The Right To Bear Arms

[The Derp]

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.

That's what you've been arguing this entire time! Jesus ******* Christ. SMH.

This whole argument is about how you're not responsible just by virtue of owning a gun. You've been arguing, simultaneously, that you are a "responsible gun owner", yet you don't think you should act responsibly. Whether that's running a background check on anyone to whom you're giving your gun, to reporting your gun stolen to the police, to even owning a gun in the first place. In all this time, all you've done is argue that you are responsible just because you say so, while saying you don't think you should act responsibly when it comes to how you manage your firearms.

******* pathetic.

 

[The Derp]

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?

Again, the point of insurance isn't to prevent something from happening; it's to insure risk. What insurance does is establish responsibility, so I can see and understand why someone as negligent as you would not grasp that concept. I never said the point of insurance was to prevent something from happening, so that's a fat, stupid straw man you're constructing to feed your shitpile of an argument.

So why do you do that? That's like the third time you've deliberately obfuscated what it is we're discussing. Is it a matter of pride? Is it because you're brain damaged? What gives?

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.

Exactly. That's the point of insurance. And because your insurance had to pay out for your irresponsibility, your premiums increase because you're more of a risk. That's responsibility placed on you. Again, a concept that seems wholly unfamiliar to you because you are, inherently, a negligent person. Responsibility is something that you must be allergic to because you sure seem to not get what the **** it is.

You are making a strong case for mandatory gun insurance, you realize...

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..

Negligence isn't simply the physical act of being irresponsible, it's also a mindset that leads you to act irresponsibly. By insuring your weapons, you are acknowledging that you are carrying on risk and that you have to insure others of the threat posed by the risk you have decided to carry. That's why, if you **** up behind the wheel, your insurance premiums increase. That's because you're more of a risk because of your past history of acting irresponsibly behind the wheel. The more you act irresponsibly, the higher your premiums go.

Now, why can't that same principle be put in place for guns?

No good answer is expected...

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.

So this is exactly what I'm talking about when I say you avoid responsibility. Here you are, literally arguing against your personal responsibility. Yes, responsibility has to be established. Always. You are saying that you don't want responsibility to be established. Now the only reason you would say that is because you are an irresponsible, negligent person who doesn't understand what personal responsibility entails, and lacks it in your personal life.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Actually, it's not too bad for me at all, because I don't care, and it doesn't affect anything that matters. Hillary still isn't President.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Which explains why our government doesn't use a popular vote system.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

This is very true, which is why most car owners carry liability insurance. Nevertheless, the purpose and responsibility regarding car insurance is STILL not what you said it was.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Roy Moore is MOST conservatives?

Yup.

And we're back to your opinion and approval being valueless to everyone.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

After being in two wars I don't really need to fantasize about shooting anyone. Well, I never shot a liberal, but you never know...

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?

Again, if 14% don't report their guns being stolen, how they can be part of the statistics?

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.

Cops would be at my door in less then 5 minutes from alarm going off. It will take a thief much longer than that to find and bust the safe to get the guns. Meaning, thief will most likely get nothing of value before he's forced to run. However, I'll have a video that could help police to find him.

Of course, I am not responsible for other people actions.
If someone steals your car and run over someone with it, are you responsible for it?

 

[Issa]

Nope because people are dying by the thousands.

really? gun deaths have declined over the years despite millions upon millions more guns in circulation and millions of people carrying guns legally. So you are either ignorant of the fact or lying. Most gun deaths are SUICIDES. the remaining number that are not justifiable or excusable shootings are homicides mainly and those are caused at rates of 80-90% by people who are not legally able to own or use guns

so stuff the silly dramatics. Gun violence in tis country-especially outside urban areas full of drug gangs is minuscule

USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?

what do I need a gun for? many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights

Enjoy them, I hope you don't kill someone when you lose your temper as many do.

Less than one tenth of one percent ever use a gun to kill someone. The fact that you own a registered gun reduces that stat to less than 100th of one percent.

Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.

 

[The Derp]

That makes you an irresponsible driver.

Having insurance makes me an irresponsible driver? How so?

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

I never said it would, but what it does do is establish responsibility and holds me accountable for acting irresponsible. For some strange reason, you don't think those principles should apply to gun owners too. Which is why you aren't a "responsible gun owner" and why you never will be.

 

[Ame®icano]

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

So, I steal your car, use it as gateway vehicle for bank robbery, than I run over the family of four and kill them on the spot, that crash it into gas station and it burns to ground, it's all your fault.

Where did you park?

 

[Ame®icano]

Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.

What should we say to 3000 families whose kids drown in pools every year?

 

[The Derp]

This is very true, which is why most car owners carry liability insurance. Nevertheless, the purpose and responsibility regarding car insurance is STILL not what you said it was.

It is exactly what I said it was and you even ******* confirmed it with the first four words of your post.

I seriously think you have brain damage. There is no other explanation for how ******* weird you are.

 

[Issa]

Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.

