Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, yes it is.
Society has an existential interest in the introduction into that society of easy to use, easily concealed, portable tools of high lethality potential. Think poison. Think dynamite. Think grenades.
The problem with Duke's "end-of-story' is that it too often is the beginning.
Of a tragic story.
Criminals deserve all the responsibility, not the innocent victims of crimes. You folks are sick.---------------------------------------------------------------
The position offered above....that the "thieves" are blameless, or the 'shooter' using a stolen gun is blameless is a strawman argument.
No one, that I have read.....is advocating that the 'shooters' bear no responsibility. Rather, in my own case, I feel the 'shooter' bears most of the liability, is mostly responsible for whatever harm comes from that stolen gun.
But, having said that, the OOR ain't blameless.
To some degree....and whatever that degree is, is not a subject of this thread, (and is likely best left to legislation or policy wonks).....the OOR must bear some liability for letting his high-lethality tool get out of his control and becomes instrumental in causing harm to society.
Owning a gun must have increased responsibility/liability for the OOR.
If one wishes to possess the benefits a firearm bestows upon the OOR, then one must bear increased responsibility for the harms it bestows upon society.
The problem is this is our leaders now.The problem we as a society are having is we're putting the blame on the wrong people.
You want to blame the gun owner rather than blaming the shooter.
Knives are also highly lethal, but I have not noticed anyone wanting to ban those or charge the knife manufacturers??
How about the drug manufacturers? Does anyone scream charge the drug companies when someone is murdered or killed with drugs?
That's good to know but, as I always sayZero.
I am very responsible with my guns and they always remain on my property 100% of the time.
Should they ever disappear, it would be because of someone else's irresponsibility and criminal behavior.
That's good to know but, as I always say
there are no accidents
Accidents happen when someone fails to do what they're supposed to do
Or
When someone does something they're not supposed to.
Everything else is an act of God.
Hopefully you won't claim "God did it."
Yes .. because grand theft auto is just giving the vehicle away.Park your car at WalMart.
Leave the doors unlocked and the windows down
Leave the keys in the ignition with the car running.
The thief's stealing it is clearly abetted by your failure to protect it.
Therefore, you, in effect, gave him the car.
Maybe the victim will write it off on their taxes too.
But how silent the MSM has grown over this matter. Gee, I wonder why? No way to spin it to whip up hate against white people.
Asked and answered.You want to blame the gun owner rather than blaming the shooter.
Knives are different than guns.Knives are also highly lethal, but I have not noticed anyone wanting to ban those or charge the knife manufacturers??
To some degree....and whatever that degree is, is not a subject of this thread, (and is likely best left to legislation or policy wonks).....the OOR must bear some liability for letting his high-lethality tool get out of his control and becomes instrumental in causing harm to society.
Owning a gun must have increased responsibility/liability for the OOR.
If one wishes to possess the benefits a firearm bestows upon the OOR, then one must bear increased responsibility for the harms it bestows upon society.
Asked.Why just guns?
Really?Either way, that's on the one COMMITTING the CRIME.
Asked and answered.
The 'shooter', the 'thief' bears most of the liability.
The OOR bears a share of the liability. It was, after all, his high-lethality tool that was used. If he hadn't introduced to society, if he hadn't lost control of it.....well, the harm would not have happened, or been less.
Knives are different than guns.
Golf clubs and rocks are different than guns.
They all do share a similar potential for lethality.
But guns are different.
Guns feature an ease of use, portability, concealability, and a higher-lethality quotient than do golf clubs.
For example, Adam Lanza did NOT take rocks into Sandy Hook to kill those 2nd graders.
Stephen Paddock did not take 8" Chefs knives up to the 33rd floor of Mandalay Bay to kill 60 and injure 847. Would that he had.
So your car as listed above is driven off by a 12 yo child.Yes .. because grand theft auto is just giving the vehicle away.
Knives are different than guns.
Asked.
And answered.
See above.
If you had ever shot a gun in your entire life you would immediately understand that guns are different than knives.Should we blame the knife maker?
Really?
Maybe check that case in MI where mommy got her son a gun so he could shoot up his school.
She's on trial for accessory among other charges.
Yeah....
Yes, knives are different.Knives are no different, they are easily acquired, highly dangerous, and easily concealed.
If you had ever shot a gun in your entire life you would immediately understand that guns are different than knives.
Yes, knives are different.
If they were the same.....then people would only own knives instead of guns.
They are much much cheaper.
Look up MI where mommy is on trial for illegally providing a gun to her son.
