Record-Low 26% in U.S. Favor Handgun Ban - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

vsex · 10-31-2011, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

Personally I believe people should own any guns they want but any crime committed with a gun you own (whether it was by you or someone who stole it or took it etc) should be YOUR legal responsibility. If someone steals your gun and kills someone, you do the time for murder right alongside them.

50 retarded quotes!

PR_Glen · 10-31-2011, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brassmonkey

wtf are they putting in the drinking water down there? ritalin?

you dont like guns?

what do they put in the water where you're at? Paint?

Most of this planet lives within realms of not needing handguns or semi automatics to protect their home--including most of the US.

I like guns and weapons, always have, but i definitely don't NEED them.

Domain Diva · 10-31-2011, 10:20 AM

Another Statistic,

More USA children die in gun accidents than anywhere else in the civilized world.

Relentless · 10-31-2011, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choker

That made me laugh. So if someone steals my car runs over someone and kills them on purpose I should go to jail for murder also? If someone sneaks into my garage swips my claw hammer then goes home and beats their wife over the head with it until she's dead I should go to jail for his crime?

In legal terms, guns ought to be covered by Strict Liability because they are inherently dangerous. "In law, strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by his or her acts and omissions regardless of culpability."

Contractors who do dynamite blasting are usually covered by Strict Liability standards, meaning that their task is so inherently dangerous they ought to have taken every necessary precaution to prevent harm to anyone and there are no valid excuses for someone getting hurt as a result of their negligence.

If you own 1,000 handguns and you keep them properly secured... good for you. If you fail to secure them, for any reason, you accepted the risk of the penalty when you decided to own handguns in the first place. An inherently dangerous object requires you to secure it much more than you would secure a car or a loaf of bread. You might think keeping absolute security on 1,000 handguns is difficult and I would agree with you - but only the people capable of doing it should choose to own 1,000 handguns.

You can read more about the basic legal theory of Strict Liability here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability

If people were absolutely responsible for their own guns, whether they fired them or had them stolen or failed to properly maintain them etc... everyone could own as many guns as they like and many fewer people would wind up getting injured by them. Best of all, responsible gun owners would never be hassled and irresponsible ones would be in jail where they belong.

Caligari · 10-31-2011, 10:54 AM

Right about now the last thing citizens need to do in the U.S. is give up their arms.

Vendzilla · 10-31-2011, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Domain Diva

Another Statistic,

More USA children die in gun accidents than anywhere else in the civilized world.

And where did you see that?

I grew up with guns, my daughter grew up with guns, there are things out there that kill more kids than guns do.

Rank Cause of Death Total Deaths No of Deaths Percent

here's a list from 2005
All Deaths 3018 3018 100.00%
1 Unintentional Injury 1176 38.97%
* Mohor Vehicle Traffic 621 20.58%
* Drowning 159 5.27%
* Fire/burn 153 5.07%
* Suffocation 40 1.33%
* Other Land Transport 33 1.09%
* Pedestrian, Other 27 0.89%
* Struck by or Against 20 0.66%
* Unspecified 20 0.66%
* Fall 18 0.60%
* Other Spec., classifiable 17 0.56%
* Poisoning 15 0.50%
* Firearm 14 0.46%

here's a few things that are killing more kids
2 Malignant Neoplasms 537 17.79%
3 Congenital Anomalies 199 6.59%
4 Homicide 140 4.64%
5 Heart Disease 92 3.05%
6 Benign Neoplasms 44 1.46%
7 Septicemia 42 1.39%
8 Chronic Respiratory Disease 41 1.36%
9 Influenza & Pneumonia 38 1.26%
10 Cerebrovascular 33 1.09%
11 Anemias 29 0.96%

Most of these are from ignorant people that thought they underestood guns and didn't

Choker · 10-31-2011, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

In legal terms, guns ought to be covered by Strict Liability because they are inherently dangerous. "In law, strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by his or her acts and omissions regardless of culpability."

Contractors who do dynamite blasting are usually covered by Strict Liability standards, meaning that their task is so inherently dangerous they ought to have taken every necessary precaution to prevent harm to anyone and there are no valid excuses for someone getting hurt as a result of their negligence.

If you own 1,000 handguns and you keep them properly secured... good for you. If you fail to secure them, for any reason, you accepted the risk of the penalty when you decided to own handguns in the first place. An inherently dangerous object requires you to secure it much more than you would secure a car or a loaf of bread. You might think keeping absolute security on 1,000 handguns is difficult and I would agree with you - but only the people capable of doing it should choose to own 1,000 handguns.

