Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[nodoginnafight]

1) I never said criminal charges. Civil liability is what I favor.

2) I am asking that gun owners be responsible gun owners. I'm asking that they take reasonable precautions to secure their weapon.

I cannot imagine that any responsible gun owner would find these provisions onerous.

No, you created the most specious examples and implied that such behavior is common. They are ridiculous examples, yet even then are not dangerous unless a CRIMINAL engages in criminal behavior. So, while you are trying to marginalize legal gun owners, you illustrate that the real problem is crime and the ineffective response to criminals that our plagues our society.

Don't you think if someone leaves their gun in their car and it's stolen, the real criminal was the gun owner?

Hmm ... me neither ...

Nope that's why I said I don't favor criminal charges

Still squirming to find something - anything to fight about huh?

 

[kaz]

No, you created the most specious examples and implied that such behavior is common. They are ridiculous examples, yet even then are not dangerous unless a CRIMINAL engages in criminal behavior. So, while you are trying to marginalize legal gun owners, you illustrate that the real problem is crime and the ineffective response to criminals that our plagues our society.

Don't you think if someone leaves their gun in their car and it's stolen, the real criminal was the gun owner?

Hmm ... me neither ...

Nope that's why I said I don't favor criminal charges

Deflection, that you want to drive people broke isn't an excuse. Same question, why is someone responsible whether it's civil or criminal for a gun they stole? How is the owner responsible when their gun is stolen from their own property?

Still squirming to find something - anything to fight about huh?

Of course, why else would be on a political message board arguing with liberals? For the tan?

 

[hunarcy]

1) I never said criminal charges. Civil liability is what I favor.

2) I am asking that gun owners be responsible gun owners. I'm asking that they take reasonable precautions to secure their weapon.

I cannot imagine that any responsible gun owner would find these provisions onerous.

No, you created the most specious examples and implied that such behavior is common. They are ridiculous examples, yet even then are not dangerous unless a CRIMINAL engages in criminal behavior. So, while you are trying to marginalize legal gun owners, you illustrate that the real problem is crime and the ineffective response to criminals that our plagues our society.

Do what???
If you stole a gun - you have engaged in criminal behavior. Period.

Nice of you to provide evidence that you're not interested in an honest discussion but instead are just throwing up crap. The FACT is that your specious examples are silly, your argument vacuous and your position is flat wrong.

You may go. You've used up your 15 minutes.

 

[kaz]

2) I am asking that gun owners be responsible gun owners. I'm asking that they take reasonable precautions to secure their weapon

And again, how is having their gun on their own property not taking "reasonable precautions to secure their weapon?"

 

[hunarcy]

Don't you think if someone leaves their gun in their car and it's stolen, the real criminal was the gun owner?

Hmm ... me neither ...

Nope that's why I said I don't favor criminal charges

Deflection, that you want to drive people broke isn't an excuse. Same question, why is someone responsible whether it's civil or criminal for a gun they stole? How is the owner responsible when their gun is stolen from their own property?

Still squirming to find something - anything to fight about huh?

Of course, why else would be on a political message board arguing with liberals? For the tan?

Now that he's shown he really has no argument, I'm not bothering with him anymore.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Don't you think if someone leaves their gun in their car and it's stolen, the real criminal was the gun owner?

Hmm ... me neither ...

Nope that's why I said I don't favor criminal charges

Deflection, that you want to drive people broke isn't an excuse. Same question, why is someone responsible whether it's civil or criminal for a gun they stole? How is the owner responsible when their gun is stolen from their own property?

Still squirming to find something - anything to fight about huh?

Of course, why else would be on a political message board arguing with liberals? For the tan?

I've know it for quite some time - thanks for admitting it.
I'm bored with "arguing" with someone who really doesn't have a point other than to mislabel people people and pick fights.

Have a great day.

NOW you can sing your "Sir Robin" song If it'll make you feel like you've accomplished something.

 

[nodoginnafight]

No, you created the most specious examples and implied that such behavior is common. They are ridiculous examples, yet even then are not dangerous unless a CRIMINAL engages in criminal behavior. So, while you are trying to marginalize legal gun owners, you illustrate that the real problem is crime and the ineffective response to criminals that our plagues our society.

Do what???
If you stole a gun - you have engaged in criminal behavior. Period.

Nice of you to provide evidence that you're not interested in an honest discussion but instead are just throwing up crap. The FACT is that your specious examples are silly, your argument vacuous and your position is flat wrong.

You may go. You've used up your 15 minutes.

I honestly don't understand what you were trying to say with your first post.
1) I never implied anything about the frequency of the behaviors cited. Unilke others in this thread (kaz) I don't just pull numbers out of my butt and try to use them to make an argument.

2) The thread topic (which apparently I am the only one capable of remembering) is "How to keep guns from criminals" I guess getting your ass kicked on THAT topic led you to try to invent another one???

3) So you can either make arguments against my proposals - or fling crap. I see you chose the latter.

 

[kaz]

Nope that's why I said I don't favor criminal charges

Deflection, that you want to drive people broke isn't an excuse. Same question, why is someone responsible whether it's civil or criminal for a gun they stole? How is the owner responsible when their gun is stolen from their own property?

Still squirming to find something - anything to fight about huh?

Of course, why else would be on a political message board arguing with liberals? For the tan?

I've know it for quite some time - thanks for admitting it.
I'm bored with "arguing" with someone who really doesn't have a point other than to mislabel people people and pick fights.

Have a great day.

NOW you can sing your "Sir Robin" song If it'll make you feel like you've accomplished something.

