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.
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.
This doesn't contradict anything I said. In fact I specifically stated that people can insure themselves. What I said was that if John shoots Steve, then I shouldn't have to pay for that. Steve can sue John, if John has any money. Or Steve can insure himself. But third parties, such as innocent gun owners and taxpayers should not be forced to pay Steve.
As for liability, I gave one example where they are liable. I don't get the point in discussing every scenario they are liable. My point was that they are not liable if someone steals their gun and commits a crime.
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.
This doesn't contradict anything I said. In fact I specifically stated that people can insure themselves. What I said was that if John shoots Steve, then I shouldn't have to pay for that. Steve can sue John, if John has any money. Or Steve can insure himself. But third parties, such as innocent gun owners and taxpayers should not be forced to pay Steve.
As for liability, I gave one example where they are liable. I don't get the point in discussing every scenario they are liable. My point was that they are not liable if someone steals their gun and commits a crime.
That's your opinion, it's not the law. See the link below and read about torts. it's not a lot of reading, short paragraphs defining terms in which you are not likely familiar of their legal meaning, such as Reasonable care or attractive nuisance
e-Study Guide for: Torts and Personal Injury Law by Cathy Okrent, ISBN ... - Cram101 Textbook Reviews - Google Books
Sure...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?
The price will go up and up and up though as the supply dries up. It's a long term proposition. So what happens is that with any market; the consumers will have to look for alternatives or settle for a very sharp knife in this case.
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.
Since this issue is your life, I'm sure you can enlighten me; was the guy who blew away 26 kids at Sandy Hook a career criminal? Were Kleibold and Harris? Did they have lengthy histories of criminal behavior? Did the guy who shot up the Naval Annex earlier this month? What about the guy who mowed down the kids at McDonalds about 20 years ago with, I believe, an AK47....did he have a lifelong past of breaking the law? Did John Hinckley? Did LHO?
You make the gun pricey enough and maybe; just maybe, you avoid putting people in a position as to where they feel the need to kill someone, can skip lunch and use their Happy Meal money to buy a pistol.
As I said, it's a long term solution but if you have an olympic sized pool and a 3 gallon bucket of water, eventually, you'll be able to empty the pool of all it's water.
[
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.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
This doesn't contradict anything I said. In fact I specifically stated that people can insure themselves. What I said was that if John shoots Steve, then I shouldn't have to pay for that. Steve can sue John, if John has any money. Or Steve can insure himself. But third parties, such as innocent gun owners and taxpayers should not be forced to pay Steve.
As for liability, I gave one example where they are liable. I don't get the point in discussing every scenario they are liable. My point was that they are not liable if someone steals their gun and commits a crime.
That's your opinion, it's not the law. See the link below and read about torts. it's not a lot of reading, short paragraphs defining terms in which you are not likely familiar of their legal meaning, such as Reasonable care or attractive nuisance
e-Study Guide for: Torts and Personal Injury Law by Cathy Okrent, ISBN ... - Cram101 Textbook Reviews - Google Books
This is such splitting hairs. OK, I said they are "not" liable if someone steals their gun and commits a crime. There are some scenarios where they could be. I didn't think it was necessary to state that obvious point, I was talking about the general case where a gun is properly owned and cared for. I stand corrected. In that case, if someone breaks in, steals the gun and commits a crime, the owner is not liable. However, there are things owners could to to make themselves liable. Happy? I see zero relevance to this and the discussion.
Nonsense.Sure...So you believe that criminals aren't clever enough to buy guns illegally and ... wait for it ... not pay the tax?
The price will go up and up and up though as the supply dries up. It's a long term proposition. So what happens is that with any market; the consumers will have to look for alternatives or settle for a very sharp knife in this case.
Well, no matter what there will be people who look to subvert the rules be it in softball or weapons purchases.
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.
Since this issue is your life, I'm sure you can enlighten me; was the guy who blew away 26 kids at Sandy Hook a career criminal? Were Kleibold and Harris? Did they have lengthy histories of criminal behavior? Did the guy who shot up the Naval Annex earlier this month? What about the guy who mowed down the kids at McDonalds about 20 years ago with, I believe, an AK47....did he have a lifelong past of breaking the law? Did John Hinckley? Did LHO?