You can read more about the basic legal theory of Strict Liability here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability

If people were absolutely responsible for their own guns, whether they fired them or had them stolen or failed to properly maintain them etc... everyone could own as many guns as they like and many fewer people would wind up getting injured by them. Best of all, responsible gun owners would never be hassled and irresponsible ones would be in jail where they belong.

You are comparing apples to oranges. The person exploding dynamite should be criminally responsible if his exploding that injures someone. Just like the guy shooting in his backyard should be held legally responsible if a stray bullet hits a neighbor.

Now if someone breaks into his locked dynamite locker uses his dynamite to injure someone he is not criminally liable. Why should he be? It's beyond his control at that point. Same thing with guns being stolen.

Your examples are grasping for straws.

epitome · 10-31-2011, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choker

You are comparing apples to oranges. The person exploding dynamite should be criminally responsible if his exploding that injures someone. Just like the guy shooting in his backyard should be held legally responsible if a stray bullet hits a neighbor.

Now if someone breaks into his locked dynamite locker uses his dynamite to injure someone he is not criminally liable. Why should he be? It's beyond his control at that point. Same thing with guns being stolen.

Your examples are grasping for straws.

Gotta agree with you.

epitome · 10-31-2011, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

That makes no sense, must have learned this from the movies I guess.

No, I learned it from life experiences. You're the one armed to the teeth scared somebody is going to hurt you. Maybe you've been watching too many movies?

epitome · 10-31-2011, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Pheer

A crack or meth addict respects nothing but you busting their head open. At least some of them are smart enough to back off when you pull out an equalizer.

Most gun violence in Baltimore City, one of the most dangerous and deadly cities per capita in the the US is like that because of the drug trade. Its turf wars and shit. If somebody wasn't killed as part of the drug trade, it made the news.

Either way, I worked hard so I could move out of that shitty city. If you live around addicts that scare you my advice is stop spending money on guns and save up so you can move elsewhere.

Bryan G · 10-31-2011, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madalton

i dont want to live anywhere where i would feel the need to have a gun for my safety

x2

......

Roald · 10-31-2011, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

...
I guess more people are coming to realize the need to protect themselves

most idiotic reasoning ever

Vendzilla · 10-31-2011, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

No, I learned it from life experiences. You're the one armed to the teeth scared somebody is going to hurt you. Maybe you've been watching too many movies?

No, I'm the guy that got arrested for defending myself and I wasn't carrying any weapons. I never do.

If you think they respect you, you're dreaming. And the smell fear thing, yeah that was pretty funny

brassmonkey · 10-31-2011, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

no, i dont like guns. i also opted not to go to the (mandatory) army and did "civil service" instead, cleaning and feeding old people. Made more sense to me helping them instead of learning how to shoot people i don't even know cause someone told me to do so.

actually i was for a total of 6 weeks at the army, even learned how to disassemble a G3 and put it back together. never fired one shot though and the day i got out again was one of my happiest ever.

but while i was working at the retirement home i met a guy who fought in WW1 in France and the stories he told me were simply horrible.

i am not sure if it's a race question, i think it's just a very different mindset. crime rates in total are way lower, i see drunk girls alone in short skirts at 3 am all the time - nothing happens. even compared to other countries in Europe, CZ is very peaceful.

oh ok that's kool

Vendzilla · 10-31-2011, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roald

most idiotic reasoning ever

Then why to you think Gun and Ammo sales are growing in the US and attitudes are changing about guns in the US?

brassmonkey · 10-31-2011, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Glen

what do they put in the water where you're at? Paint?

Most of this planet lives within realms of not needing handguns or semi automatics to protect their home--including most of the US.

I like guns and weapons, always have, but i definitely don't NEED them.

it's my right to make the choice. the government is going more to control instead of serve. when that happens you need to sit down and figure out if you want to put up with their shit.

Relentless · 10-31-2011, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choker

You are comparing apples to oranges. The person exploding dynamite should be criminally responsible if his exploding that injures someone. Just like the guy shooting in his backyard should be held legally responsible if a stray bullet hits a neighbor. Now if someone breaks into his locked dynamite locker uses his dynamite to injure someone he is not criminally liable. Why should he be? It's beyond his control at that point. Same thing with guns being stolen. Your examples are grasping for straws.

Another common example for Strict Liability cases are those involving 'wild animals' - such as a lion tamer at a circus being held responsible if the lion attacks someone in the crowd (whether he took some precautions to prevent it or not). Allowing your handgun to be stolen is very similar to allowing a wild animal to get loose and attack someone.

If you own guns, how many have you had stolen during your lifetime? I'm going to guess zero. Most gun owners have also had zero guns stolen from them, zero incidents of gun related damage or injury due to guns they have owned and should be allowed to own and use their guns in any way consistent with the law.

