2nd Encounter of the Day.... Over guns this time

[rsmith6621]

Earlier today I called out a millionaire over a comment made about taxes and how he was bitching that he could only afford marble tile that is $15 a square.

Well tonight I grabbed my jingle bells and and called out a person who exposed his 9mm that he was concealing, he did have a permit.We were in line at the grocery store He reached for his wallet and the gun in the holster was exposed to me so I said can you wait for a moment I have a question to ask you.

I got checked out and towards the entrance I asked him " Do you carry liability insurance on that gun" no he said. I asked why not, he said there was no need for it. I then asked what if it was stolen and the criminal injured an innocent victim who will pay for their medical care, he said I guess the victim would. I said is that fair and his response was well I didnt shoot them. I then asked if he carry's liability and theft on his car to which he answered yes I do I said why. To protect myself against financial liability if my car is involved in a car accident.

I said again why shouldn't you also carry liability insurance on your gun... THE BELLS AND WHISTLES WENT OFF and then he understood my question. I said thanks for the minute of your time and told him I only owned a 22 rifle for a few months and sold back to the store I bought it from a few years ago.

I told him I have no issue with people owning guns but I do when they are obsessed with assault rifles and large clips and will not accept any changes for background checks,training and metal evaluation and a longer waiting period. I closed by saying thanks for the time and I hope you understand that the other side of the argument aren't that irrational as well. He said thanks for making a point he had never considered and left.

I watched him get in his truck and leave the p-lot and then went to my car...just to make sure.

We should be asking for our state legislatures to consider gun liability insurance and making hunting licenses applicable to certain types of guns.... Thats a start.

[libtodeath]

1. Bet the gun nut was cursing under his breath knowing he was owned

screw them

[MindandSoul]

2. Great story and you are making a good point!

[slackmaster]

3. Liability insurance doesn't cover inanimate objects. It covers the insured PERSON for screwups.

Just a data point. And many people already have it - Most homeowners, and many people who rent their homes have liability policies.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

11. Actually, In Many States, The Insurance Covers The Car

In my State, if you are driving someone else's car, the actual owner's insurance covers any accidents you may have in that car. Also, if you're pulled over for a traffic offense, you will have to show the BMV proof that the CAR you were driving was insured (not that YOU had insurance). I would assume that many States are similar, but here, the insurance goes with the CAR, not the driver.

[galileoreloaded]

26. Ugh. Logic fail on a Sunday no less. The insurance isn't covering the CAR

its covering the licensed driver of the car as a mechanism for implementation a societal structure. The car is inanimate no matter how much we want it not to be. If someone steals the CAR, there is no implied liability, ergo the insurance is void and the company will only pay comprehensive if so insured.

Good lord.

[wandy]

33. Don't know if this applys every where/allways.........

My car insurance explicitly states that I am the only one insured to operate the vehicle.
If I allow another person to drive it's my problem.
The key word here is allow. If the car is stolen report it immediately. This indicates that the car thief was not given permission.
Wouldn't gun insurance work the same way?

[galileoreloaded]

71. You can't be held liable for the illegal act of another

without demonstrating negligence or at least vicarious liability ie: burden of the principle.

Gun insurance can't work if it is stolen. It might work if loaned or taken, but the first case wouldn't make a Circuit court challange.

Gun insurance is a non-starter in the US.

[wandy]

87. I wondered about that...

If someone steals you're car, they are likely (surely) not insured. They are also likely not in a position to make reinstitution for any damage they may have done.
Although YOU may not be responsible for any damages, that does nothing for anyone that might have innocently gotten in the way of any mayhem caused by the stolen 'hardware'.
It becomes a criminal matter.
As if locking someone up and throwing away the key could replace a child?

I guess this whole 'sensible' gun control 'thing' won't resolve to matters of Black and White.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

75. Say You Own A Honda Civic, And You Have Insurance..........

...............but you also have a Ferrari that is NOT insured and you get pulled over whilst driving the Ferrari. According to YOU (since YOU are insured and not the inanimate CAR), you can hand the officer your proof of insurance that says you're insured. Have fun explaining to the cop that the car is inanimate and YOU are the one insured and not the car when he happens to notice that your Ferrari in no way resembles a Honda Civic.

The insurance goes with the CAR, not with YOU.

If your uninsured friend is driving your car and gets pulled over, the BMV will ask to see proof that the CAR is insured, not that your friend is.

YOUR logic has failed, no matter how condescending a tone you choose to take.

[galileoreloaded]

77. Sigh. Tell you what. I'll give you a car, you insure either the car or you.

I'll steal it and go run somebody over. Then your policy can pay for my negligence or criminal activity.

Of course that will never happen because even in this fucked up wasteland of dystopic lunacy, even a 16 year old recognizes the patent absurdity of such a mechanism.