You make the gun pricey enough and maybe; just maybe, you avoid putting people in a position as to where they feel the need to kill someone, can skip lunch and use their Happy Meal money to buy a pistol.
As I said, it's a long term solution but if you have an olympic sized pool and a 3 gallon bucket of water, eventually, you'll be able to empty the pool of all it's water.
The price remains pretty flat actually as the smuggling routes already exist and the people to do the leg work are already there.
So the crips are going to take on the National Guard. I like the Guard's chances.Further what you would create is a nightmare for the national Guard as gangs went after Armories if the prices DID go up.
Not infringing on anything.Further ignoring the whole "shall not infringe" part of the amendment, it would take decades to have any effect.
Any chance the sky isn't going to fall if we raise the price of firearms?And since gun manufacturers would find other revenue sources the manufacturers would be targets for thieves as well.
But back to the 2nd. It specifically says shall not infringe. What you propose most assuredly would be an infringement just as much as a special tax, special insurance or liability requirement for manufacturers as well as illegal as hell violating the 14th Amendment as well as interstate and commercial laws.
That's your opinion, it's not the law. See the link below and read about torts. it's not a lot of reading, short paragraphs defining terms in which you are not likely familiar of their legal meaning, such as Reasonable care or attractive nuisance
e-Study Guide for: Torts and Personal Injury Law by Cathy Okrent, ISBN ... - Cram101 Textbook Reviews - Google Books
This is such splitting hairs. OK, I said they are "not" liable if someone steals their gun and commits a crime. There are some scenarios where they could be. I didn't think it was necessary to state that obvious point, I was talking about the general case where a gun is properly owned and cared for. I stand corrected. In that case, if someone breaks in, steals the gun and commits a crime, the owner is not liable. However, there are things owners could to to make themselves liable. Happy? I see zero relevance to this and the discussion.
Of course you do. I would expect nothing less from the willfully ignorant.
The price will go up and up and up though as the supply dries up
[
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.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I don't know if you are some kind of troll or just a high-functioning retard, but a system where we have 100K gun deaths and injuries are definitely BROKE.
[
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.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I don't know if you are some kind of troll or just a high-functioning retard, but a system where we have 100K gun deaths and injuries are definitely BROKE.
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.
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.
Do you understand the theory of relativity? Every country is free to one extent or another. To try to pigeon hole countries is plain stupid.
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.
Do you understand the theory of relativity? Every country is free to one extent or another. To try to pigeon hole countries is plain stupid.
Theory of relativity, E equals MC squared. Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. No object can travel faster than the speed of light.
The price will go up and up and up though as the supply dries up
Right, because criminals too honest to buy an illegal gun and not pay the tax. They would never think of that, they just wouldn't buy the gun. I feel you...
Well, duh. There's no sound argument to show that anyone else is liable.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.
This doesn't contradict anything I said. In fact I specifically stated that people can insure themselves. What I said was that if John shoots Steve, then I shouldn't have to pay for that. Steve can sue John, if John has any money. Or Steve can insure himself. But third parties, such as innocent gun owners and taxpayers should not be forced to pay Steve.
The price of the illegal guns will go up too; silly.Right, because criminals too honest to buy an illegal gun and not pay the tax. They would never think of that, they just wouldn't buy the gun. I feel you...The price will go up and up and up though as the supply dries up
The price will go up and up and up though as the supply dries up
Right, because criminals too honest to buy an illegal gun and not pay the tax. They would never think of that, they just wouldn't buy the gun. I feel you...
The price of the illegal guns will go up too; silly.
The price will go up and up and up though as the supply dries up
Right, because criminals too honest to buy an illegal gun and not pay the tax. They would never think of that, they just wouldn't buy the gun. I feel you...
The price of the illegal guns will go up too; silly.
Right, because criminals too honest to buy an illegal gun and not pay the tax. They would never think of that, they just wouldn't buy the gun. I feel you...
The price of the illegal guns will go up too; silly.
Why would the price of illegal gun ownership go up when they aren't paying the taxes and insurance?
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.