However, as gun enthusiasts are quick to point out, most gun related crimes happen with a gun that is illegally owned. And many of those guns are guns that have been 'stolen or lost' by a legal gun owner. That nexus between legal gun purchases and illegal gun usage is the crux of the problem.

Like most things in society, people should be absolutely free to do as they please so long as their own actions or inaction do not cause harm to others in the same society. The decision to own a gun coupled with the failure to secure that gun from theft or loss DOES very seriously cause damage and harm to others in society. People should be able to choose not to own guns, or to own guns responsibly. There is no third choice that is acceptable. I am all for responsible gun ownership and I am also for extremely punitive criminal or civil action against anyone who misuses a gun or fails to responsibly care for it.

The exact same argument applies to drug usage. If someone wants to sit in their own house and do drugs all day without damaging anyone else they should be allowed to smoke, huff, inject or otherwise use whatever they like to get high from BUT the moment that drug ends up in the hands of a minor, causes an intoxicated person to drive a car into a pedestrian or any other damage in society... I frankly don't care what the excuses are - you owned the drug, you misused it or failed to secure it - you are accountable for the outcome.

This not a new or innovative idea regarding criminal law. Felony murder works exactly the same way. If you commit ANY felony and someone dies as a result of the aftermath of your felony, you are guilty of murder even if you never intended for anyone to die. The judicial system 'transfers your intent' from the original felony to the resulting death and holds you accountable. For example, you steal a car and intend to do it peacefully at night when nobody is around. A car chase ensues and during the chase a police car chasing you crashes into another car killing two people. You never meant to kill anybody, but the felony of stealing the car allows you to be prosecuted for the two murders as well.

Our legal system is currently being used to prevent honest responsible people from doing what they want to do because some people can't 'handle' their own freedom. Instead it should allow all people to do what they want, and be used to severely punish anyone who misuses those freedoms or proximately causes damage to society by their own lack of self-accountability.

Roald · 10-31-2011, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Then why to you think Gun and Ammo sales are growing in the US and attitudes are changing about guns in the US?

Really, if you think that you need a gun to protect yourself you should move away from your area cause obviously you live in a "bad" neighborhood. And who would want to live in an area where someone could rape your wife and murder your babies?

Blame the media

cykoe6 · 10-31-2011, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

i am not sure if it's a race question, i think it's just a very different mindset. crime rates in total are way lower, i see drunk girls alone in short skirts at 3 am all the time - nothing happens. even compared to other countries in Europe, CZ is very peaceful.

CZ is sure a lot different than Latvia.

Choker · 10-31-2011, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

Another common example for Strict Liability cases are those involving 'wild animals' - such as a lion tamer at a circus being held responsible if the lion attacks someone in the crowd (whether he took some precautions to prevent it or not). Allowing your handgun to be stolen is very similar to allowing a wild animal to get loose and attack someone.

If you own guns, how many have you had stolen during your lifetime? I'm going to guess zero. Most gun owners have also had zero guns stolen from them, zero incidents of gun related damage or injury due to guns they have owned and should be allowed to own and use their guns in any way consistent with the law.

However, as gun enthusiasts are quick to point out, most gun related crimes happen with a gun that is illegally owned. And many of those guns are guns that have been 'stolen or lost' by a legal gun owner. That nexus between legal gun purchases and illegal gun usage is the crux of the problem.

Like most things in society, people should be absolutely free to do as they please so long as their own actions or inaction do not cause harm to others in the same society. The decision to own a gun coupled with the failure to secure that gun from theft or loss DOES very seriously cause damage and harm to others in society. People should be able to choose not to own guns, or to own guns responsibly. There is no third choice that is acceptable. I am all for responsible gun ownership and I am also for extremely punitive criminal or civil action against anyone who misuses a gun or fails to responsibly care for it.

The exact same argument applies to drug usage. If someone wants to sit in their own house and do drugs all day without damaging anyone else they should be allowed to smoke, huff, inject or otherwise use whatever they like to get high from BUT the moment that drug ends up in the hands of a minor, causes an intoxicated person to drive a car into a pedestrian or any other damage in society... I frankly don't care what the excuses are - you owned the drug, you misused it or failed to secure it - you are accountable for the outcome.

This not a new or innovative idea regarding criminal law. Felony murder works exactly the same way. If you commit ANY felony and someone dies as a result of the aftermath of your felony, you are guilty of murder even if you never intended for anyone to die. The judicial system 'transfers your intent' from the original felony to the resulting death and holds you accountable. For example, you steal a car and intend to do it peacefully at night when nobody is around. A car chase ensues and during the chase a police car chasing you crashes into another car killing two people. You never meant to kill anybody, but the felony of stealing the car allows you to be prosecuted for the two murders as well.

