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.
Please explain where the compensation should come from. Mom is dead. Dad is gone in the Sandyhook case. The perp is dead too.
Your move.
Actually I addressed that point in the post you quoted, you just cut that part.
But in addition to that, suppose someone walks into a mall and blows themselves up? What if someone stabs someone to death and they are broke? Why arbitrarily punish gun owners?
Why don't we just require liability insurance to be an American citizen?
Please explain where the compensation should come from
Still your move.
I see. No criminal would ever think of not buying insurance when they buy a gun. Genius, pure genius.
i still hold to the idea
that those that maintain a gun free zone should be required to carry insurance
after all they imply that we are save in such zones
Name one gun free zone that is uninsured.
Yes, the shooter and the person who bought the gun are now dead (as I stated). Now what?Actually I addressed that point in the post you quoted, you just cut that part.
But in addition to that, suppose someone walks into a mall and blows themselves up? What if someone stabs someone to death and they are broke? Why arbitrarily punish gun owners?
Why don't we just require liability insurance to be an American citizen?
Please explain where the compensation should come from
Still your move.
1) I still answered the question. The shooter is responsible. People can also insure themselves. But if John shoots Steve, compensating Steve or his family isn't my responsibility. Directly or indirectly by subsidizing insurance or through government. Same answer I gave you before.
Good point. As soon as we pass an amendment that permits people to have bombs; I'll worry about the bombings.2) You didn't answer the question what if John blew up Steve instead of shooting him. Who compensates Steve or his family then?
That depends how he got my gun. If I lent it to him, it could be. If he broke in my house and stole it, it would be no more my responsibility than if he broke in my house and stole a fireplace poker and killed someone with it.Yes, the shooter and the person who bought the gun are now dead (as I stated). Now what?Please explain where the compensation should come from
Still your move.
1) I still answered the question. The shooter is responsible. People can also insure themselves. But if John shoots Steve, compensating Steve or his family isn't my responsibility. Directly or indirectly by subsidizing insurance or through government. Same answer I gave you before.
If John used your gun...yes it is your responsibility in my view.
Irrelevant to the discussion.Good point. As soon as we pass an amendment that permits people to have bombs; I'll worry about the bombings.2) You didn't answer the question what if John blew up Steve instead of shooting him. Who compensates Steve or his family then?
Is that really an issue for you...mass bombings? A bombing spree?
In the past when we've had bombings, commissions have been sat up to pay victims both for Boston and 9/11 to answer your question. Thankfully they've been so rare to this point.
That depends how he got my gun. If I lent it to him, it could be. If he broke in my house and stole it, it would be no more my responsibility than if he broke in my house and stole a fireplace poker and killed someone with it.Yes, the shooter and the person who bought the gun are now dead (as I stated). Now what?1) I still answered the question. The shooter is responsible. People can also insure themselves. But if John shoots Steve, compensating Steve or his family isn't my responsibility. Directly or indirectly by subsidizing insurance or through government. Same answer I gave you before.
If John used your gun...yes it is your responsibility in my view.
Irrelevant to the discussion.Good point. As soon as we pass an amendment that permits people to have bombs; I'll worry about the bombings.
Is that really an issue for you...mass bombings? A bombing spree?
In the past when we've had bombings, commissions have been sat up to pay victims both for Boston and 9/11 to answer your question. Thankfully they've been so rare to this point.
Private charities that's fine. Again that it's my responsibility (via government mandate or taxes) to fund someone else's crime is just wrong in every possible way.
That depends how he got my gun. If I lent it to him, it could be. If he broke in my house and stole it, it would be no more my responsibility than if he broke in my house and stole a fireplace poker and killed someone with it.Yes, the shooter and the person who bought the gun are now dead (as I stated). Now what?
If John used your gun...yes it is your responsibility in my view.
Irrelevant to the discussion.
In the past when we've had bombings, commissions have been sat up to pay victims both for Boston and 9/11 to answer your question. Thankfully they've been so rare to this point.
Private charities that's fine. Again that it's my responsibility (via government mandate or taxes) to fund someone else's crime is just wrong in every possible way.
So basically, no compensation should be built in; if the dead and their loved ones want to sue (while in the hospital, doing re-hab, trying to put their lives back together)....they can but nothing should be built in to compensate the injured.
Do I have your stance right?
No criminal record.
Honorably discharged Army Veteran
Hold down a good paying job.
