The Right To Bear Arms

[Skull Pilot]

You keep saying 600,000 guns stolen every year, like it's truth.

NO! See, this is an example of you being lazy and sloppy. I said "as many as" 600,000 guns are stolen a year.

The number is around 230,000. Both numbers are bad and scary, yours is just incorrect.

And of that 234,000, 33,000 aren't reported to the police. You all can't even get above 90% when it comes to reporting stolen weapons...and you think you're "responsible" people? **** outta here.

Then you should be able to tell us what year 600000 guns were stolen

The survey doesn't say, but it was between 2005-2010.

So you have no proof of your claim.

Got it.

 

[The Derp]

Because someone can kill you or a member of your family in the 5 minutes it takes for the cops to show up.

Which is less likely than your gun getting stolen, or you harming your own family with it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Because someone can kill you or a member of your family in the 5 minutes it takes for the cops to show up.

Which is less likely than your gun getting stolen, or you harming your own family with it.

Wrong again.

 

[The Derp]

Obviously guns are not targeted by thieves as they are not on the top 10 list of stolen items.

That's a list of stolen items, not a list of what is targeted.

I just provided you with a survey of burglars who said that an NRA sticker means they have tons of guns to steal.

and tell me what year exactly that there were 600000 guns stolen

The survey doesn't say, but it was a year between 2005-2010, when the survey occurred.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Obviously guns are not targeted by thieves as they are not on the top 10 list of stolen items.

That's a list of stolen items, not a list of what is targeted.

I just provided you with a survey of burglars who said that an NRA sticker means they have tons of guns to steal.

and tell me what year exactly that there were 600000 guns stolen

The survey doesn't say, but it was a year between 2005-2010, when the survey occurred.

The fact is guns are NOT in the top 10 list of stolen items.

You have no idea what criminals target.

and it should be easy to tell me what year there were 600000 guns stolen but I don't think you can

 

[The Derp]

His house. Not yours.

Yeah, and?

ou decided to break in when he's not at home.
He had a fence to keep you away from his pool. You jumped over the fence.
He had signs around the pool, you ignored them.
He had life jackets around the pool, you haven't use any.
He had marked pool depth, you jumped in at the deep end.

OK, but in your scenario, the one breaking the law is the one who died. In the real scenario of gun theft, the thief isn't dying or causing harm to themselves when they steal your gun. So your comparison is ******* stupid and is a red herring to try and justify your own personal irresponsibility.

How is he still responsible for your death?

Because it's his pool, his house.

Look at the bright side, at least you died in water with perfect chlorine level. The only better than that would be if he was at home when you broke in, and he shot you. Twice. He wouldn't have to clean the pool.

When a thief breaks into your home and steals your gun, they go for a swim?

 

[The Derp]

He had a fence to keep you away from his pool. You jumped over the fence.
He had signs around the pool, you ignored them.
He had life jackets around the pool, you haven't use any.
He had marked pool depth, you jumped in at the deep end.

I'm not jumping into the pool to steal it, then use the pool to commit a crime, sell the pool to another criminal, or give it to another criminal.

So it seems the only thing you can do in this debate is throw out red herrings and make bad analogies and/or comparisons that crumble upon the slightest scrutiny.

 

[The Derp]

So you have no proof of your claim.

It's not my claim, it's what the survey from Harvard and Northeastern says.

Up to 600,000 guns are stolen every year in the US – that's one every minute
Privately owned firearms are stolen in America with alarming frequency: between 300,000 and 600,000 every year, according to a new survey of gun ownership by researchers at Harvard and Northeastern universities. At the high end, that’s more than 1,600 guns stolen every day, more than one every minute. That’s enough firearms to provide a weapon for every instance of gun violence in the country each year – several times over.​

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You have never caused an accident that killed someone YET.

Right. But that's inherent to everyone. What's specifically inherent to you is that you took on added risk by owning a firearm. So that risk is only specific to you and is added on top of the general risk that society already has. Adding risk isn't responsible. Insurance companies know this. It's their friggin' business model. The more risk you take on, the higher your premiums go. And you're taking on a ton of risk by owning a firearm.