I'm not trying to be condescending but the stupid burns!

[ChoppinBroccoli]

79. Maybe Learn A Little About The Law, Or At Least Smarten Up

Like, for example, LISTENING when a person who makes his living knowing the law speaks to you. I know this is the internet, where everyone who has the ability to log on thinks he/she is an expert on everything, but you're really coming off as foolish here. If you don't believe me, just go do a quick Google search and see what the first 10 results tell you about whether the insurance follows the car or the driver. Then come back and apologize to me.

You're bringing up an entirely different scenario when you talk about a theft. I never discussed that. But if you want to, you're STILL partially wrong. If YOUR behavior as owner of the car somehow contributed to its theft, then you CAN still be held liable for the thief's negligence and/or criminal activity in it. It's rare, but it happens.

See, and I managed to show you're wrongness TWICE now without calling you any names whatsoever.

[galileoreloaded]

81. I oversimplified the concept of vicarious liability which I assume is what

you are referring to.

What is your point?

Liability insurance for guns is a non-starter, they move unregulated by any mechanism of public conveyance that allows for control.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

84. I Never Said Anything About Guns

I simply pointed out that in some States, automobile insurance follows the car and not the driver. And I only did that because the person above me incorrectly stated the law when trying to draw a parallel between cars and guns. Even then, I tried to do it as respectfully as possible. Maybe you should try dialing back the outrage a bit before lunging at the throat of anyone you perceive to be taking a contrary position. One of the main reasons why this country is so divided right now is because people can't discuss things civilly. I blame the phenomenon on the rise of right-wing hate radio. With the advent of Rush Limbaugh and his copycats, not only are the people on the other side completely 100% wrong, but they're evil, America-hating monsters bent on the utter destruction of everything you hold dear. Rush Limbaugh made it not just OK, but STANDARD, to downright hate anyone who disagrees with you. Political discourse is poisonous in this country because you can't discuss an issue without someone becoming enraged and hurling epithets at you.

[wandy]

88. It dependens on the insurance policy...

I am to only one insured to drive either of my vehicles. The insurance apples to no one else.
One of my 'clients', a small construction firm; insures employees vehicle use.
Although they can not borrow my car, If I need a pickup, I make arrangements and borrow one.
All part of their insurance, and part of my 'fee'.

[freshwest]

4. Excellent education you gave him there - hope he'll pass it on.

That is an excellent point to present for legislation - hard to find anyone willing, though. We have better gun control in this state than some others, and also provisions in MHC regarding ownership. Although bagger influence is growing, we still have reasonable people here.

Your example was perfect. If a thief stole his car and hurt someone, that needs insurance. Exact same thing with the gun, it would make people think twice about their guns. I wonder if gun injuries are covered in home owner's insurance, like any other event on one's property? Why not have it added in with auto insurance if it is a legitimate need?

The only real reason to oppose being responsible is planning to overthrow the government or being involved in crime, at least in the world of law.

[geckosfeet]

5. Just to make sure... of what?

[Go Vols]

12. Was wondering the same.

[klook]

6. Great work.

And a great idea.

Waiting for someone to ask why we don't need liability ins. for hammers, butcher knives, pencils, etc.

Don't blame you for the caution as you left the parking lot.

[BlueStreak]

7. Insurance (and lawsuits) are a very potent angle

Almost everybody who bitches like crazy about "their second amendment rights" also rails on about how America is is serious decay because of a lack of personal accountability.

Well folks, there is nothing less accountable in our society then our guns and what people do with them.

I predict that within the next 5 years it will become commonplace to see lawsuits filed and won when damages result from unsafe storage or use of weapons. And that will be the thing that ultimately gets this under control.

People like to make jokes about lawyers, but the fact is that many of the advances we have seen in our society are the direct result of aggressive legal actions. Maybe somebody needs to establish a fund that will pay the legal fees to get these actions started whenever an irresponsible gun owner causes harm to another.

[truebluegreen]

8. This.

And as to the jokes about lawyers, the fact that sometimes only lawyers can hold irresponsible people to account is exactly why the conservative, pro-business crowd push the jokes. It's why they focus on tort reform, and a cap (a low one) on damages. The cap is so low that an attorney can't afford to take a case and pursue it on contingency.

[BlueStreak]

9. All true. That's why I think it might be a successful move to build a fund to pay lawyers

for these efforts. They would be on retainer instead of contingency.

If the prosecutors won't do their job to hold irresponsible gun owners accountable, at least we can hit them with civil actions, and keep hitting them until insurance becomes a practical necessity.