Yeah, I probably could.
But there's the thing. The three guys mentioned had all been flagged as mentally ill.
Holmes was being thrown out of the university.
Loughner had been banned from a community college. and seriously, how much of a screwup do you have to be to get banned from a community college.
Cho was being privately tutored by the university because so many of the other students had complained about his creepy behavior.
IN short, an investigation WOULD have raised red flags.
The standard is, "These guy shouldn't have had a gun." Period. There is no calculus where these guys having a gun was ever a good idea.
If the only way to keep THESE guys from having guns is to take EVERYONE'S guns, I have no problem with that.
If you have way to keep the guns out of these guys hands, I'd be happy to hear it.
And there you have it, folks.
Like I said in my very first post in this thread, dimocrap scum want confiscation.
They'll surround it with lots of flowery language and pretend to be 'concerned' like they always do......
But it's a charade, it's Kabuki theatre --
dimocraps lie. It's what they do. They are the enemy of Freedom and American Values
They want confiscation. Anybody who believes otherwise is delusional
Every other industrialized country either LIMITS or BANS private gun ownership.
And they are just as free as we are, and generally have better values.
The problem with you guys is you don't want to solve the problem at all. You are fine with 32,000 gun death and 79,000 gun injuries every year, because, doooy, "Freedom" or something.
That depends how he got my gun. If I lent it to him, it could be. If he broke in my house and stole it, it would be no more my responsibility than if he broke in my house and stole a fireplace poker and killed someone with it.Yes, the shooter and the person who bought the gun are now dead (as I stated). Now what?
If John used your gun...yes it is your responsibility in my view.
Irrelevant to the discussion.
In the past when we've had bombings, commissions have been sat up to pay victims both for Boston and 9/11 to answer your question. Thankfully they've been so rare to this point.
Private charities that's fine. Again that it's my responsibility (via government mandate or taxes) to fund someone else's crime is just wrong in every possible way.
So basically, no compensation should be built in; if the dead and their loved ones want to sue (while in the hospital, doing re-hab, trying to put their lives back together)....they can but nothing should be built in to compensate the injured.
Do I have your stance right?
That depends how he got my gun. If I lent it to him, it could be. If he broke in my house and stole it, it would be no more my responsibility than if he broke in my house and stole a fireplace poker and killed someone with it.
Irrelevant to the discussion.
Private charities that's fine. Again that it's my responsibility (via government mandate or taxes) to fund someone else's crime is just wrong in every possible way.
So basically, no compensation should be built in; if the dead and their loved ones want to sue (while in the hospital, doing re-hab, trying to put their lives back together)....they can but nothing should be built in to compensate the injured.
Do I have your stance right?
"Built in" makes it sound like the money is coming from nowhere.
If everyone has to buy insurance to have a gun, most criminals still aren't going to do that. So innocent gun owners are paying victims for crimes they didn't commit. If government does, taxpayers are paying for crimes they didn't commit.
My position is that if a criminal harms someone, then it isn't the job of society to go to someone uninvolved, confiscate their money and give it to them. You in doing that are committing a second crime.
That depends how he got my gun. If I lent it to him, it could be. If he broke in my house and stole it, it would be no more my responsibility than if he broke in my house and stole a fireplace poker and killed someone with it.
Irrelevant to the discussion.
Private charities that's fine. Again that it's my responsibility (via government mandate or taxes) to fund someone else's crime is just wrong in every possible way.
So basically, no compensation should be built in; if the dead and their loved ones want to sue (while in the hospital, doing re-hab, trying to put their lives back together)....they can but nothing should be built in to compensate the injured.
Do I have your stance right?
Since when has insurance paid for criminal acts?
Actually I addressed that point in the post you quoted, you just cut that part.
But in addition to that, suppose someone walks into a mall and blows themselves up? What if someone stabs someone to death and they are broke? Why arbitrarily punish gun owners?
Why don't we just require liability insurance to be an American citizen?
Please explain where the compensation should come from
Still your move.
1) I still answered the question. The shooter is responsible. People can also insure themselves. But if John shoots Steve, compensating Steve or his family isn't my responsibility. Directly or indirectly by subsidizing insurance or through government. Same answer I gave you before.
2) You didn't answer the question what if John blew up Steve instead of shooting him. Who compensates Steve or his family then?
Still your move.
Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back. Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...
As for the question
It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition. Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery. You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.
Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...
Please explain where the compensation should come from
Still your move.
1) I still answered the question. The shooter is responsible. People can also insure themselves. But if John shoots Steve, compensating Steve or his family isn't my responsibility. Directly or indirectly by subsidizing insurance or through government. Same answer I gave you before.
2) You didn't answer the question what if John blew up Steve instead of shooting him. Who compensates Steve or his family then?
Still your move.
Kaz, please read this link and in particular the germane parts of Chap. 1 & 2:
e-Study Guide for: Torts and Personal Injury Law by Cathy Okrent, ISBN ... - Cram101 Textbook Reviews - Google Books
The shooter is not always responsible nor culpable. Example: 6 year old who finds your loaded gun and accidently kills 4 year old sister. Yeah, it happens.
If your home is burglarized, insurance pays for what you lose - in fact a third person pays for a criminal act of another.
Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back. Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...
As for the question
It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition. Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery. You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.
Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...
Forget the tax and insurance.
Make gun manufacturers put a large sum of money aside for each weapon they produce and when/if the gun is used in a crime, the victims of the crime can claim the money. After 15-20 years or so, the money is no longer tied to the weapon.
No 2nd amendment violation, no "insurance" problem.
Simple.
Probably not.
It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back. Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...
As for the question
It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition. Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery. You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.
Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...
Forget the tax and insurance.
Make gun manufacturers put a large sum of money aside for each weapon they produce and when/if the gun is used in a crime, the victims of the crime can claim the money. After 15-20 years or so, the money is no longer tied to the weapon.
No 2nd amendment violation, no "insurance" problem.
Simple.
Probably not.
So if John killed Steve drunk driving in a Ford, should Ford be forced to pay Steve?
Forget the tax and insurance.
Make gun manufacturers put a large sum of money aside for each weapon they produce and when/if the gun is used in a crime, the victims of the crime can claim the money. After 15-20 years or so, the money is no longer tied to the weapon.
No 2nd amendment violation, no "insurance" problem.
Simple.
Probably not.
So if John killed Steve drunk driving in a Ford, should Ford be forced to pay Steve?
No. Ford doesn't make weapons. If Ford made guns and John got drunk and killed Steve with a gun, yes.
So if John killed Steve drunk driving in a Ford, should Ford be forced to pay Steve?
No. Ford doesn't make weapons. If Ford made guns and John got drunk and killed Steve with a gun, yes.
Exactly. You're on your own planet. Since you have no consistency in your view, you just make arbitrary rules that have nothing to do with anything, there's no point in addressing it. Now if you come up with an actual standard you can defend, let us know.
No. Ford doesn't make weapons. If Ford made guns and John got drunk and killed Steve with a gun, yes.
Exactly. You're on your own planet. Since you have no consistency in your view, you just make arbitrary rules that have nothing to do with anything, there's no point in addressing it. Now if you come up with an actual standard you can defend, let us know.
The original question was how to keep guns from criminals. Since we can't ban guns thanks to a 200+ y/o rule when the firing rate was what; one round every four minutes and it would take hours to kill 26 kids; the next best thing is to dry up the supply.
Making them cost-prohibitive would do that. You guys didn't like the tax or the insurance so now requiring gun manufacturers to front the money for their product's deadly effects is the next best thing.
Sure...Exactly. You're on your own planet. Since you have no consistency in your view, you just make arbitrary rules that have nothing to do with anything, there's no point in addressing it. Now if you come up with an actual standard you can defend, let us know.
The original question was how to keep guns from criminals. Since we can't ban guns thanks to a 200+ y/o rule when the firing rate was what; one round every four minutes and it would take hours to kill 26 kids; the next best thing is to dry up the supply.
Making them cost-prohibitive would do that. You guys didn't like the tax or the insurance so now requiring gun manufacturers to front the money for their product's deadly effects is the next best thing.
So you believe that criminals aren't clever enough to buy guns illegally and ... wait for it ... not pay the tax?
Well, no matter what there will be people who look to subvert the rules be it in softball or weapons purchases.They're going to buy one of the millions of guns already in the US or smuggled in to avoid your taxes, and then say crap, I have to pay taxes on this now. You know what, I'm passing on the gun...
Seriously, I don't see how your argument says any more than that. Criminals by definition break the law. You're just pursuing the current policy of targeting honest citizens, which hasn't worked and you've provided no argument as to why it suddenly will.