I sang sir robin because

1) The OP's question is how liberals propose we keep guns out of the hands of criminals since gun laws don't accomplish that.

2) You came back with ignoring every way that criminals can get guns except one, and that's stealing them. Every other way they get guns you ignored. And you proposed we hold gun owners who's guns are stolen liable.

3) When asked how a gun owner is responsible for a gun stolen from their home, you then whittled it down to a tiny percent of those, like if someone leaves a gun in plain view by a big window. So of all guns criminals can get, you have reduced it down to holding a tiny portion that were stolen.

I keep asking you how that makes sense, and you don't answer the question. Calling that that I want to "pick fights" is wrong, I want you to address the question.

 

[kaz]

2) The thread topic (which apparently I am the only one capable of remembering) is "How to keep guns from criminals" I guess getting your ass kicked on THAT topic led you to try to invent another one???

That's the title, which you're twisting. The topic, as described in by the OP, is that all current gun laws do is keep guns out of the hands of honest citizens, particularly when they need them. So in that context, how are liberals planning to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Ignoring the context isn't you being the only one who is "remembering" what the thread is about, it's you changing the thread to suit your objective.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Man, oh man, this thread is the gift that keeps on giving!

 

[Bumberclyde]

Stop selling bullets.

 

[hunarcy]

Stop selling bullets.

You really should stop posting. You're doing yourself NO good by bringing up that stupid idea yet again.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Stop selling bullets.

If the second protects firearms it by definition protects ammo too.

 

[Spoonman]

Stop selling bullets.

make your own. its easy

 

[Spoonman]

Making me responsible for the criminal conduct of others is not legal. Further it is a direct infringement on the right to keep possess and carry firearms. There is no compelling State interest in punishing the law abiding for someone elses criminal behavior.

 

[hunarcy]

Making me responsible for the criminal conduct of others is not legal. Further it is a direct infringement on the right to keep possess and carry firearms. There is no compelling State interest in punishing the law abiding for someone elses criminal behavior.

Good one!

 

[Spoonman]

In your example - keeping it "in your home" may or may not be enough to avoid a charge of gross neglegence. (Apparently you haven't heard the term gross neglegence before or are painfully unaware of how it is applied in a legal sense).

Gross negligence is a legal concept which means serious carelessness. Unless you can demonstrate that a person is supposed to know their house is going to be robbed, it would not apply.

It could apply.

For example. If you live in an apartment complex with heavy traffic right in front of your apartment. There is a huge window in the front of your apartment. The shades are open so all this traffic can see - in plain sight - a pile of guns on your couch. Your door isn't locked. Someone would have to "break" into your house to get those guns technically, but in reality you've dangled a carrot in front of their nose and provided virtually no deterent.

Under my proposal this could meet the gross neglegence standard.

Example 2: You leave your gun laying on the passenger seat of your unlocked car while you run into the store to pick up a gallon of milk.

Example 3: You live with a person who has a criminal record or who is either too young, too mentally incomptent, too emotionally disturbed, to pass a gun purchase background check. You take no provisions to try to deny that person access to your gun.

wow that is a wild way of looking at it. so you have to keep your private property out of the sight of a potential criminal so you don't tempt him to steal it. so I shouldn't park my Porsche in the driveway? I shouldn't wear my rolex watch out in public? what is it with you jokers always making excuses for the criminals?

 

[Spoonman]

Got an answer, Dawg? I keep my gun in my own home, it's broken into and stolen. Explain how that is on me.

Typical liberal tactic. Throw out a factoid that is a red herring and argue it as if you are arguing the point, then when you're called on it, beat a hasty retreat...

Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!

LOL - excuse me for turning off my computer once in a while.
Really? is that all you got? Then you don't have much.

In your example - keeping it "in your home" may or may not be enough to avoid a charge of gross neglegence. (Apparently you haven't heard the term gross neglegence before or are painfully unaware of how it is applied in a legal sense).

yes but gross negligence doesn't apply to you if your property is stolen. if you leave your door unlocked and someone breaks in, you are not charged with gross negligence. if someone steals your car and runs someone over, you are not charged with gross negligence.

 

[Wildman]

how the fuck did we get off on this tangent ?

you liberfools keep detracting from the OP intent.

just flat out tell us gun owning patriotic law abiding citizens how you are going to keep guns from the law breakers ?

do that or shut the fuck up forever, stop throwing sinker balls.

 

[kaz]

Gross negligence is a legal concept which means serious carelessness. Unless you can demonstrate that a person is supposed to know their house is going to be robbed, it would not apply.

It could apply.

For example. If you live in an apartment complex with heavy traffic right in front of your apartment. There is a huge window in the front of your apartment. The shades are open so all this traffic can see - in plain sight - a pile of guns on your couch. Your door isn't locked. Someone would have to "break" into your house to get those guns technically, but in reality you've dangled a carrot in front of their nose and provided virtually no deterent.

Under my proposal this could meet the gross neglegence standard.

Example 2: You leave your gun laying on the passenger seat of your unlocked car while you run into the store to pick up a gallon of milk.

Example 3: You live with a person who has a criminal record or who is either too young, too mentally incomptent, too emotionally disturbed, to pass a gun purchase background check. You take no provisions to try to deny that person access to your gun.

wow that is a wild way of looking at it. so you have to keep your private property out of the sight of a potential criminal so you don't tempt him to steal it. so I shouldn't park my Porsche in the driveway? I shouldn't wear my rolex watch out in public? what is it with you jokers always making excuses for the criminals?

If a woman wears a provocative dress, then if she gets raped that was her fault, right? Isn't that what nodog is telling us?