Remember the prosecutors lost the OJ Simpson case, but the Goldman's won it in civil court. 99% of the gun assholes (as opposed to responsible people who have reasonable firearms as needed for sport, and handle them carefully) don't have any money at the end of each week, so there probably isn't much to gain financially. But if this is the only accountability we can get, we should do it.

[kudzu22]

35. The Goldmans won because

OJ stabbed their daughter. If you want to extend that analogy to your gun liability insurance idea, the Goldmans should have sued the original owner of the knife, not OJ.

[BlueStreak]

69. If you don't have your guns locked up tight, YOU are responsible.

I realize that may sound like a foreign concept to some gun owners. But that's the change that has to happen.

[kudzu22]

85. I couldn't disagree more

Show me any other case where someone has been held responsible for the criminal acts of another person.

[BlueStreak]

86. Leaving your gun on a table where your 3-year-old can blow his brains out is a CRIMINAL ACT

If the laws don't make that clear, the laws need to change.

[Glassunion]

10. Cool story bro.

[Ghost in the Machine]

17. Exactly!.. but probably ended more like this....

"He said thanks for making a point he had never considered and left.

I watched him get in his truck and leave the p-lot and then went to my car...just to make sure."

Then I woke up from where I apparently dozed off for a bit, and rushed to share it with DU while the details were still fresh in my mind!

Cool story, indeed, bro!

[krispos42]

13. So, if I own a gun...

...and it's stolen and used in a crime that has somebody injured or dead, the criminal that used the gun shouldn't be held liable?


If my gun is stolen, how long do I have to keep paying this insurance on it?

I mean, jeez, if my car is stolen, my insurance would only cover the damages to MY car, right? Assuming the car thief hits another car, wrecking both of them, why would my insurance pay for damages to the other car or injuries to either the other driver or the car thief?

I assume I would get what my car is worth from my insurance carrier, but I would not expect them to pay for injuries the car thief or the other driver received. Or for the other car.

There are very few accidents with guns. Committing crimes with guns, and self-defense with guns, is not an accident; it's a deliberate act. I don't expect criminals to get insurance in case they have to kill somebody while knocking over a grocery store, and I don't expect to pay for the medical (or funeral) bills for a criminal that attacks me or mine.

[rsmith6621]

14. If My Car is...

...stolen my insurance company will pay up to 250K in medical per person and any property damage up to 100k for each claim related.

The criminal should be held liable and criminally liable but the fact is the criminal will not be able to pay for the cost and I dont believe the victim or society should pay for it either. I think part of ownership is responsibility and until you are somehow told by law enforcement that you are no longer responsible for the gun we need a mechanism in place to see that the innocent victim is not burden with the cost cause like healthcare we all pay the cost.

[marions ghost]

18. Can't escape the logic of this

keep hammering rsmith. It is what we should be pushing for.

[geckosfeet]

20. As a gun owner, I believe this is true.

However I also believe that universal healthcare and mental health care belongs in this equation.

And I also see some inherent inequalities built in.

There are many people who own guns for hunting and for varmints on small or independent farms who may not be able to afford the added expense of firearms liability insurance. Kind of depends on what the insurance companies end up being legally allowed to squeeze out of people.

I also think this would exacerbate class inequality by ensuring that only the rich and wealthy would be able to keep their guns and continue to their private security armies. Unless we as a society address economic inequality and lack of health care I am not sure I would vote for even more restrictions on the middle class.

[Fumesucker]

16. Very few accidents with guns, I agree

On the other hand there are lots of incidents of negligence with guns.

http://negligentdischarge.com/

If your gun is stolen there's an excellent chance that you were negligent in properly securing the gun in the first place, you should be held to account for your negligence if the gun is then used to harm someone.

[marions ghost]

19. Owners bear responsibility for negligence

let's get systems in place that make that a reality.

[krispos42]

23. So I should pay for some kind of insurance for.... the rest of my life?

Just in case, 5 or 15 or 35 years from now, they finally find my stolen gun and link it to a half-dozen armed robberies?

[Fumesucker]

24. Are you maintaining that you do not wish to be held responsible for any possible negligence?

Assuming of course that your negligence leads to your gun being stolen.

It could be that setting the premium would take into account the possibility that your gun may be stolen and the insurance company will be liable for any injury that gun is used to inflict on someone.

[krispos42]

27. Um, yeah.

That's kind of the idea. Unless I'm actively trafficking guns to criminals, then if my gun gets stolen because, say, somebody broke into my house, then my liability ends there.

I mean, am I liable if somebody steals prescription drugs from my cabinet, and sells them to a teenager, who then uses it to rape a classmate at a party? Or who uses it to commit suicide? Or who drives while high on my pills and crashes into minivan?

Where does it end?