Our legal system is currently being used to prevent honest responsible people from doing what they want to do because some people can't 'handle' their own freedom. Instead it should allow all people to do what they want, and be used to severely punish anyone who misuses those freedoms or proximately causes damage to society by their own lack of self-accountability.

You have valid points, but can you find any case history where someone was held CRIMINALLY liable when someone stole their gun and used it illegally? Civil is a different matter, civil cases can go any way. There have been many civil lawsuits against gun makers and gun shops have any of them ever won? Has a gun shop or maker every criminally been held liable?

But again your comparing apples to oranges. Tigers are animals, guns need a human to operate them. My gun is not going to escape its cage and hurt someone. It takes a human committing a felony (theft) to take it from my custody.

What if someone criminally broke into this zoo and freed the tigers would the owners of the zoo be held criminally responsible for damage the tigers caused?

Vendzilla · 10-31-2011, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roald

Really, if you think that you need a gun to protect yourself you should move away from your area cause obviously you live in a "bad" neighborhood. And who would want to live in an area where someone could rape your wife and murder your babies?

Blame the media

I live in a good area, couple blocks from the AVN/GFY office.The cops just come to my neighborhood faster. Even have a flashing blue light on the roof so the helicopters can find us faster.
Cops gets here pretty fast, under 10 minutes.

And Roald, you've met me, do you really think I need a gun to protect myself?

epitome · 10-31-2011, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

No, I'm the guy that got arrested for defending myself and I wasn't carrying any weapons. I never do.

If you think they respect you, you're dreaming. And the smell fear thing, yeah that was pretty funny

Defending yourself from what?

I am saying they respected me because they looked me in the eye and nodded back. You know, a sign of respect.

You're the one getting arrested and are apparently the victim of attacks. You say you live in a nice neighborhood and I am telling you I walked alone at 2 am through the worst ghettos and am alive to talk about it having not been a victim of anything.

I think it's safe to say I am more of an authority on the subject than you.

Vendzilla · 10-31-2011, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

Defending yourself from what?

I am saying they respected me because they looked me in the eye and nodded back. You know, a sign of respect.

You're the one getting arrested and are apparently the victim of attacks. You say you live in a nice neighborhood and I am telling you I walked alone at 2 am through the worst ghettos and am alive to talk about it having not been a victim of anything.

I think it's safe to say I am more of an authority on the subject than you.

I do love reading your posts, they are pretty funny. Nod of respect? LMAO

epitome · 10-31-2011, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

I do love reading your posts, they are pretty funny. Nod of respect? LMAO

Yup. Two years of experience to prove it... little gay white boy dressed nice and strolling through the ghetto at 2 am without a incident to speak of. You're the expert though.

What's your experience besides getting arrested? (Something else that has never happened to me, btw)

Vendzilla · 10-31-2011, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

Yup. Two years of experience to prove it... little gay white boy dressed nice and strolling through the ghetto at 2 am without a incident to speak of. You're the expert though.

What's your experience besides getting arrested? (Something else that has never happened to me, btw)

That's just it, you're not getting it.

You think it's about being a bullies and looking for someone to beat up. You don't even show up on their radar, why should you? It's not the school yard.

You've been watching too many movies

Relentless · 10-31-2011, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choker

You have valid points, but can you find any case history where someone was held CRIMINALLY liable when someone stole their gun and used it illegally? Civil is a different matter, civil cases can go any way. There have been many civil lawsuits against gun makers and gun shops have any of them ever won? Has a gun shop or maker every criminally been held liable?

No, the law currently does not treat lost or stolen guns this way. I am advocating that guns *should* be treated as Strict Liability matters... not saying that they already are treated that way. Making the change would be as simple as adding a new statute making the 'loss' of any legal gun a Felony. If it were a felony to lose your gun or have it stolen... less people would lose guns and the black-market for guns would quickly dry up in many areas. Also, as previously mentioned, if having your handgun stolen was a felony, any murder proximately caused by that act would constitute felony murder at trial and gun owners would take much more care to secure their arms.

Quote:

But again your comparing apples to oranges. Tigers are animals, guns need a human to operate them. My gun is not going to escape its cage and hurt someone. It takes a human committing a felony (theft) to take it from my custody.

What you say *should* be true, but the simple fact is that more handguns are lost and stolen every year than tigers are lost or stolen. That may surprise you as tigers may try to escape and handguns presumably do not. In my opinion the majority of 'lost or stolen' guns are intentionally 'lost' as part of a black-market operation to put illegal guns on the streets. That is exactly what the law should seek to prevent.