Once again you miss the point. I'm simply applying your line of reasoning (and I use that word loosely in your case) to a different phenomena where injury and death may be a result. By your reasoning, a gun owner was never a responsible gun owner if he makes a mistake. Therefore, you were never a responsible driver if you make a mistake and kill someone. Also, if you make an error in judgment on the road and cause an accident that takes someone's life, do you think the victim's loved ones will give a rat's ass about insurance and inherent risks? The only thing they will understand is that you fucked up and took their daughter from them.

And I feel I should point out to you that the "general risks that society already has" are risks that SOCIETY CREATED in the first place.

You're carrying the risk that you will make an error in judgment on the road simply because you are driving.

WHICH IS WHY WE MUST HAVE CAR INSURANCE

.

Car insurance is irrelevant to this discussion because car insurance will not prevent you from having an accident and does not reduce the risk of injury or death. That's what we're talking about here: risk. Insurance only pays for repairs and medical bills after the accident. What are you going to tell the family of your victim, "But I had insurance!"?

So you can't call yourself a "responsible" driver if you're knowingly taking on risk that you might make a mistake someday and cause an accident that kills someone.You're innocent of vehicular manslaughter until you are not. Because of this, you were never a responsible driver and were always guilty of vehicular manslaughter.See how stupid that sounds?

It doesn't sound stupid at all since everyone is required to have car insurance. So you seem to be arguing that gun owners must get gun insurance. Which is something I could support.

Again, insurance will not prevent you from having an accident and, believe me, it will most certainly not be a comfort or a justification if you get someone killed. And, having insurance will not absolve you of blame or responsibility if it is found you were at fault. If you are at fault, you will be charged and you will go to prison. Insurance or no insurance.

 

[The Derp]

The fact is guns are NOT in the top 10 list of stolen items.

Stolen items, not targeted items.

There's a difference.

The thief goes in looking for a gun, can't find one, and then walks away with other valuables.

You have no idea what criminals target.

Yes I do because I actually listen to what they say.

We asked 86 burglars how they broke into homes

and it should be easy to tell me what year there were 600000 guns stolen but I don't think you can

The survey doesn't say.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So you have no proof of your claim.

It's not my claim, it's what the survey from Harvard and Northeastern says.

Up to 600,000 guns are stolen every year in the US – that's one every minute
Privately owned firearms are stolen in America with alarming frequency: between 300,000 and 600,000 every year, according to a new survey of gun ownership by researchers at Harvard and Northeastern universities. At the high end, that’s more than 1,600 guns stolen every day, more than one every minute. That’s enough firearms to provide a weapon for every instance of gun violence in the country each year – several times over.​

You are parroting the claim as if it is actually true.

So if you can't tell me what year there were 600000 guns stolen then both the study you are parroting and you are full of shit

 

[The Derp]

Once again you miss the point. I'm simply applying your line of reasoning (and I use that word loosely in your case) to a different phenomena where injury and death may be a result. By your reasoning, a gun owner was never a responsible gun owner if he makes a mistake. Therefore, you were never a responsible driver if you make a mistake and kill someone. Also, if you make an error in judgment on the road and cause an accident that takes someone's life, do you think the victim's loved ones will give a rat's ass about insurance and inherent risks? The only thing they will understand is that you fucked up and took their daughter from them.

You can't apply it to other phenomena because guns and gun theft and gun ownership are unique in that they're the only thing whose primary function it is to cause harm. I don't care if you think you do a good job of storing your weapons. It doesn't matter because you're still negligent for simply having them. Now you can argue that you're less negligent than other people, but again, you can't see the future so you can't call yourself a responsible gun owner so long as the risk of having your gun stolen is still present. That's how risk works. It's the fundamental business model of insurance.

You seem unaware of that because you're inherently a negligent, irresponsible person.