[Fumesucker]

30. Hey, you buy your ticket and you take your chances

Just like with car insurance your insurance company would evaluate the risk they run insuring your particular guns, if you have them in a solid gun safe that is bolted to the floor then their risk would be minimal, leave them on the front seat of your car with the windows rolled down however and of course the risk of them being stolen and used for violent and or criminal purposes is somewhat higher.

The idea of an "attractive nuisance" is fairly well established in law, swimming pools being an excellent example of such.

High risk high premium, low risk low premium, the invisible hand of the marketplace will decide.

Perhaps the NRA could start some sort of group insurance plan that gun owners could use for this sort of coverage.

[krispos42]

73. Except that cars are different from guns

It's why I don't make those kinds of analogies too much.

When a car is in an accident, there is property damage even if nobody is hurt. Damaged cars need to be repaired; totaled cars need to be replaced. This is the bulk of insurance claims, I would think; repairing fenders and bumpers and broken lights and grills.

Repairs are costly, and cars are expensive. For most people, a car purchase is the second or third biggest thing they'll ever buy in their life (aside from a house or a college education). So spending a few dozen dollars a month on car insurance spreads the background cost of these kinds of accidents among many people and many years.

Guns don't get damaged when they're in an accident. I'm not going to file a claim because I dropped my 1911 at the range and scratched the finish or damaged the sights. If I, the legitimate and legal owner of a gun, use it for self-defense because I am attacked, then the people that are attacking me should be held liable for any incidental damages to a situation they caused and forced up on me.

If I, the legitimate and legal owner of a gun, decided to go out and start committing crimes, then I expect to be held liable in a court of law for any damages that I cause, up to and including having my bank account seized, my car forfeited, and my home having a lien placed on it.

And if I'm careless with my gun, and leave it out and a kid finds it, then there are appropriate and established legal channels for that to be dealt with as well.

[Fumesucker]

74. Cars also hurt and kill people and insurance covers that

You wish for society to cover the costs to society if your guns are stolen from you and misused, I don't have a problem with that actually unless you have been negligent in properly securing those guns, the insurance would be to cover you in case you should at some point become negligent and your guns are stolen and misused to harm someone.

Of course the insurance would also cover any harm you might cause with your guns also.

My point is that there are exceedingly few genuine accidents with firearms and a great deal of negligent acts performed with them, more than a few of which cause sometimes grievous harm to others.

http://negligentdischarge.com/

[Robb]

45. Comparative negligence. It's not a new concept.

Your liability is greater if you leave your guns in a cabinet in the garage, vs. locking them up.

[wercal]

80. I'm not tracking.

If somebody breaks into my home....I'm negligent? I just don't follow. There is some sort of implication that the stolen guns are imminently dangerous, like an unfenced swimming pool....or a booby trap a homeowner might leave for a robber. Maybe that holds true if you leave the gun loaded with the safety off....but if a robber has to steal it, procure ammunition, point it at somebody, and pull a trigger, how are you responsible? Not morally, but legally? You can't be responsible.....if you were, the same would hold true for everything from stolen chainsaws to power tools. Its the wrong tree to barking up.

Btw? Care to guess who would set up a network to provide and profit from such insurance....and package it with their membership dues and subscriptions to hunting magazines.

[kudzu22]

37. So if you forget your lighter at a restaurant

and a kid finds it and burns down an apartment building, you're responsible right? I mean, you were negligent in failing to secure your lighter. It's your fault. Do you carry lighter insurance?

[Fumesucker]

38. Felons and children are prohibited by law from owning lighters?

I learn something new on DU every day.

[kudzu22]

39. You're changing your story

Before it was just negligence by gun owners for allowing their guns to fall into others' hands. Now it has to be someone prohibited from owning it? So if an otherwise legal owner finds my gun somewhere and ends up shooting someone, perhaps by accident, I'm not liable because he was not a prohibited owner?

[Fumesucker]

40. Just pointing out one major difference between guns and lighters

Another difference is that lighters don't have their own constitutional amendment.

And a third difference is that lighters have other practical uses than arson, guns do not have other practical uses than killing.

[kudzu22]

42. I don't know any store that will sell a lighter to a 6 year old

And not all killing is murder, such as killing in self-defense. So saying guns are only for killing is like saying lighters are only for starting fires. Some uses are justified, others are not. Hence, you still need insurance on your lighter since it might be misused by someone else.

[Fumesucker]

46. Is it illegal for a six year old to possess a lighter?

And I never mentioned murder.

[kudzu22]

48. Can a six year old start a fire?

Whether it's illegal for him to possess is irrelevant. Or are you claiming that gun owners are only liable if their guns are taken by someone who can't legally possess them?

[Fumesucker]

49. If your firearm is adequately secured you have no liability under my scenario

Are you not in favor of ensuring adequate security for firearms?

