constitute a "fail" on my part.

Sorry.

Noticed you can't seem address at all, much less with specificity, the four FAILED posts this morning. I'm sure you'll get to them asap...

 

[martybegan]

U.S. holds parents responsible for damage that minors cause in the parents' car. Same SHOULD be true of guns.
i
I never said these laws are in place - I said I favor such laws. I thought that was made pretty clear.

Its the insurance companies that hold them liable, not the government. Plus again this only applies to the use of vehicles on public roads. and finally, you have no consitutional right to an automobile.

Forcing people to have insurance for firearm ownership is the definition of infringement.

I would not advocate forcing people to carry insurance in order to own a forearm and I never came close to saying anything close to that.

I said I support holding gun owners responsible if they have been grossly neglegent in securing their weapon and that weapon is used in the commission a crime.

Now, would you like to debate the pros and cons of that position, or would you preffer to keep moving the goalposts around and arguing a different issue that you seem to think favors your position more?

The instant you start talking about someone being liable if their firearm is used, without thier knowledge, to commit a crime or cause injury, you basically force people to carry insurance, as you really can only punish them civiilly not criminally.

Grossly negligent is the equivalent of someone giving a deranged person thier firearm to hold onto for a bit. In that case there is a hard, reckless action creating a negative result.

Keeping your gun in your sock drawer, and having a felon in your family grab it out of there is not negligence. If that becomes the standard, then people would have to keep all thier arms locked up, which then defeats the purpose of having it in your home for self defense in the first place.

The person commiting the act is responsible for the crime. All crimes involving a non acting party still require them to have some active part, such a setting it up, funding it, or covering for it after the fact. What you propose is strict liability, which is an infringement of 2nd amendment rights.

 

[nodoginnafight]

That is the case currently. If you are the victim of a crime and can prove that the owner of the firearm used in that crime was liable for your injuries, that gun owner will be forced to compensate you.

No it is not.

Oh really? Care to back that up? I have over 20 years in the insurance industry. I know how liability works. But please, tells us exactly how it works...

Your being clueless doesn't constitute a "fail" on my part.

Sorry.

Noticed you can't seem address at all, much less with specificity, the four FAILED posts this morning. I'm sure you'll get to them asap...

You haven't made a correct assumption yet. Answering phones at Geico obviously doesn't require much training.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If that becomes the standard, then people would have to keep all thier arms locked up

Which is where they should be.

 

[martybegan]

If that becomes the standard, then people would have to keep all thier arms locked up

Which is where they should be.

Um No. Does the criminal in your home count to 5 Mississippi, giving you time to get to your gun safe, unlock it, and retrive your firearm?

I keep forgetting all criminals are required to fight fair.

 

[nodoginnafight]

What you propose is strict liability, which is an infringement of 2nd amendment rights

Not at all. If you yell fire in a crowded movie theater you can be held liable. Same deal - if you fail to take reasonable precautions to safeguard your weapon - you should be held liable.

 

[Desperado]

Sure, the NRA is better funded than NAMBLA, but hopefully they'll both be nonexistent soon.

Not even an original thought......
Sen. Chuck Schumer D-N.Y. asserted on the Senate floor this afternoon that the Second Amendment was “not absolute” comparing restrictions on assault weapons to restrictions on child pornography.

“No amendment can be absolute,” Schumer said. “I believe you can be pro-gun and pro gun safety, just like you can be in favor of free speech but also against child pornography.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer compares assault weapons to child pornography | WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[nodoginnafight]

If that becomes the standard, then people would have to keep all thier arms locked up

Which is where they should be.

Um No. Does the criminal in your home count to 5 Mississippi, giving you time to get to your gun safe, unlock it, and retrive your firearm?

I keep forgetting all criminals are required to fight fair.

because we all know an intruder goes from prowling to in your bedroom shooting at you in 5 seconds.

(eyes rolling)

 

[martybegan]

Which is where they should be.

Um No. Does the criminal in your home count to 5 Mississippi, giving you time to get to your gun safe, unlock it, and retrive your firearm?

I keep forgetting all criminals are required to fight fair.

because we all know an intruder goes from prowling to in your bedroom shooting at you in 5 seconds.

(eyes rolling)

The point is, you are placing the burden on the law abiding citizen, that puts them at a disadvantage against the non law abiding citizen.

And 5 seconds is if your gun safe is in your bedroom. How effective is a firearm when the prowler is between you and the gun?

The simple fact is that all the crap you support does nothing to prevent gun crime, and just makes it easier on the criminals. If you want to live that way, fine by me, just dont force your crap on me.

 

[Clementine]

Bunch of damned cowardly animals. They remind me of those Westboro idiots.

