The Right To Bear Arms

[Cecilie1200]

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

Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump.

Trump won 3,084 counties, Clinton won 57.

Yeah, proving Trump gets his support from the welfare-dependent rural areas where antisocial nutcases live, removed from mainstream society.

So what you're telling us now is that you're an elitist who only thinks urban dwellers' votes are worthy and valuable. Mmmkay.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Actually, cars must be insured ON PUBLIC ROADS, because it's the answer to the risk OTHER PEOPLE have. Insurance is not required on private property, nor is it required to protect the owner of the car. Only liability insurance is required by law.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

I am not NRA member, I don't have their (or any) stickers on my cars or property, but I fully support them. The reason I don't have any stickers is because I hope to lure the thief to my home for a free life changing lesson.

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.

Video recording is there to hopefully help to identify who broke into my home when I am not there. Outside cameras are providing the view of my whole property. Inside camera are covering the doors. Now, since you're implying that I am pedophile, please feel free to visit me, and I'll prove it to you and to your whole family that I am not, in HD quality.

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

To blow the brains of anyone who dare to brake into my home, for any reason.
Police can just come to clean up the mess quickly.

 

[Auld Phart]

Care to explain this?

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

Roy Moore

Roy Moore is MOST conservatives?

 

[Ame®icano]

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?

His pool. His house.

You have no right to be there uninvited. If you hurt yourself by braking in, it's on you, not on the owner.

Basically, what you're saying is that I should put warning sign "slippery floor", so you don't hurt yourself when you break in to steal from me. Even thief deserve safe working environment, right?

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Have I said anything like that?

My point is that owner of the pool is not responsible for your death if you jump over the fence into his pool that had all proper safety features (you listed and I repeated) and drown yourself. Reason why you jumped over is not important, you had no right to be there. If you die or hurt yourself while being there, it's on you, not on the pool owner.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Have I said anything like that?

My point is that owner of the pool is not responsible for your death if you jump over the fence into his pool that had all proper safety features (you listed and I repeated) and drown yourself. Reason why you jumped over is not important, you had no right to be there. If you die or hurt yourself while being there, it's on you, not on the pool owner.

Or that is how it SHOULD be anyways.

 

[The Derp]

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

And too bad for you that the popular vote tells you how popular candidates are.

 

[The Derp]

So what you're telling us now is that you're an elitist who only thinks urban dwellers' votes are worthy and valuable. Mmmkay.

The majority of people in this country live in cities or in close proximity to them.

 

[The Derp]

Actually, cars must be insured ON PUBLIC ROADS, because it's the answer to the risk OTHER PEOPLE have. Insurance is not required on private property, nor is it required to protect the owner of the car. Only liability insurance is required by law.

LOL! Most cars are driven on public roads. The only instances where that doesn't happen is if you have a car that you use to get around your large property. But even then, you're gonna want to insure it in case you take it off the property for whatever reason.

 

[Auld Phart]

Actually, cars must be insured ON PUBLIC ROADS, because it's the answer to the risk OTHER PEOPLE have. Insurance is not required on private property, nor is it required to protect the owner of the car. Only liability insurance is required by law.

LOL! Most cars are driven on public roads. The only instances where that doesn't happen is if you have a car that you use to get around your large property. But even then, you're gonna want to insure it in case you take it off the property for whatever reason.

Personally, I beleive you should stop driving, and sell your car

any day now, you're going to be involved in a hit and run, or it will be stolen, and used in a crime.

 

[The Derp]

I am not NRA member, I don't have their (or any) stickers on my cars or property, but I fully support them. The reason I don't have any stickers is because I hope to lure the thief to my home for a free life changing lesson.

Like I said before, it's all about personal wish fulfillment for many of you people; your lives are so utterly devoid of meaning that you fantasize about being a hero. Barf. Get over yourself.

Video recording is there to hopefully help to identify who broke into my home when I am not there.Outside cameras are providing the view of my whole property. Inside camera are covering the doors. Now, since you're implying that I am pedophile, please feel free to visit me, and I'll prove it to you and to your whole family that I am not, in HD quality.

And in the time it takes for you to get your video to the cops (assuming you're not one of the 14% of gun owners who wouldn't report a stolen gun), for them to identify the criminal, and for them to go catch the criminal, that thief couldn't have sold the gun, hid it, or given it to someone else who will use it with ill intent?