And I feel I should point out to you that the "general risks that society already has" are risks that SOCIETY CREATED in the first place.

Yes, society did create those risks. But you are adding to those risks when you buy a gun. That's what you don't seem to get; that there exists a personal responsibility you bear when you own a gun. You've spent the last few posts arguing you don't have that responsibility, which is ******* stupid because you're the one with the gun.

Car insurance is irrelevant to this discussion because car insurance will not prevent you from having an accident and does not reduce the risk of injury or death..

OMG, do you even know what the **** insurance is?! What a ******* idiot. Gun owners are irresponsible, negligent IDIOTS. The entire point of insurance is to insure you from the risk you take on. So that's why comparing guns to cars is ******* stupid, because you're forced into responsibility when you buy a car by way of mandatory insurance. No such responsibility exists for gun owners, which is why the comparison is a stupid, thoughtless, childish one. Yes, people die from car accidents (fewer people than the number that die from guns, BTW), but those cars are insured against the risk. The drivers are insured against the risk. That's the responsibility you take on when you buy a car. No such responsibility exists for guns, which is why owning one is an act of irresponsibility in the first ******* place.

hat's what we're talking about here: risk. Insurance only pays for repairs and medical bills after the accident. What are you going to tell the family of your victim, "But I had insurance!"?

First of all, bravo for finally admitting that the gun owner is at least partially responsible for the violence that comes from the gun that they stupidly lost, had stolen, or gave away to a bad person. And insurance in that case doesn't pay out for you, it pays out for the victim you created because of your irresponsibility. Insuring your gun adds a layer of responsibility for the gun that currently doesn't exist. But you guys would be loathe to insure your weapons simply because you're inherently negligent people. Like I asked before, do you even know what the **** insurance is? Cause it doesn't seem like you understand the concept.

Again, insurance will not prevent you from having an accident and, believe me, it will most certainly not be a comfort or a justification if you get someone killed. And, having insurance will not absolve you of blame or responsibility if it is found you were at fault. If you are at fault, you will be charged and you will go to prison. Insurance or no insurance.

Insurance may or may not prevent something from happening, but what it does do is establish whose responsibility it is. That responsibility seems to be something you don't think gun owners should bear, which is why none of you are "responsible gun owners" and why you never will be.

 

[The Derp]

You are parroting the claim as if it is actually true.So if you can't tell me what year there were 600000 guns stolen then both the study you are parroting and you are full of shit

SMH.

 

[The Derp]

You suggest that merely owning a gun is adding risk and that if there were no gun owners, the chances of a firearm falling into the wrong hands go to 0%.

Exactly. There is no such thing as a "responsible gun owner" unless they give up their guns. So stop posturing that you're responsible when you're not.

By the same principle, driving is adding risk. Every time you get behind the wheel you increase the chances of an accident. In addition, you put the lives of any of your passengers at risk. Every vehicle added to the roads increases those chances. The more vehicles, the greater the chance. If there were no drivers and no vehicles on the road at all, those chances drop to 0%. Ergo, the +/- 40,000 people that died in car accidents in 2015 would still be alive today.Do you dispute this?

Cars must be insured. Which is the answer to the risk car owners take on.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You have just outlined the characteristics of a responsible pool owner. And yet, when a gun owner takes responsible actions such as purchasing the weapon legally, keeping it unloaded and in a gun safe when not in use, and reports it if stolen, he's irresponsible anyway.

The problem is that pools can't be stolen. But guns are; 234,000 on average a year. So guns are inherently much more risky than pools.

Man, you elevate misapprehension to an art form. No, a pool may not be stolen but that's not the risk that a responsible pool owner faces and guards against. A responsible pool owner guards against accidental injuries and drownings. Roughly 6000 people die each year from pool drownings and pool drownings are the major cause of death of children of 5 years and younger.

Using your principle, a responsible pool owner has his yard fenced off and otherwise follows all the required codes for having a pool but as soon as someone drowns, he was never a responsible pool owner. As soon as he put the pool in the backyard he increased the risk of drowning. What's more, it was an unnecessary risk. He doesn't need a pool and neither does anyone else.