This has already been debunked, yet too many people didn't get the message. It's not true.

 

[martybegan]

What you propose is strict liability, which is an infringement of 2nd amendment rights

Not at all. If you yell fire in a crowded movie theater you can be held liable. Same deal - if you fail to take reasonable precautions to safeguard your weapon - you should be held liable.

So the guy who drove the person to the theatre who then yelled "fire!" can be held liable as well? Even if he had no idea the person was going to do it?

Also, we don't gag people in theatres just in case they may yell "Fire!" which is exactly what most gun laws try to do.

 

[eflatminor]

No it is not.

Oh really? Care to back that up? I have over 20 years in the insurance industry. I know how liability works. But please, tells us exactly how it works...

Your being clueless doesn't constitute a "fail" on my part.

Sorry.

Noticed you can't seem address at all, much less with specificity, the four FAILED posts this morning. I'm sure you'll get to them asap...

You haven't made a correct assumption yet. Answering phones at Geico obviously doesn't require much training.

Nice dodge...once again. Since you can't back up your claim here, please, tell us how you want firearms to be regulated like driver's licenses. Please!

FAIL, FAIL, FAIL...and FAIL!

 

[nodoginnafight]

Oh really? Care to back that up? I have over 20 years in the insurance industry. I know how liability works. But please, tells us exactly how it works...



Noticed you can't seem address at all, much less with specificity, the four FAILED posts this morning. I'm sure you'll get to them asap...

You haven't made a correct assumption yet. Answering phones at Geico obviously doesn't require much training.

Nice dodge...once again. Since you can't back up your claim here, please, tell us how you want firearms to be regulated like driver's licenses. Please!

FAIL, FAIL, FAIL...and FAIL!

Believe it or not Geico - I can support that position because I believe it should be the law.

It's my opinion and I would support requiring a written test on safe handling, safe storage, and safe operations of a the firearm and a practical exam in which a potential owner would be forced to demonstrate proficiency with that firearm before they can own certain types of firearms.

See how easy that was....

(even all caps can't prove an opinion wrong)

 

[martybegan]

You haven't made a correct assumption yet. Answering phones at Geico obviously doesn't require much training.

Nice dodge...once again. Since you can't back up your claim here, please, tell us how you want firearms to be regulated like driver's licenses. Please!

FAIL, FAIL, FAIL...and FAIL!

Believe it or not Geico - I can support that position because I believe it should be the law.

It's my opinion and I would support requiring a written test on safe handling, safe storage, and safe operations of a the firearm and a practical exam in which a potential owner would be forced to demonstrate proficiency with that firearm before they can own certain types of firearms.

See how easy that was....

(even all caps can't prove an opinion wrong)

Once again, how does that prevent gun crimes? How many people have been killed by CCW holder (currently the people who go through what you are proposing) mis-using a firearm? They may be out there but you can count the number on one hand.

And I guess you will personnally be the one to teach all those gang-bangers out there this course.

 

[eflatminor]

You haven't made a correct assumption yet. Answering phones at Geico obviously doesn't require much training.

Nice dodge...once again. Since you can't back up your claim here, please, tell us how you want firearms to be regulated like driver's licenses. Please!

FAIL, FAIL, FAIL...and FAIL!

Believe it or not Geico -

A feeble attempt at an ad hominem attack. Come on, you can do better.

I can support that position because I believe it should be the law.

Regarding liability? It is. All you have to do is demonstrate that the firearm owner was liable for your injuries. Again, good luck.

It's my opinion and I would support requiring a written test on safe handling, safe storage, and safe operations of a the firearm and a practical exam in which a potential owner would be forced to demonstrate proficiency with that firearm before they can own certain types of firearms.

Already exists in California. Of course, this regulation has resulted in no gun crime in the state...

See how easy that was....

Just like getting a driver's license?

 

[eflatminor]

In order to operate a car, people have to pass a written examination and demonstrate a proficiency at operating the car.

Not true. You can buy a car without a driver's license. You can operate a car on your own property without a driver's license. You only need a driver's license to operate that vehicle on PUBLIC property. Further, the federal government has NO involvement in the licensing process. It's up to each state.

So, by your own reasoning, the feds should have no involvement in the purchase of a firearm but states are free to require a license to carry a firearm in public.

Works for me!

And a parent can be held liable for what his or her child does with the parent's car.

That's true for any action taken by a child where the parents are found to be liable.

I can live with that for guns. Can you?

Absolutely. Thanks for supporting the 2nd amendment.

What's the matter dog, no snappy comeback?!

 

[nodoginnafight]

awww how cute.
emoticons and backtracking B.S.

I'll take that as an admission of defeat Geico.

 

[nodoginnafight]

what no more Backtracking B.S.?