Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > At Ease > The Soapbox

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-24-2013, 13:36   #301
Dusty
RIP Quiet Professional
 
Dusty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The Ozarks
Posts: 10,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reaper View Post
Some interesting stats about firearms accidents (where gun control advocates count felons rightfully shot by LEOs and people up to age 24 as "children").

TR
Those stats are worthless to libs, 'mano. They don't recognize cold, hard facts when arguing.
__________________
"There you go, again." Ronald Reagan
Dusty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 16:08   #302
Stiletto11
Guerrilla
 
Stiletto11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Behind Enemy Lines
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty View Post
The hippies turned into professors, got tenured, and trained herds of lib teachers. They just emerged around you and other straight-thinkig educators like psilocybin mushrooms in cow patties after a rain.
They procreate too and that doesn't help either.
__________________
It is those who believe that written constitutions can protect the individual from the exercise of state power who
hold to a baseless idealism, particularly when it is the state’s judicial powers of interpretation that define the range of such authority.

J. Albert Nock

Don’t let facts interfere with your insanity
Stiletto11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 16:24   #303
Dozer523
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,751
TR, thanks for the research and graphs. Learned something.
Was there a total (deaths and injuries) to link the percentages to?
And what the heck are people falling from to cause that much damage?
Dozer523 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 16:36   #304
The Reaper
Quiet Professional
 
The Reaper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,779
You are welcome.

I copied the charts from the website I originally referenced.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Kids like to climb, so I guess the falls are consequences from that.

Looks like if you leave out the 15 year old and up "children" from the "Fatal firearm accidents in 2007 by age groups" portion of the stats, there are about 65 firearms related accidental deaths among children under 15 each year.

TR
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
The Reaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 17:23   #305
Dozer523
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor View Post
Agreed, but the current "solutions" end up regulating me as well as the crazies.

So are you saying I'm not responsible for any damage or harm I inflict with my firearms? Woohoo! Reckless neighborhood shooting spree here I come! I am not saying that at all. And that though of you going so pink is difficult to imagine. What I meant is there is no mandatory insurance requirement for something as inherently dangerous as a gun. Unlike a car -- which is recognized as dangerous although not deliberately designed to be so. However, when liability insurance for guns is suggested there is the inevitable outcry that it is an infringement.
Razor, thank you for your reply. I recognize and accept all (but the highlighted above).
The post to which you thoughtfully replied was in response to an earlier post. The statement I was addressing was: rather then try to regulate gun ownership/use, .gov and "liberals" should regulate the auto industry IOT reducing the national fatality rate. My post was an attempt to point out that traffic fatalities are taken very seriously and a great deal of intrusive efforts have been foisted upon us in an effort to reduce those risks.

I addressed the post because it demonstrates a tactic commonly used when an attempt to discuss possible changes is brought up -- the first leg of the stool -- pointing to something else. I recognize that people die in car accidents, fall off of ladders (or somethings that is an amazing statistic) or that people drown a lot. In each of those cases (and all other cited in TR's chart) we accept that for the common welfare stuff should be made and operated in a way -- required to be made and operated -- in a way that is as safe as possible. And stuff -- ladders, swimming pools, bicycles, toys, etc are not meant to cause grievous bodily harm like guns.
And of course the next argument -- second leg -- is that the founders meant "no regulating" when they chose the word "infringed". Which considering that they could never in wildest imagination guessed just how dangerously those single shot muskets would evolve, is difficult to imagine. Nor did they ever imagine that our military would evolve to a point where the 'well-regulated militias" would be totally unnecessary.
And the third leg of the counter-arguement is: regulation will not work. Why? because no one will use a "mandatory lock", bad guys will just circumvent the law so law-abiding citizens shouldn't be subject to those laws because the laws aren't meant for them.

So I'll say it again. If it were me (and I really do think there are a lot of people out there like me) I will grant that only crazies kill innocent people. So, I'm for allowing any law-abiding US citizen over the age of 18 to own any and as many semi-automatic weapons as they want as long as 1) they undergo a background check to prove they are a law-abiding US citizen 18 years or older and 2) with the purchase of any semi-automatic weapon they are required to also purchase an effective gun lock, and 3) the gun-owner assumes complete financial liability for the damage they cause or that their gun causes in the hands of someone else.

What do you say? and why?

Last edited by Dozer523; 03-24-2013 at 17:28.
Dozer523 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 17:39   #306
The Reaper
Quiet Professional
 
The Reaper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,779
Dozer:

Background checks are already in place for 95% or more of the guns sold in this country.