[kudzu22]

50. Same for your lighter

Again, do you have lighter insurance? Guns & lighters -- both dangerous and capable of inflicting great harm if misused. Nobody needs a lighter, but if you choose to own one you can roll the dice and take your chances.

[Fumesucker]

52. Why do the manufacturers put serial numbers on guns and not on lighters?

Without a serial number specifically identifying a particular lighter it's impossible to determine from exactly whence it came.

Perhaps we need to change the BATF to the BATF&L(ighters).

[Duckhunter935]

43. Target shooting is not

a legitimate use? Make sure the Olympic committee and the US teams are aware. Those guns are liable to just turn around and start killing people.

[Fumesucker]

47. The term I referenced was "practical use"

I can punch holes in paper far more easily by just poking them with a pencil or something right in front of me than putting that paper some distance away and propelling small pieces of metal at it by means of combustion byproducts behind them in a tube with one end open.

All practical uses of firearms are for killing of living beings.

[spin]

83. I live in a very poor county in north Florida. Hunting deer and hog is very common here. ...

Hunters do it to help provide affordable meat fro their family table. Feral hog are also not native to our nation and do considerable damage to the environment.

Many hunters also take advantage of the bow and black powder seasons to stock up on venison.

I should add in passing that I am not a hunter.

[BainsBane]

15. You're braver than I

One of those nuts could shoot you. Other than those in law enforcement, carrying a gun in public means they are already paranoid. It wouldn't take much to set off someone like that. Those are the kind of people that shoot kids because their music is too loud.

[geckosfeet]

21. Ahh. The "I will let someone else do the dirty work for me" position.

That's always a good honest approach.

[BainsBane]

22. someone who doesn't feel safe without a gun

is lecturing me because I don't want to accost armed men in public?
The irony.

The good, not dirty, work is to be done on the political level. Arguing in public with paranoid gunmen is not my chosen approach, but kudos to the OP.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

55. With concealed carry laws maybe the prudent course would be

to assume all strangers are potentially.

They're out they. They could come and get you at any time. Tens of millions of ticking time bombs. It'd probably be safer just to never leave the house.

[BainsBane]

56. or just behave like a normal person

and mind your own business. You don't bother people, they don't bother you. I lived in the worst neighborhood in the city for a while, and the drug dealers on the corner would say "hello, Maam, when I waited for the bus." I would guess they were probably armed.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

57. Wait a minute.

You're more accepting of armed drug dealers than you are of law-abiding people?

[BainsBane]

61. where did I say that?

I didn't. I simply said no one bothers me. Most people don't if you leave them alone. Now if I had run up to them with a gun and starting messing with them, I'm quite certain their reaction would have been quite different.

That drugs are illegal and gun proliferation is not is an idiosyncrasy of the law. The country would be a far safer place if it were the other way around.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

63. Well

When post #26 said they would have left the grocery store check-out lane in order to "shun the gun" you gave your explicit agreement (though, I call shenanigans. Like you'd do that after spending an hour or more filling a cart). Yet you admit to sitting next to criminals -- likely violent criminals -- you presumed were armed and yet you were all casual about it.

How come you're all live-and-let-live with violent criminals but you shun-the-gun when it's just some person trying to feed their family -- lawfully?

[BainsBane]

64. I said I would not accost him

and I certainly did not accost a drug dealer. That would be insane. People here thinking regular citizens should go around enacting vigilante justice, as geckosfeet suggests and it appears you are implying, strike me as strange. What do you propose I should have done? Not gone to work? Stayed in my house until I lost my job and became homeless? You obviously have no concept of what its like to not live a privileged life. I didn't say I hung out with them. I said I saw them at the bus stop. Good grief.

The white privilege in these discussions is never far blow the surface.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

65. Who said anyhting about accosting?

The OP was about a guy in line at the grocery store, minding his own business and jsut trying to pay for his groceries. Apparently the mere fact he possessed a gun was enough for him to be shunned. Did you ever shun drug dealers?

[BainsBane]

66. I explained myself

I want nothing to do with anyone who carries a gun. But that doesn't mean I have the luxury of taking a limousine for transportation. I go where I must to get around. Do you imagine poor people live near drug dealers because that's their preference in life? I could take lunch and around of golf at the country club, but I think I'll go to the bus stop with the drug dealers instead. JHC.

I hate guns, and I would prefer I didn't hear them out my window. I prefer not to be around anyone who carries them, whenever possible. Unlike the supermarket "tough guy," these drug dealers did not brandish their weapons, and frankly it never occurred to me a the time they were armed. But in retrospect I imagine they probably were. But who knows. They might not have been. Thankfully, I now earn enough not to live in that neighborhood anymore, but not so much I still don't hear gun shots out my window on occasion.

