Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Gun Control: It's about time


  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

#46 TANTRIC-NINJA

TANTRIC-NINJA

    The holy ghost of Mr. Miyagi

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,376 posts
  • LocationColumbia, South Kacky

Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:51 PM

Among others.
I have heard/read ADHD meds can have serious side effects as well.


Since i have been recently put on some..I have a little more expressed rage. Throwing stars flung everywhere.

#47 Verge

Verge

    Huddle Captain

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,621 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 05:17 PM

Bad guys break the law. In your scenario the crook has a machine gun, whatever that is. That same bad guy can just as easily be standing in the doorway of your home with the intent to due harm. Good luck with your 6 shot revolver against a machine gun.


I will be sure to think of that next time a bad guy comes into my house with a machine gun.

#48 CatofWar

CatofWar

    Join, or Die

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,477 posts
  • LocationGitmo

Posted 16 January 2013 - 05:19 PM

I will be sure to think of that next time a bad guy comes into my house with a machine gun.


Ok

#49 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,260 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 05:21 PM

I think that he means something like I dunno, tougher penalties for violent crime offenders.

Like...maybe, if you commit an armed robbery for you not to be able to get out of jail in 3-5.

Like....maybe, if you illegally sell a firearm or posses one....like maybe....10 years no questions asked.

i like both of these ideas. but i would extend the line of liability to the owner of stolen guns, too. if you have a gun "stolen" from you that is later used to murder someone, you should have some liability. two reasons: 1. so many 'stolen' guns are really sold and just reported stolen. and 2. if it really is stolen, you still should have some liability due to your inability to handle owning such a thing without having it stolen. if enriched uranium is left laying around the pentagon cafeteria and someone takes it, it's not an 'oh well, hope nobody kills somebody with it' situation. there's liability involved.

#50 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,005 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 06:37 PM

using the pentagon as the model for accountability isn't going to get you very far.

#51 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,733 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 16 January 2013 - 06:57 PM

i like both of these ideas. but i would extend the line of liability to the owner of stolen guns, too. if you have a gun "stolen" from you that is later used to murder someone, you should have some liability. two reasons: 1. so many 'stolen' guns are really sold and just reported stolen. and 2. if it really is stolen, you still should have some liability due to your inability to handle owning such a thing without having it stolen. if enriched uranium is left laying around the pentagon cafeteria and someone takes it, it's not an 'oh well, hope nobody kills somebody with it' situation. there's liability involved.


fug yeah. Can we also hold pharmacies that are robbed for supplies to make meth, partially accountable for manufacturing methamphetamine!?!?!?

Like an aiding an abetting charge?

How about the owners of cars that are stolen and some innocent person is killed in the high speed car chase that ensues, when the police chase the perp down?!?!

#52 ACobra289

ACobra289

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 07:00 PM

i like both of these ideas. but i would extend the line of liability to the owner of stolen guns, too. if you have a gun "stolen" from you that is later used to murder someone, you should have some liability. two reasons: 1. so many 'stolen' guns are really sold and just reported stolen. and 2. if it really is stolen, you still should have some liability due to your inability to handle owning such a thing without having it stolen. if enriched uranium is left laying around the pentagon cafeteria and someone takes it, it's not an 'oh well, hope nobody kills somebody with it' situation. there's liability involved.


Gun safes can be breached or stolen.

#53 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,733 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 16 January 2013 - 07:00 PM

I mean seriously, how do you hold someone accountable for owning something and not being able to prevent it from being stolen?

Even if it's in a big fuging safe and you're the only person with the combination, it can be stolen. That logic doesn't make any fuging sense.

#54 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,934 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 07:08 PM

I mean seriously, how do you hold someone accountable for owning something and not being able to prevent it from being stolen?

Even if it's in a big fuging safe and you're the only person with the combination, it can be stolen. That logic doesn't make any fuging sense.


If, hypothetically, this were the case then I would contend that if one demonstrated reasonable measures to secure the weapon were employed then said liability would be waived.

#55 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hari kari for amari

  • ALL-PRO
  • 21,694 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 16 January 2013 - 07:10 PM

I mean seriously, how do you hold someone accountable for owning something and not being able to prevent it from being stolen?

Even if it's in a big fuging safe and you're the only person with the combination, it can be stolen. That logic doesn't make any fuging sense.


there can be a middle ground between "fully liable no matter what" and "not liable under any circumstance"

#56 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,733 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 16 January 2013 - 07:12 PM

Well I agree, but that's not what he said.

There's a difference with charging someone for negligence for, say, leaving a weapon on a seat of an unlocked car and having it stolen and used in a crime - and someone who has one stolen from their locked house.

#57 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,733 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 16 January 2013 - 07:14 PM

Charging someone with "improperly securing a firearm" or "firearm negligence" would be fine, I suppose, but adding a penalty to the original owner if they happen to be the unlucky person to have a stolen gun used in a violent crime........eh. How does this person's "crime" of having a gun stolen become worse just because the person that stole it committed a worse crime than some other person who's gun was stolen and never used in a crime?

#58 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,260 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 07:19 PM

fug yeah. Can we also hold pharmacies that are robbed for supplies to make meth, partially accountable for manufacturing methamphetamine!?!?!?

Like an aiding an abetting charge?

How about the owners of cars that are stolen and some innocent person is killed in the high speed car chase that ensues, when the police chase the perp down?!?!

why are you afraid to keep the subject on guns? that's something that's always baffled me. just say the word "gun" and the reply is "but cars but swimming pools but pharmacies but hammers!"

what are you guys trying to avoid about the subject that you can't talk about it?

#59 Datawire

Datawire

    Junior Member

  • ALL-PRO
  • 534 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 07:21 PM

So the next time school kids gets shot up, then what?

This will prevent absolutely nothing.

#60 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,733 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 16 January 2013 - 07:23 PM

why are you afraid to keep the subject on guns? that's something that's always baffled me. just say the word "gun" and the reply is "but cars but swimming pools but pharmacies but hammers!"

what are you guys trying to avoid about the subject that you can't talk about it?


I'm not a gun person, necessarily. I don't own any guns, after all.

My point was, how can you rationalize charging someone with complicity that wasn't actually involved in the crime? You can charge them with improperly storing a firearm, if it can be proven that it wasn't properly stored, but you can't just go charging someone who's gun was stolen and used in a murder while ignoring charging EVERYONE who's gun is stolen and not used in any violent way.

You have to charge everyone who has a gun stolen with the same thing. The only effect this will have is a total elimination of people reporting gun thefts.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com