AFAIK, all new guns are already sold with trigger locks. In NC, you have to sign a statement affirming that you understand the law with regards to keeping the weapon secured and out of the reach of minors.

I would draw the line with regards to liability insurance. You are required to have liability insurance on your car in the event YOU are involved in an accident. Not if someone ELSE steals your car and misuses it. Very few people here would agree that what we need in the country is more litigation. Should you be civilly liable if I steal your knife, axe, chainsaw, mower, etc? Why are guns any different? It doesn't matter how well you secure your weapons, if I was determined to get them, I could. Should you then lose your home and life savings as a consequence?

TR
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
The Reaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 18:32   #307
badshot
Guerrilla Chief
 
badshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Southern Arizona
Posts: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reaper
Not if someone ELSE steals your car and misuses it. Very few people here would agree that what we need in the country is more litigation.
Exactly!

Directed at those whom dirty the gene pool:
And the lazy ass parents can spend the time with and teach their children to never touch a firearm unless Dad (or Mom) is there and tells them it's OK. You know your most important job, being a parent...
__________________
Δεν είμαι άξιος του σταυρού του Ιησού οπή, Andreas
Denial and inactivity prepare people well for roles of victim and corpse
badshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 20:57   #308
Dozer523
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reaper View Post
I would draw the line with regards to liability insurance. You are required to have liability insurance on your car in the event YOU are involved in an accident. Not if someone ELSE steals your car and misuses it. Very few people here would agree that what we need in the country is more litigation. Should you be civilly liable if I steal your knife, axe, chainsaw, mower, etc? Why are guns any different? It doesn't matter how well you secure your weapons, if I was determined to get them, I could. Should you then lose your home and life savings as a consequence?

TR
Should I be civilly liable if someone steals anything of mine and uses it to cause any injury or damage? Absolutely not! Assuming I took reasonable precautions to prevent the theft. In the example of a car -- I think not leaving the keys in the vehicle and locking the doors and windows reasonably meets that criteria. We take greater care of our cars, perhaps because of the cost and value but we should be concerned about the possible misuse and damage if we fail to take basic common sense measures to secure them against theft.
Regarding less dangerous things your example of the knife, axe, chainsaw, mower i think a reasonable jury would find that if they were secured in a locked garage one would be reasonably exempt from liability. I don't think guns should be any different. If they are stolen but you have them secured with a lock you have acted in a reasonable and prudent manner to prevent misuse. I think it would be reasonable to assume the lock works. If the crazy steals the locked weapon and defeats the lock it would be wrong to hold a law-abiding gun-owner liable.
I agree that we don't want more litigation. A properly worded law would provide clear guidance . . . was the gun stolen? Was the gun locked when it was stolen? Answer yes to both, no liability.

Last edited by Dozer523; 03-25-2013 at 15:10.
Dozer523 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 21:07   #309
Dozer523
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by badshot View Post
And the lazy ass parents can spend the time with and teach their children to never touch a firearm unless Dad (or Mom) is there and tells them it's OK. You know your most important job, being a parent...
I struggled with that one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUbiwYHLHSM
Dozer523 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 21:17   #310
GratefulCitizen
Area Commander
 
GratefulCitizen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Page/Lake Powell, Arizona
Posts: 3,346
Safety, like issues such as obtaining food and shelter, is an individual responsibility.

The 2nd Amendment isn't there to guarantee safety.
It is there to guarantee liberty.
__________________
__________________
Waiting for the perfect moment is a fruitless endeavor.
Make a decision, and then make it the right one through your actions.
"Whoever watches the wind will not plant; whoever looks at the clouds will not reap." -Ecclesiastes 11:4 (NIV)
GratefulCitizen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 21:18   #311
badshot
Guerrilla Chief
 
badshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Southern Arizona
Posts: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dozer523 View Post
Yep, even though I've taught my young ones, weapons are still secured from them...

Common sense is less common these days...
__________________
Δεν είμαι άξιος του σταυρού του Ιησού οπή, Andreas
Denial and inactivity prepare people well for roles of victim and corpse
badshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 17:08   #312
tonyz
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,792
Absolute liability with or without fault -- versus -- due care and reasonableness

Two entirely different legal standards illustrated:

Strict liability versus negligence.

We sometimes see calls for a strict liability standard to be applied to firearms ownership.