The point was that a person can survive without a gun. I don't carry a gun, so I don't mess with people. Data shows that people who carry guns are far more likely to get into violent situations than those who don't. I mind my own business. I hear gun shots, I call the police, but I don't run to see who did the shooting. That's life in the inner city. And that's why those of us who live in cities want the ability to be able to heavily restrict or ban handguns. But we don't have that right because your desire to have weapons in your homes--in some privileged world nothing like our own--means our children must die. Through Heller, gun proponents have taken away our rights to self-determination, even though the DC ban had no impact on their lives.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

68. He never brandished his gun. The OP says he was reaching for his wallet to pay.

The point was that a person can survive without a gun. I don't carry a gun, so I don't mess with people. Data shows that people who carry guns are far more likely to get into violent situations than those who don't. I mind my own business.

Do people defending the family business or resisting a rapist or a stalking ex seek out violent encounters or do the unshunned criminals seek them out?

[BainsBane]

70. you go from one tangent to another

Statistics do not mean everyone. That seems to be an ongoing source of confusion for gun proponents. I tell someone that 90% of suicides by gun are completed as opposed to 5% by pills, and he answers: You can kill yourself by beheading too. Such responses are not logical. That something is a demographic and statistical fact does not make it universal. It means it occurs in society with a certain degree of frequency.

Say, how do you know the man in the grocery store was law abiding? He could very well have been a drug dealer or a rapist for all you know.

Why do you care who I like or hang out with anyway? What possible difference does it make in your life? Why the constant evangelization. Are you so insecure in your views that you have to convert everyone? You're backed by some of the most powerful moneyed interests in the country. What ordinary people think is inconsequential. You have power and capital on your side. I would think that would be enough to suit you. You'll get to keep your guns and we'll keep dying. There is no danger of a rush to value human life in this country. Profits will always mean more than human beings. Your interests are well looked after.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

72. What tangents?

I'm discussing the OP and your reaction to it.

Why do you care who I like or hang out with anyway? What possible difference does it make in your life? Why the constant evangelization. Are you so insecure in your views that you have to convert everyone? You're backed by some of the most powerful moneyed interests in the country. What ordinary people think is inconsequential. You have power and capital on your side. I would think that would be enough to suit you. You'll get to keep your guns and we'll keep dying. There is no danger of a rush to value human life in this country. Profits will always mean more than human beings. Your interests are well looked after.

So, you've evolved from shunning the guy minding his own business and not shunning criminals presumed to be armed to feeling put upon as if you're somehow entitled to keep company with (presumably) illegally armed drug dealers. And then it morphs into a tangent that an unemployed assistant project manager (me) has all this powerful financial backing. And the work-a-day people who want to keep their guns because there are armed criminals (whom you won't shun and apparently feel entitled to keep company with) are more of a threat than the armed criminals you apparently feel entitled to keep company with. Maybe the armed criminals you feel entitled to keep company with are the reason work-a-day people feel threatened enough to keep guns? Maybe if people shunned criminals and stopped trying to disarm good people the criminals might find a different career.

"We'll keep dying."

Not from guns owned by good people. It's the criminals you should be speaking out against.

This is a very peculiar mindset and none of it makes sense to me.

[geckosfeet]

58. I lived over 50 years without a gun. I am not paranoid.

My point was simply that so called liberals will enlist the police, military and yes, politicians to disable an armed public and enable to an armed police state that does essentially nothing to disarm criminals.

On edit - yes, let the police and military and politicians do your dirty work. You and I pay them with our taxes. We pay them to put their lives on th e line and bail us out when something bad happens. The we sit around and talk about how horrifying it was and thank the brave people who do the dirty work.

[BainsBane]

60. no police or politicians are disabling or disarming anyone

Jesus. Enough with the right-wing conspiracy theories. Get a grip. If you can't stick to the reality based world, there is no point in having a conversation.



In a democracy I have every right to lobby my representatives for gun control. YOU and gun owners are not the only people in this country who matter--as offensive as you find that concept. It is unfortunate you so despise the Democratic Party and President Obama's position on gun control and prefer to invoke right-wing conspiracy theories.

What are you suggesting by dirty work? That I should run out with a weapon and play vigilante? You suggest there should be armies of civilians running around shooting each other up? You have some very strange notions.


The gun lobby seeks to protect criminals. That is the whole reason for resisting universal background checks.

[geckosfeet]

67. For dogs sake don't go out and play vigilante. And I have a grip, so to speak.

But take some personal responsibility. I'll let this speak for me since I am much less inarticulate and the author pretty much nails it for me. It's a good read if you pro or agin.