Quote:

What if someone criminally broke into this zoo and freed the tigers would the owners of the zoo be held criminally responsible for damage the tigers caused?

Nobody would keep a hungry tiger in their night table drawer and expect it to stay safe there. Why people keep a loaded handgun in an unlocked night table drawer and expect it to stay safe is beyond me. Furthermore, in the case of Felony Murder it makes absolutely no difference what 'precautions' you take to keep everyone safe. For example, if you are being chased by the cops after a bank heist and choose to go 25 mph in the right lane with your hazard lights on... if anyone dies as a result of the fallout from your felony - you STILL go to jail for murder. Saying the cop was recklessly chasing you does not in any way mitigate your guilt.

The point is, responsible gun ownership is not a problem and never was - irresponsible gun ownership is a massive problem that should be addressed and the responsible gun owners should be willing to step forward in agreement on the issue. For too long people have mistakenly believed gun owners and non-gun owners are at odds. In fact, responsible gun owners and non-gun owners are on the same team... the enemies are irresponsible gun owners and criminals (who in my opinion are exactly the same thing).

Lucy - CSC · 10-31-2011, 05:12 PM

I am against hand gun ownership, However with everything that is happening in the world today I would actually buy one after taking some course on how to use it.

Mr Pheer · 10-31-2011, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

Most gun violence in Baltimore City, one of the most dangerous and deadly cities per capita in the the US is like that because of the drug trade. Its turf wars and shit. If somebody wasn't killed as part of the drug trade, it made the news.

Either way, I worked hard so I could move out of that shitty city. If you live around addicts that scare you my advice is stop spending money on guns and save up so you can move elsewhere.

Nobody scares me, I just choose to not be a victim. And I live in Desert Shores, which is one of the nicest areas in Las Vegas. That doesnt mean that I sit at home all of the time.

People get killed here all over the city. Even on the strip where its mostly just tourists. But I still dont carry a weapon with me 98% of time. It would be an exercise in bad judgement for someone to make the mistake of invading my home, though.

PornoMonster · 10-31-2011, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Then why to you think Gun and Ammo sales are growing in the US and attitudes are changing about guns in the US?

Hillbilly Hoarding

LOL

Mr Pheer · 10-31-2011, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucy - CSC

I am against hand gun ownership, However with everything that is happening in the world today I would actually buy one after taking some course on how to use it.

So get a shotgun. Best home defense weapon ever. The sound of a pump-action shotgun being racked will stop most people in their tracks and make them seriously reconsider what they were doing.

PornoMonster · 10-31-2011, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

No, the law currently does not treat lost or stolen guns this way. I am advocating that guns *should* be treated as Strict Liability matters... not saying that they already are treated that way. Making the change would be as simple as adding a new statute making the 'loss' of any legal gun a Felony. If it were a felony to lose your gun or have it stolen... less people would lose guns and the black-market for guns would quickly dry up in many areas. Also, as previously mentioned, if having your handgun stolen was a felony, any murder proximately caused by that act would constitute felony murder at trial and gun owners would take much more care to secure their arms.

What you say *should* be true, but the simple fact is that more handguns are lost and stolen every year than tigers are lost or stolen. That may surprise you as tigers may try to escape and handguns presumably do not. In my opinion the majority of 'lost or stolen' guns are intentionally 'lost' as part of a black-market operation to put illegal guns on the streets. That is exactly what the law should seek to prevent.

Nobody would keep a hungry tiger in their night table drawer and expect it to stay safe there. Why people keep a loaded handgun in an unlocked night table drawer and expect it to stay safe is beyond me. Furthermore, in the case of Felony Murder it makes absolutely no difference what 'precautions' you take to keep everyone safe. For example, if you are being chased by the cops after a bank heist and choose to go 25 mph in the right lane with your hazard lights on... if anyone dies as a result of the fallout from your felony - you STILL go to jail for murder. Saying the cop was recklessly chasing you does not in any way mitigate your guilt.

The point is, responsible gun ownership is not a problem and never was - irresponsible gun ownership is a massive problem that should be addressed and the responsible gun owners should be willing to step forward in agreement on the issue. For too long people have mistakenly believed gun owners and non-gun owners are at odds. In fact, responsible gun owners and non-gun owners are on the same team... the enemies are irresponsible gun owners and criminals (who in my opinion are exactly the same thing).

You are still grasping fro straws..
A Tiger can get out and walk away.

For the gun in my drawer, Don't touch my shit, and get the fuck out of my house! LOL
If you have children, Trigger lock it!
Your car chase story -- You are already breaking the LAW
Keep Grasping!