To blow the brains of anyone who dare to brake into my home, for any reason.
Police can just come to clean up the mess quickly.

And if you're not home and they break in and steal your gun? Oh well. You've said you don't think you're responsible for that. Which is why you're not a "responsible gun owner" and never will be.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

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.

Considering that motor vehicle deaths are almost four times the number of firearm homicides, I'd have to say that the primary function of the gun is irrelevant.

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.

Well, duh.

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.

You're going to have to show me where I said I don't have that responsibility because I never said nor implied any such thing.

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.

First of all, as I said in another post, insurance does not insure you from risk and will not prevent you from having an accident. Insurance only pays for damages AFTERWARD. Are you so blinded by your hatred that you can't see that?

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.

And in the case of your negligence behind the wheel and subsequent car accident, the car insurance 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.

No, it does not. A driver and a gun owner can still be just as negligent with insurance as they can be without it. INSURANCE DOES NOT PREVENT NEGLIGENCE, REDUCE RISK OR BRING BACK DEAD PEOPLE.

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.

There's no need to establish anything. Any idiot knows that the owner of the gun is responsible for his gun. Not having insurance doesn't change that.

 

[The Derp]

Roy Moore is MOST conservatives?

Yup.

 

[The Derp]

You have no right to be there uninvited. If you hurt yourself by braking in, it's on you, not on the owner.

But that's not what we're talking about when it comes to gun theft. When the thieves break into your home and steal your gun, they're not harming themselves in your house when they do that. The gun they steal then gets used in crimes where it can end up hurting someone else.

So this is why this comparison of yours is idiotic. You're trying to say that someone breaking into your house to swim in your pool and drowning in it is comparable to someone breaking into your house to steal your gun, then using it in a crime or giving it to someone who will.

#nonsequiturFAIL

 

[The Derp]

Have I said anything like that?

You've tried.

You've tried to say you're no more responsible for a thief stealing a gun from your home and then using it in a crime, than you are someone jumping your fence to swim in your pool but drowning in it.

So in one case, the gun is stolen from your home, and then used in a crime somewhere else...whereas in the other case, someone is jumping into your pool and drowning.

That's the comparison you tried to make as you argue that you're not responsible for the guns you own that get stolen from you. When the reality is that by abrogating that responsibility, you act irresponsibly. Thus, you're not a "responsible gun owner".

My point is that owner of the pool is not responsible for your death if you jump over the fence into his pool that had all proper safety features (you listed and I repeated) and drown yourself. Reason why you jumped over is not important, you had no right to be there. If you die or hurt yourself while being there, it's on you, not on the pool owner.

Sigh...the pool isn't being taken from your home and then used in a pool crime.

 

[Auld Phart]

Roy Moore is MOST conservatives?

Yup.

 

[The Derp]

Personally, I beleive you should stop driving, and sell your car

I would love nothing more than to be able to rid myself of the car and rely on telecommuting, drone delivery, and public transit. But that's not the reality we live in, and I accept that.

any day now, you're going to be involved in a hit and run, or it will be stolen, and used in a crime.

Which is why I had to buy insurance. So the only thing you're doing here is making a case that guns and/or gun owners should be required to have insurance too.

 

[The Derp]

Considering that motor vehicle deaths are almost four times the number of firearm homicides, I'd have to say that the primary function of the gun is irrelevant.

1. CARS REQUIRE INSURANCE
2. Car deaths used to be way higher, but then the government passed all these safety rules, laws, regulations and had public campaigns to change behavior and the result of that has been a 50% reduction in the number of deaths from cars.
3. Fewer people died from cars than guns last year.

So you keep bringing up cars, yet you keep ignoring the fact that cars require insurance against the risk cars pose to society. No such insurance exists for gun owners, and I doubt you'd support it because you have an allergy to responsibility.

 

[Auld Phart]

Personally, I beleive you should stop driving, and sell your car

I would love nothing more than to be able to rid myself of the car and rely on telecommuting, drone delivery, and public transit. But that's not the reality we live in, and I accept that.

any day now, you're going to be involved in a hit and run, or it will be stolen, and used in a crime.

Which is why I had to buy insurance. So the only thing you're doing here is making a case that guns and/or gun owners should be required to have insurance too.

That makes you an irresponsible driver.

having insurance isnt' going to prevent a hit and run, and won't bring whoever you hit back to life.

Do the world a favor, get rid of your car.