The Rifle on the Wall: A Left Argument for Gun Rights

This position seeps down through the “sub-political” issues of self-defense and personal responsibility. Not-really-pacifist “pacifist” liberals, I find, often get wrapped up in a recurring ideological process of shedding and assigning guilt. I wouldn’t touch a gun. I’ll just call my paid servant the policeman to come and shoot my assailant for me. My hands stay clean of gunshot residue and other stains; he wields the horrid gun and the moral responsibility, and quandary, of using deadly force – which I’ll endlessly analyze with my colleagues over dinner. And if it really was my ass that was saved, we’ll all congratulate ourselves for maintaining our “pacifist” guiltlessness, while romanticizing the guy who did the dirty work for us. Katherine Bigelow speaks for many, who actually think there is some kind of extra moral virtue in this way of living in the world. I find a more cogent description in the Sartrian term “bad faith.”

For myself, since I neither am nor pretend to be a pacifist, if I were in some mortal danger that called for the self-defensive use of deadly force, I would rather take on myself the responsibility for using that force – moral quandary, dirty hands and all – than shift it onto someone from a quasi-professional caste created to be my absolving wet workers.

....

As one trenchant feminist promoter of gun rights summarized it: "Police forces were established to augment citizen self-protection, not to displace the citizens' right of self-protection" And, I would add, to share, not displace, citizens’ individual and collective responsibilities and quandaries in all of that.

The gun lobby seeks to protect criminals. That is the whole reason for resisting universal background checks.

Show me some proof that the gun lobby seeks to protect criminals. The gun lobby seeks to prosecute and disarm criminals so that they can go play with their guns in peace.

[otohara]

25. I Would Have Left The Store

... I don't want to be near anyone packing a gun and I would have told him why I was leaving. Shun the Gun and the people who carry them!

[BainsBane]

31. I hear that nt.

[Oneka]

29. I carry a gun in public

I am neither paranoid, nor have i shot any kids who play loud music, but thanks for the unfounded generalization of me. It helps make your pro control argument, more weak than it already is.

[BainsBane]

32. what are you afraid of?

Unless you're a cop, if you're carrying a gun, by definition you're afraid.

[Oneka]

36. Afraid? Really?

I think of myself "by definition" as being prepared, not unlike someone who packs winter clothes, or blankets in his car during winter months, incase of being stranded in cold weather. But hey you can define , those people who's rights you wish to infringe, any way you like i suppose.

[BainsBane]

41. the rights trope is a canard

It's obvious gun owners don't care about our rights one wit. They justify prohibiting American citizens from seeking redress in court against gun manufacturers, say nothing about the gun lobby's restriction of rights to free speech, and insist their rights to stockpile weapons trumps the rest of our right to life. When one cares only about his own interests, any appeal to rights is empty. I've seen enough justification of the NRA and gun lobby stripping away rights that I now know the entire "rights" argument is pure artifice. Besides, the constitution provides for the right of government to regulate firearms. Read the Second Amendment.

I said nothing about taking away your guns. I merely said I have no desire to argue with an armed man. Self-defense begins long before any act of aggression, and common sense is key. Common sense tells me to avoid anyone with a gun. There is no proposal on the table to take away your guns. Why must you repeat paranoid, right-wing conspiracy theories? Newspapers exist so you can find out exactly what the President and Democratic Party propose in terms of gun reform. None of it involves taking away your precious guns.

I'm sorry you feel the word is such a dangerous place than an adult male can't handle himself without guns. I don't know how that can come from anything but fear. If you were not afraid, you wouldn't feel the need to "be prepared." Here I am a middle-aged woman, living in the inner city, and I get along fine equipped only with my mind.

[Duckhunter935]

44. Nothing preventing

you from suing a gun manufacturer for a defect in a gun used in the prescribed way. Just limits suits designed in the past to try and put them out of business trying to defend themselves from frivolous lawsuits.

[BainsBane]

59. prescribed ways

are virtually no ways. There was an entire thread about this. Courts have broadened the law to include most cases. The mere act of a child puling the trigger, a California court ruled, makes them exempt from prosecution. Knowingly allowing guns to be disturbed illegally is not grounds for suit. I know what that law does: it limits the rights of American citizens in favor of unbridled profits for death merchants and protects criminals' unrestricted access to weapons. Meanwhile, gun proponents insist we should be denied the right to petition the courts so the gun industry can have unfettered profits, unique to all capitalist enterprises in the country. They cling to a couple of words in the Second Amendment and ignore the part concerning "well regulated." Anything that interferes with their desire to stockpile WMD is an attack on their "rights." The First Amendment is a casualty and the right to life inconsequential.

Their rights argument is nothing but their own self-delusion--narcissistic excuses that seek to elevate their self interests above the rest of humanity. They are hypocrites who dissemble and lie to justify a culture of violence that results in the highest murder rate in the industrialized world. That's the society that results from their commitment to gun proliferation, and they see nothing wrong with it. Instead they lie about statistics and dismiss the lives of the fallen. The more I hear from the NRA and other gun proponents, the more they convince me that gun control is essential.