You pose a dichotomy of responsible/irresponsible gun owners and cite examples of irresponsible behavior and then when someone counters it with logic, you yank the dichotomy off the table altogether and simply say that all gun owners are irresponsible. As I said before, you can't have it both ways.This is a cheap, childish, petty and intellectually dishonest way of debating.

Of course they're all irresponsible. It's irresponsible to take on unnecessary risk. Any insurer will tell you that.

You take on unnecessary risk every time you get behind the wheel. Motor vehicle deaths are orders of magnitude higher than firearm deaths: +/- 40,000 motor vehicle deaths a year compared to +/- 11,000 firearm deaths by homicide (2016 figures).

 

[Auld Phart]

I agree there is a risk, especially for someone who decide to break into my home.

And if you're not home and they break in? What good is your gun then? It's just sitting there, a ripe target for a burglar. Most home break-ins occur when no one's home, duh. But you've lured the thief to your home with your NRA bumper sticker, then the thief waits for you to leave, then they break in and go searching for what? For the gun you just advertised you have. So you act irresponsibly, attract burglars to your home where your gun becomes a target because you told the whole world you have one.

You may be lucky and break in when I am not at home, and be ready to have video of you taken from every direction outside of home, and few from the inside.

1. Video recording isn't going to stop the burglar from taking the gun you told them you have, and turning it around before they are arrested (IF they are arrested).

2. You sound mentally disturbed if you're putting up cameras throughout your house. Definitely has a creepy-perv vibe about it. But since most Conservatives are weirdos when it comes to sex with minors, I'm sure you think it's perfectly normal to live in the Big Brother house.

You better be good at breaking into safe, because police response time where I live is less than 5 minutes.You also may not be so lucky, and break in when I am at home. That is the risk I would love you take.

If the police response time is so great, why do you need a gun?

Care to explain this?

But since most Conservatives are weirdos when it comes to sex with minors,

 

[The Derp]

That is a sweeping generality based on nothing more than opinion, bias and hatred of gun owners and cannot be backed up. Every one of your posts is dripping with contempt for gun owners and has caused you to lose all objectivity on the issue.

What a ******* whiny, self-identified victim. Pointing out that you're not responsible because you brought a gun into your home isn't contemptuous of anything other than the posturing you do when it comes to being responsible. Such a ******* snowflake. What a whiner. Me pointing out your irresponsibility is interpreted by you as some kind of malicious, personal attack because you have a persecution complex. Get the **** over yourself.

Who, exactly, is "you guys"? I've always known where my firearms were and, (this may be difficult for you to believe but it's true nonetheless), I would report it if it was stolen. And citing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is itself, a fallacy in this case because no one has said "no true gun owner...". What was said was "responsible gun owners...". A true gun owner may be responsible or irresponsible whereas, a responsible gun owner is, by definition, responsible. You can't be that friggin' blind as to not see the distinction. And I've told you at least two times now and you keep sidestepping it and that is: NO ONE SAID ALL GUN OWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE.

"No true gun owner" and "responsible gun owner" are interchangeable within the same logical fallacy. And by "you guys", I'm referring to you collective gun owners, who act irresponsibly and add risk to society for purely selfish and childish reasons and fantasies. Yes, all gun owners are responsible because you're the ones bringing guns into your homes, adding risk. You get to answer for all gun owners simply because of that. If you don't like it, I suggest getting the **** over yourself, or simply giving up your guns and the risk they pose that you refuse to be held responsible for.

Bullshit. That's the stupidest goddamn thing I've read in a long time. What if I'm not negligent? That's like saying that, even though I was not a robbery victim until yesterday when I got robbed, I was always a robbery victim.Do you listen to yourself? Jesus Christ.

