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.
i see gun laws are still failing. good work libs
And I see gun culture is still thriving. Good work NRA.
Nor do they cause violence. As such, if you have a problem with crime, you should focus on finding anti-violence solutions, and stop worry about firearms.
So when an innocent person gets shot, there should be no recourse built into the system except to sue the shooter for compensation?
If negligent behavior caused the shooting, then filing criminal charges on the shooter and then civil action would be appropriate...if negligence was involved.
i see gun laws are still failing. good work libs
And I see gun culture is still thriving. Good work NRA.
Not sure of course but I would bet that the parents of the kids that bring guns to schools are often overheard decrying the limp-wristed liberals who have no idea how to raise kids.
So when an innocent person gets shot, there should be no recourse built into the system except to sue the shooter for compensation?
If negligent behavior caused the shooting, then filing criminal charges on the shooter and then civil action would be appropriate...if negligence was involved.
Except you're in the hospital for a few months, the assailant (if caught) is in jail earning $0.00. Likely we're not talking about a hedge fund manager as the perp to start with so good luck getting your cab fare to the hospital in the judgment much less your medical bills, pain, suffering, etc... If you're really unlucky, you're the spouse/parent of someone who goes through all of that then passes away.
Hence the need to have something built into the system to reimburse the wounded and killed and their families.
So when an innocent person gets shot, there should be no recourse built into the system except to sue the shooter for compensation?
If negligent behavior caused the shooting, then filing criminal charges on the shooter and then civil action would be appropriate...if negligence was involved.
Except you're in the hospital for a few months, the assailant (if caught) is in jail earning $0.00. Likely we're not talking about a hedge fund manager as the perp to start with so good luck getting your cab fare to the hospital in the judgment much less your medical bills, pain, suffering, etc... If you're really unlucky, you're the spouse/parent of someone who goes through all of that then passes away.
Hence the need to have something built into the system to reimburse the wounded and killed and their families.
If negligent behavior caused the shooting, then filing criminal charges on the shooter and then civil action would be appropriate...if negligence was involved.
Except you're in the hospital for a few months, the assailant (if caught) is in jail earning $0.00. Likely we're not talking about a hedge fund manager as the perp to start with so good luck getting your cab fare to the hospital in the judgment much less your medical bills, pain, suffering, etc... If you're really unlucky, you're the spouse/parent of someone who goes through all of that then passes away.
Hence the need to have something built into the system to reimburse the wounded and killed and their families.
Nope, people are responsible for their actions and they need to be the ones held responsible. If they can't pay, the taxpayers can make it up the same way you insist they make up everything else. [sarcasm intentional]
So when an innocent person gets shot, there should be no recourse built into the system except to sue the shooter for compensation?
If negligent behavior caused the shooting, then filing criminal charges on the shooter and then civil action would be appropriate...if negligence was involved.
Except you're in the hospital for a few months, the assailant (if caught) is in jail earning $0.00. Likely we're not talking about a hedge fund manager as the perp to start with so good luck getting your cab fare to the hospital in the judgment much less your medical bills, pain, suffering, etc... If you're really unlucky, you're the spouse/parent of someone who goes through all of that then passes away.
Hence the need to have something built into the system to reimburse the wounded and killed and their families.
You did an outstanding job with that. No one shooting back once. Well done, you maximized the carnage and then Obama was able to look disgusted on TV and advocate more government power.
Did I say it before? Every mass shooter in modern times was a democrat.
Let me guess... you still don't get it.
i see gun laws are still failing. good work libs
And I see gun culture is still thriving. Good work NRA.
Not sure of course but I would bet that the parents of the kids that bring guns to schools are often overheard decrying the limp-wristed liberals who have no idea how to raise kids.
Except you're in the hospital for a few months, the assailant (if caught) is in jail earning $0.00. Likely we're not talking about a hedge fund manager as the perp to start with so good luck getting your cab fare to the hospital in the judgment much less your medical bills, pain, suffering, etc... If you're really unlucky, you're the spouse/parent of someone who goes through all of that then passes away.
Hence the need to have something built into the system to reimburse the wounded and killed and their families.
Nope, people are responsible for their actions and they need to be the ones held responsible. If they can't pay, the taxpayers can make it up the same way you insist they make up everything else. [sarcasm intentional]
So again, if you get shot, it's your fault? Is that what you're saying?
Buttsoiler's vision of how the world works:
[
Yeah, good thinking asshole.
Oh, and murder is a felony which carries with it capital punishment (that would be the DEATH PENALTY for you Dumbocrats). If being killed isn't a deterrent, why do you think "federal-type sentences" would be"?!?!
You make it a federal crime (no parole) for any crime involving a gun. You rob a 7-Eleven with a gun, federal crime. You tell the cashier you have a gun but don't brandish it; federal crime. You're gone for the full 10 years or whatever. Murder doesn't have to be involved.
Oh, and murder is a felony which carries with it capital punishment (that would be the DEATH PENALTY for you Dumbocrats). If being killed isn't a deterrent, why do you think "federal-type sentences" would be"?!?!
You make it a federal crime (no parole) for any crime involving a gun. You rob a 7-Eleven with a gun, federal crime. You tell the cashier you have a gun but don't brandish it; federal crime. You're gone for the full 10 years or whatever. Murder doesn't have to be involved.
How does it prove that?
Criminals can easily obtain American made guns. Very easily.
No kidding, this whole thread is based on that. That wasn't the question. How does that guns are generally made by American manufacturers mean that gun laws are too lax? Read the op.
The death penalty doesn't deter people because they are shielded from it. If you can't figure that out maybe someone will explain it to you.