Vendzilla · 10-31-2011, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucy - CSC

I am against hand gun ownership, However with everything that is happening in the world today I would actually buy one after taking some course on how to use it.

Find a local indoor shooting range, Tell the guy you want to learn unless you know someone that can teach you, you can rent guns while you're there. Ask them for a small caliber revolver to start, then move up till you're comformtable. Don't let a cop teach you, try to get someone with military training teach you. Most cops can't shoot very well.

Vendzilla · 10-31-2011, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

The point is, responsible gun ownership is not a problem and never was - irresponsible gun ownership is a massive problem that should be addressed and the responsible gun owners should be willing to step forward in agreement on the issue. For too long people have mistakenly believed gun owners and non-gun owners are at odds. In fact, responsible gun owners and non-gun owners are on the same team... the enemies are irresponsible gun owners and criminals (who in my opinion are exactly the same thing).

Don't tell the non gun owners this, the politicians won't have anything to pedal.

I have no problems with non gun owners,

MaDalton · 10-31-2011, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Don't tell the non gun owners this, the politicians won't have anything to pedal.

I have no problems with non gun owners,

there you have proof whats wrong with your society

Vendzilla · 10-31-2011, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

there you have proof whats wrong with your society

Where did I say we have a perfect society? I liked it over in Prague, food was kinda bland though.

Why · 10-31-2011, 06:08 PM

im a firm believer in the 2nd amendment, i think EVERYONE in the world ought to own a gun(given certain qualifications of course), or at least have them available and anyone who cares to take my guns(as cliche as it sounds) can pry them out of my cold dead hands.

k, thanks

femdomdestiny · 10-31-2011, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

i dont want to live anywhere where i would feel the need to have a gun for my safety

Exactly. I never needed a gun, I've been in fight and conflicts dozen times, and I am glad that I didn't have a gun. Guns are for cowards . Also, they are changing your way of thinking and completely ruining normal way of life. Almost everyday I am reading in news drunk people killed each other, wife killed husband, accidental firing by kids, etc...all that mess just because morons had guns. I hope most of people are like you in Czech republic- I've wanted to visit Prague in November but I am out of money for travelling because of Panda....one more reason to avoid guns, I would kill every Panda that I meet....

femdomdestiny · 10-31-2011, 06:18 PM

Guns are for primitive societies. all you people liking guns, just wait to see what ethnic tensions or economic collapse will do....japane have great law about this:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html

Mr Pheer · 10-31-2011, 06:40 PM

I like the way people get their feathers ruffled over this topic. Its like going on a car forum and asking what is best, synthetic or regular oil? Or go to a motorcycle forum and start a debate about sportbikes vs Harley Davidsons.

keysync · 10-31-2011, 07:07 PM

I look at it like this.
You can get a shot gun for $150 or so.
Use it for recreation. Shooting clay pigeons on boring weekends. Which I really enjoy doing. And so does my wife and two boys.
Stick it in the closet. And know that it's better to have it and never need it than need it and not have it.
It's like a little inexpensive insurance policy.

Choker · 10-31-2011, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Pheer

I like the way people get their feathers ruffled over this topic. Its like going on a car forum and asking what is best, synthetic or regular oil? Or go to a motorcycle forum and start a debate about sportbikes vs Harley Davidsons.

Amazing isn't it? People are very passionate about thier guns and their haters are very passionate about them not owning guns. It's a very hot topic.

Domain Diva · 10-31-2011, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

And where did you see that?

I grew up with guns, my daughter grew up with guns, there are things out there that kill more kids than guns do.

Rank Cause of Death Total Deaths No of Deaths Percent

here's a list from 2005
All Deaths 3018 3018 100.00%
1 Unintentional Injury 1176 38.97%
* Mohor Vehicle Traffic 621 20.58%
* Drowning 159 5.27%
* Fire/burn 153 5.07%
* Suffocation 40 1.33%
* Other Land Transport 33 1.09%
* Pedestrian, Other 27 0.89%
* Struck by or Against 20 0.66%
* Unspecified 20 0.66%
* Fall 18 0.60%
* Other Spec., classifiable 17 0.56%
* Poisoning 15 0.50%
* Firearm 14 0.46%

here's a few things that are killing more kids
2 Malignant Neoplasms 537 17.79%
3 Congenital Anomalies 199 6.59%
4 Homicide 140 4.64%
5 Heart Disease 92 3.05%
6 Benign Neoplasms 44 1.46%
7 Septicemia 42 1.39%
8 Chronic Respiratory Disease 41 1.36%
9 Influenza & Pneumonia 38 1.26%
10 Cerebrovascular 33 1.09%
11 Anemias 29 0.96%

Most of these are from ignorant people that thought they underestood guns and didn't

The statistic was " More USA children die in gun accidents than anywhere else in the civilized world" not that its the number 1 cause of child deaths in the USA.