[Oneka]

78. who is "our"

It's obvious gun owners don't care about our rights one wit

how could you possibly get that impression, most gun owners i know are active in advocating for 1st 2nd 4th and 5th amendment rights, and several not enumerated in the bill of rights , like privacy. The NRA does not speak for all gun owners, nor do most gun owners support it, financially.
Attempting to separate gun owners and non gun owners, along lines of which rights they want protected is deceptive, at best.

Besides, the constitution provides for the right of government to regulate firearms. Read the Second Amendment.

The second amendment does no such thing, it was written to expressly forbid the government from infringing on my already existing right to keep and bear arms.
the bill of rights gives no rights to government it was written to forbid government from certain acts, that threaten some of our natural preexisting rights , nothing more nothing less.

I said nothing about taking away your guns.

And i am not afraid. If you don't want baseless facts said about you here , please refrain from doing the same to me. BTW i never said you wanted to take away my guns, did i?

There is no proposal on the table to take away your guns. Why must you repeat paranoid, right-wing conspiracy theories?

Who in the blue blazes is here repeating any conspiracy theories, be they right wing or, paranoid? Again, see above, and please refrain from attributing words to me, that were not written by me.

Now that you mention proposals to take away my guns, here is one, https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0241.0.html&session=ls88, and it's on the proverbial table, and though it doesn't expressly take away my guns, it may as well, for all intents and purposes.

I'm sorry you feel the word is such a dangerous place than an adult male can't handle himself without guns. I don't know how that can come from anything but fear. If you were not afraid, you wouldn't feel the need to "be prepared." Here I am a middle-aged woman, living in the inner city, and I get along fine equipped only with my mind.

I used to have a brother who used the same argument on me about seat belts, back in my younger days. I was employed at an auto salvage yard at the time and saw tremendous damage to cars that came into the yard. In most of the cars i noticed something, if the driver had been wearing his seat belt, there was room for him/her to survive in the driver seat. On august 15th 1990 my 26 year old brother who i loved dearly, was killed in an horrific auto accident, when he hit, head on, a logging truck, with no seat belt on.
Do i fear driving? No. Do i wear seat belts? Always.
I have also in my life seen violence visited on family members, does that cause fear, not really,it happens to be incredibly rare, but being unprepared for violence is just stupid to me, when my family's life is at stake.
I have lived my 43 years without using my firearms to defend myself , using just my mind if you will, and i also travel through inner cities quite often, likely the same one you live in, if my powers of deduction are half as good as i think they are. I hope that you live well and safely, for the rest of your days in whatever manner you wish. I only wish the same for me,and all who wish to carry a firearm for self defense, unhindered by the machinations of those who don't feel safe because we carry a gun for our own protection.
You see, that is the difference between gun owners and folks who wish to have more controls on gun owners.

You may not see the advocacy for other causes and rights on this board, that does not mean that my advocacy doesn't exist. But i choose to fight for all rights for ALL people, not just the ones i happen to be comfortable with.

[Deep13]

28. The state already makes hunting licenses for certain guns.

There are separate seasons for muzzle-loaders, handgun, archery, and shotgun.

[zappaman]

34. Twice in one day?!?!?!

Wow!
What are the odds?
Awesome story!

[apocalypsehow]

51. Your courage is commendable, but I'd be cautious: most "RKBA enthusiasts" I've run across have

notoriously short tempers and thin skins, and get very cranky and nasty very quickly when challenged on the wisdom of strutting about town with a pistol perched in their pants. Those BPRD's are considered criticism-free necessities in NRA USA.

"We should be asking for our state legislatures to consider gun liability insurance and making hunting licenses applicable to certain types of guns.... Thats a start."

But a good one. I agree 100%.

[patrice]

53. KICKING!

[indie9197]

54. What state did this happen in?

When you have a concealed carry permit you are supposed to keep your gun hidden. If your locale does not allow open carry of a loaded firearm he could have been breaking the law. Also, individual businesses can refuse entry to people carrying firearms so you could point him out to management if you felt like it.

In Utah, Arizona, Idaho, Wyoming, and Nevada (places that I frequent), it is not uncommon to see people open carry, and I am sure lots of people are carrying concealed that I don't know about. It doesn't bother me.

[Dreamer Tatum]

62. Maybe your screen name should be fgump6621 nt

[ecstatic]

76. I'm curious... why did you buy the rifle

and then what made you return it?

[rsmith6621]

82. Simply Target Practice...

... and did not get much target practice in and needed diapers for the baby....priority's.