That's not like saying that at all. So you fail again rhetorically. You are negligent simply by the fact that you own a gun. No matter what level of security you might have on how that weapon is stored, the possibility of it being stolen still exists simply by virtue of it being in your possession. And unlike everything else, a stolen gun is almost always used in crimes. A stolen iphone isn't. A stolen car isn't. A stolen garden rake isn't. A stolen necklace isn't.

So no gun owners are "responsible", some are just less negligent than others.

Christ, this is like herding cats. I didn't bring that up to talk about drunk driving statistics, I brought it up to apply your reasoning to a different topic to illustrate how ridiculous it is.

So you're arbitrarily setting the parameters of the debate you joined but didn't start, so you don't have to answer for the facts that the government took drastic steps to combat drunk driving and successfully reduced the number of deaths by 50% thanks to laws, regulations, rules, and public campaigns. You brought it up, and now you can't bear to handle the consequences of doing so. Such an emotionally fragile person probably should be tasked with the responsibilities of reducing the negligence of owning a firearm. And if we apply your logic to drunk driving, namely that more guns = less gun crime, then more drunk driving = less drunk driving deaths. Does that make sense? No.

Then again, I might never act irresponsibly. .

But you might. And that's the thing. In fact, it's more likely you'll act irresponsibly with the gun than it is likely you'll ever use the gun for defense.

No, chances are that an irresponsible gun owner will act irresponsibly This is an idiotic line of reasoning that might cover all the bases for you but it's still idiotic and does not stand up under logical scrutiny.

But you can't tell who is a responsible gun owner and who isn't until they act irresponsibly. That's what you're saying. Which is a logical and rhetorical fallacy a la "No true Scotsman". You are working from the assumption that gun owners are inherently responsible. But that assumption is wrong simply because bringing a gun into your home is not a responsible act. So we have to assume that all gun owners are irresponsible people who are merely managing their negligence, day to day. And in a world where so many of you were fooled by Russian troll bots (look at all the followers NRA MAGA dipshits lost when Twitter purged itself of Russian troll accounts), it makes me nervous that people so easily duped by Russian propaganda barely have any personal responsibility when it comes to their weapons. You're doing everything you can to reinforce that suspicion and doubt.

Which would mean that every gun ever purchased has been and will be stolen. You're not so stupid as to believe this so why say it?

Not what that means at all.

Have you actually read anything I said? I've already told you twice that no one has suggested that all gun owners are responsible so why the hell do you keep parroting this crap?

But that is what you're suggesting. It is your working assumption that everyone is a responsible gun owner until they act irresponsibly. What I'm saying is that the mere action of owning a gun is irresponsible, and all attempts you make to be responsible for your gun are done to mitigate your negligence of owning a gun in the first ******* place.

 

[The Derp]

Man, you elevate misapprehension to an art form. No, a pool may not be stolen but that's not the risk that a responsible pool owner faces and guards against.A responsible pool owner guards against accidental injuries and drownings. Roughly 6000 people die each year from pool drownings and pool drownings are the major cause of death of children of 5 years and younger. Using your principle, a responsible pool owner has his yard fenced off and otherwise follows all the required codes for having a pool but as soon as someone drowns, he was never a responsible pool owner. As soon as he put the pool in the backyard he increased the risk of drowning. What's more, it was an unnecessary risk. He doesn't need a pool and neither does anyone else.

No one is breaking into anyone's house to steal the pool and then use that pool to go drown someone else.

You take on unnecessary risk every time you get behind the wheel. Motor vehicle deaths are orders of magnitude higher than firearm deaths: +/- 40,000 motor vehicle deaths a year compared to +/- 11,000 firearm deaths by homicide (2016 figures).

CARS HAVE TO BE INSURED, GUNS ARE NOT.

The risk is insured with cars. The risk is not insured with guns.

 

[The Derp]

Care to explain this?

But since most Conservatives are weirdos when it comes to sex with minors,

Roy Moore

 

[Cecilie1200]

But it matters not but hey if meaningless shit gets you off feel free

Trump lost the popular vote.

Too bad for you that we don't live in a country that uses a popular vote, then, huh?