Relentless · 11-01-2011, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus H Christ

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read on this forum. So if someone steals your car and then uses it in a crime, you should be charged with the same crime?

A car is not an inherently dangerous weapon. If someone steals your sword, nunchucks, gun, tazer, pepper spray or other weapon and hurts someone with it I would have no problem at all with you being held responsible. Owning a weapon is a responsibility, failing to secure a weapon or unsafe use of a weapon is serious and dangerous misconduct. People should be held accountable for their failure to secure weapons and those who wish to avoid that responsibility can simply opt not to own weapons. The exact same thought process should be applied to drugs and alcohol.

If you can use it responiblt and secure it when not in use... Great. If you can not or will not then you should not own it in the first place and should be harshly punished if you do own it but use it improperly or fail to secure it. Your failure to lock away your gun IS my problem when that gun ends up stolen and is used illegally to hurt someone.

12clicks · 11-01-2011, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

Another common example for Strict Liability cases are those involving 'wild animals' - such as a lion tamer at a circus being held responsible if the lion attacks someone in the crowd (whether he took some precautions to prevent it or not). Allowing your handgun to be stolen is very similar to allowing a wild animal to get loose and attack someone.

If you own guns, how many have you had stolen during your lifetime? I'm going to guess zero. Most gun owners have also had zero guns stolen from them, zero incidents of gun related damage or injury due to guns they have owned and should be allowed to own and use their guns in any way consistent with the law.

However, as gun enthusiasts are quick to point out, most gun related crimes happen with a gun that is illegally owned. And many of those guns are guns that have been 'stolen or lost' by a legal gun owner. That nexus between legal gun purchases and illegal gun usage is the crux of the problem.

Like most things in society, people should be absolutely free to do as they please so long as their own actions or inaction do not cause harm to others in the same society. The decision to own a gun coupled with the failure to secure that gun from theft or loss DOES very seriously cause damage and harm to others in society. People should be able to choose not to own guns, or to own guns responsibly. There is no third choice that is acceptable. I am all for responsible gun ownership and I am also for extremely punitive criminal or civil action against anyone who misuses a gun or fails to responsibly care for it.

The exact same argument applies to drug usage. If someone wants to sit in their own house and do drugs all day without damaging anyone else they should be allowed to smoke, huff, inject or otherwise use whatever they like to get high from BUT the moment that drug ends up in the hands of a minor, causes an intoxicated person to drive a car into a pedestrian or any other damage in society... I frankly don't care what the excuses are - you owned the drug, you misused it or failed to secure it - you are accountable for the outcome.

This not a new or innovative idea regarding criminal law. Felony murder works exactly the same way. If you commit ANY felony and someone dies as a result of the aftermath of your felony, you are guilty of murder even if you never intended for anyone to die. The judicial system 'transfers your intent' from the original felony to the resulting death and holds you accountable. For example, you steal a car and intend to do it peacefully at night when nobody is around. A car chase ensues and during the chase a police car chasing you crashes into another car killing two people. You never meant to kill anybody, but the felony of stealing the car allows you to be prosecuted for the two murders as well.

Our legal system is currently being used to prevent honest responsible people from doing what they want to do because some people can't 'handle' their own freedom. Instead it should allow all people to do what they want, and be used to severely punish anyone who misuses those freedoms or proximately causes damage to society by their own lack of self-accountability.

this idea, no matter how wordy, has been found to be silly here in America and therefore, never seriously considered by either the people or the government.

Relentless · 11-01-2011, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

this idea, no matter how wordy, has been found to be silly here in America and therefore, never seriously considered by either the people or the government.

Strict liability is part of the existing law. Felony murder is part of the existing law. Neither is silly and both have been codified into our legal system.

Applying those same legal principles to weapon ownership is also not silly and is an easy solution to the idiotic 'yes guns / no guns' debate that too many people are stuck in. As always, thanks for your attempted insults which are entirely unhelpful to the discussion Ronald.

12clicks · 11-01-2011, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

Strict liability is part of the existing law. Felony murder is part of the existing law. Neither is silly and both have been codified into our legal system.

Applying those same legal principles to weapon ownership is also not silly and is an easy solution to the idiotic 'yes guns / no guns' debate that too many people are stuck in. As always, thanks for your attempted insults which are entirely unhelpful to the discussion Ronald.

there is no debate, silly kid.
there's paragraph after paragraph of what you imagine is best for everyone else.
Everyone else disagrees. Thats why we have liability laws, felony laws yet no laws concerning guns that even remotely reflect what you *wish* for.

as usual, you're wrong. pounding away at your keyboard won't change that.