What should we say to 3000 families whose kids drown in pools every year?

What an idiotic comparison.

 

[The Derp]

After being in two wars I don't really need to fantasize about shooting anyone. Well, I never shot a liberal, but you never know...

There's that fantasy showing. I don't believe for a second you served in two wars. And if you did, I believe you stretch the definition of "serve" to include digging latrines, mopping floors, or whatever janitorial duty you had while serving in the 401st Toilet Scrubbers and Laundry Folders Regiment. I do not believe, and you can't even prove, that you saw any combat. I think you craft these personal stories like people craft backstories for their D&D characters. It's all a bunch of phony nonsense that is used as a crutch when the debate gets out of your control. And it's always that. Whenever a Conservative shitgoblin reaches the end of their limited knowledge, suddenly all these unverifiable personal anecdotes surface, or second-hand or third-hand accounts are relayed and expected to be taken seriously.

Why the **** should I believe anything you say about yourself? What have you done to establish that trust? Nothing.

 

[Auld Phart]

That makes you an irresponsible driver.

Having insurance makes me an irresponsible driver? How so?

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

I never said it would, but what it does do is establish responsibility and holds me accountable for acting irresponsible. For some strange reason, you don't think those principles should apply to gun owners too. Which is why you aren't a "responsible gun owner" and why you never will be.

If you consider me, and others, irresponsible gun owners, I consider you an irresponsible driver.

using the same logic.

 

[Auld Phart]

This is very true, which is why most car owners carry liability insurance. Nevertheless, the purpose and responsibility regarding car insurance is STILL not what you said it was.

It is exactly what I said it was and you even ******* confirmed it with the first four words of your post.

I seriously think you have brain damage. There is no other explanation for how ******* weird you are.

I seriously think you have brain damage. There is no other explanation for how ******* weird you are

pot, meet kettle

 

[The Derp]

Again, if 14% don't report their guns being stolen, how they can be part of the statistics?

Because they told the DOJ survey (that's been around since 1973) they had their guns stolen but didn't tell the police. FFS, are you being deliberately stupid or is this not an act? Or did you think I wasn't referring to a DOJ survey? Or did you just not fully read what I posted? Did you do that Conservative thing and sloppily and lazily craft a response to something you didn't even carefully read? Sure fuckin' seems like it...you're not proving responsibility by doing sloppy work, BTW.

Cops would be at my door in less then 5 minutes from alarm going off. It will take a thief much longer than that to find and bust the safe to get the guns. Meaning, thief will most likely get nothing of value before he's forced to run. However, I'll have a video that could help police to find him.

Not if the thief's been to your house before and scoped it out. Which they do, BTW, when they pose as landscapers, exterminators, deliverypeople, or any other type of person that would come to your house for work. Secondly, alarms can be disabled, safes can be cracked, there is no 100% successful way to keep your guns secured. There will always be the risk there. Besides, you've argued that you shouldn't be held responsible for having your gun stolen anyway, so why do you have any security?

Of course, I am not responsible for other people actions.
If someone steals your car and run over someone with it, are you responsible for it?

It depends. But we're not talking about cars, which are insured; we're talking about guns, which are not.

 

[The Derp]

So, I steal your car, use it as gateway vehicle for bank robbery, than I run over the family of four and kill them on the spot, that crash it into gas station and it burns to ground, it's all your fault.

My car's insured so, no.

Are your guns insured? No.

 

[The Derp]

Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.

What should we say to 3000 families whose kids drown in pools every year?

No one is stealing a pool to then use in pool crimes.

So your false comparison fails, just like everything else in your life.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

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.

And there it is. I was wondering how long it would take you to lose your temper and start calling me names. Anyway, your hatred of gun owners does not bother me personally because frankly, I don't give a shit. I'm 54 years old and have been debating on forums for at least fourteen years. Believe me, after all that time I have developed a pretty thick skin so your nonsense has precisely zero effect on me.

Having said that, I point out your hatred of gun owners because it clearly has made you biased and you have no objectivity on the topic of gun control.

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.

Who said "no true gun owner"?

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.

The parameters of the debate have not been changed. Did I or did I not tell you that I never intended to discuss motor vehicle deaths? I only brought it up to to show how your reasoning of risk and responsibility applies to other topics. I'm addressing your reasoning, not motor vehicle deaths.

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.

I never said anything about more guns = less gun crime. Don't put words in my mouth.

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.

By the same token, you can't tell who is a responsible gun owner and who isn't until they act responsibly.

You are working from the assumption that gun owners are inherently responsible.

No, I am not. That claim was made by no one in this discussion, least of all by me, and I've told you that multiple times now. I'll say it again as plainly as I can so there's no confusion: No one said all gun owners are responsible. If that's not clear enough: Not all gun owners are responsible gun owners. If that's still not clear enough: Some gun owners are irresponsible gun owners.

Satisfied?

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.

**** what you think I'm suggesting and read my words. I never suggested any such thing.