Relentless · 11-01-2011, 07:57 AM

There is quite a debate about gun ownership and restrictions on it. There has been one for decades. It is a waste of time. Legally owning a gun is not a problem and never has been, losing a legally owned gun is a major problem. The debate needs to shift to something more constructive... but constructive debate is something you have repeatedly proven to know nothing about. Thanks for contributing nothing, as usual, Ronald.

12clicks · 11-01-2011, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

There is quite a debate about gun ownership and restrictions on it. There has been one for decades. It is a waste of time. Legally owning a gun is not a problem and never has been, losing a legally owned gun is a major problem. The debate needs to shift to something more constructive... but constructive debate is something you have repeatedly proven to know nothing about. Thanks for contributing nothing, as usual, Ronald.

:
here's an idea, punish the criminal who STOLE the gun.

silly kid. don't be bitter because I pointed out that in your 20 paragraphs in this thread you've got nothing more than personal wishes about how you'd like things to be. instead, be bitter about paying for the education thats left you completely devoid of common sense.

Relentless · 11-01-2011, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

: here's an idea, punish the criminal who STOLE the gun.

We already do, and should continue to do so.
We should also be punishing anyone who fails to secure a weapon they legally own.
Securing it should be required by the fact you chose to own it.
Failing to secure it is no better than misusing it.

12clicks · 11-01-2011, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

We should also be punishing anyone who fails to secure a weapon they legally own.
Securing it should be required by the fact you chose to own it.
Failing to secure it is no better than misusing it.

incorrect.
If I chose to keep a loaded gun under my pillow, I'm completely within my rights to do so.
If someone breaks into my home and steals it, THEY ARE THE CRIMINAL, not me.

and thats how it will always be. End of story.

10-31-2011, 10:20 AM	#53
Domain Diva Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: UK/USA/Canada ICQ : 494318698 Email:[email protected] Posts: 10,180	Another Statistic, More USA children die in gun accidents than anywhere else in the civilized world. __________________ Cams-Tube-Dating Domains Available At Trade Prices ! Domains For Sale ICQ:494318698

10-31-2011, 10:54 AM	#55
Caligari Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: At The Mountains Of Madness Posts: 5,414	Right about now the last thing citizens need to do in the U.S. is give up their arms. __________________ ATTN Webmasters Cruel Bucks - LIVE Gonzo Does Not Pay ------------------------------------------------ Animal Rescue Click Here to Feed An Animal for Free

10-31-2011, 05:12 PM	#77
Lucy - CSC Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 490	I am against hand gun ownership, However with everything that is happening in the world today I would actually buy one after taking some course on how to use it. __________________ Dear USA, Your 9/11 is our 24/7, Sincerely Palestine xx

10-31-2011, 06:18 PM	#88
femdomdestiny Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 5,169	guns Guns are for primitive societies. all you people liking guns, just wait to see what ethnic tensions or economic collapse will do....japane have great law about this: http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html __________________ Femdom Destiny -------------------------------------------- ICQ: 463-630-426 email: webmaster(at)femdomdestiny.com

10-31-2011, 07:07 PM	#90
keysync Living the Dream Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Murica Posts: 2,376	I look at it like this. You can get a shot gun for $150 or so. Use it for recreation. Shooting clay pigeons on boring weekends. Which I really enjoy doing. And so does my wife and two boys. Stick it in the closet. And know that it's better to have it and never need it than need it and not have it. It's like a little inexpensive insurance policy. __________________

10-31-2011, 06:08 PM	#86
Why MFBA Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: PNW Posts: 7,230	im a firm believer in the 2nd amendment, i think EVERYONE in the world ought to own a gun(given certain qualifications of course), or at least have them available and anyone who cares to take my guns(as cliche as it sounds) can pry them out of my cold dead hands. k, thanks

10-31-2011, 06:40 PM	#89
Mr Pheer I got bored here. Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 20,799	I like the way people get their feathers ruffled over this topic. Its like going on a car forum and asking what is best, synthetic or regular oil? Or go to a motorcycle forum and start a debate about sportbikes vs Harley Davidsons.

11-01-2011, 07:57 AM	#97
Relentless www.EngineFood.com Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,697	There is quite a debate about gun ownership and restrictions on it. There has been one for decades. It is a waste of time. Legally owning a gun is not a problem and never has been, losing a legally owned gun is a major problem. The debate needs to shift to something more constructive... but constructive debate is something you have repeatedly proven to know nothing about. Thanks for contributing nothing, as usual, Ronald. __________________ Website Secure \| Engine Food ICQ# 266-942-896