Strict liability:

Quote:
...the gun-owner assumes complete financial liability for the damage they cause or that their gun causes in the hands of someone else.
Negligence:

Quote:
If they are stolen but you have them secured with a lock you have acted in a reasonable and prudent manner to prevent misuse. I think it would be reasonable to assume the lock works. If the crazy steals the locked weapon and defeats the lock it would be wrong to hold a law-abiding gun-owner liable.
Strict liability versus negligence.

Not a treatise -- just a summary for illustration purposes:

The distinction is, however, important because some anti-gun commentators and members of the press blur the significant difference intentionally. Others, do so simply due to lack of knowledge.

Absolute liability with or without fault -- versus -- due care and a reasonableness standard.

Under a strict liability regime, if you duly lock your rifle in a gun safe, located in your locked, alarmed home, removed the firing pin - and your rifle is stolen by a crackhead and sold multiple times to multiple bad guys, and it ends up in the hands of the BATF, who then transfer your rifle to Mexican drug lords...and that rifle...your rifle, which was disabled, locked in a safe, inside your home, protected by an alarm but was, unfortunately, stolen by a crackhead, transferred multiple times, ending up in BATF hands, subsequently transferred to Mexican drug lords a la Fast and Furious and -- ultimately -- your rifle is used to harm someone...YOU ARE LIABLE.

In contrast, under a negligence standard a jury might be asked, among other things, to determine whether you used reasonable precautions in the example above, to safeguard your weapon. And, in today's world, there is still probably a small horde of hungry personal injury lawyers lined up to take the case on a contingent fee basis and either make a name or a small fortune or both -- at your expense. But, at least under a negligence standard of fault -- you have a system that should insulate you from civil liability (but, unfortunately, maybe not financial ruin, disaster and bankruptcy because of the legal costs required to mount an adequate defense).

Which system makes more sense for holding an owner of a firearm liable for misuse? Strict liability or a negligence standard?

You make the call.
__________________
The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.

Marcus Tullius Cicero
tonyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 21:23   #313
tonyz
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,792
More passionate support for the 2A.

Black conservative leaders discuss how the NRA was created to protect freed slaves

Short version:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9RABZq5IoaQ

Full version:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jKMi023Ofro&feature=relmfu
__________________
The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.

Marcus Tullius Cicero
tonyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 14:54   #314
Razor
Quiet Professional
 
Razor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 4,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor
So are you saying I'm not responsible for any damage or harm I inflict with my firearms? Woohoo! Reckless neighborhood shooting spree here I come!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dozer523
I am not saying that at all. And that though of you going so pink is difficult to imagine. What I meant is there is no mandatory insurance requirement for something as inherently dangerous as a gun. Unlike a car -- which is recognized as dangerous although not deliberately designed to be so. However, when liability insurance for guns is suggested there is the inevitable outcry that it is an infringement.
Sorry, I was going with the pink=sarcasm 'business rule'. I should probably have written my point more directly.

I think the problem with the auto/gun liability analogy you're presenting is that its essentially an apples and oranges argument. On the one hand, as we've discussed before, driving is a privilege vs. the right of gun ownership. We aren't required to buy liability insurance in order to post on the Internet, just in case we are sued for libel. Can you think of another Constitutionally-guaranteed right for which we need to buy insurance in order to exercise?

I understand that when it comes to end results dead is dead, but if we apply that standard to owning dangerous things then there is a long list of items one can own that would also require additional liability insurance, from pools to kitchen knives to dogs to antifreeze, regardless of their primary intended purpose, because as I said above dead is dead in the end, regardless of intended purpose.
Razor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 18:49   #315
Dozer523
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor View Post
Sorry, I was going with the pink=sarcasm 'business rule'. I should probably have written my point more directly.

I think the problem with the auto/gun liability analogy you're presenting is that its essentially an apples and oranges argument. On the one hand, as we've discussed before, driving is a privilege vs. the right of gun ownership. We aren't required to buy liability insurance in order to post on the Internet, just in case we are sued for libel. Can you think of another Constitutionally-guaranteed right for which we need to buy insurance in order to exercise?

I understand that when it comes to end results dead is dead, but if we apply that standard to owning dangerous things then there is a long list of items one can own that would also require additional liability insurance, from pools to kitchen knives to dogs to antifreeze, regardless of their primary intended purpose, because as I said above dead is dead in the end, regardless of intended purpose.
I got what you meant in your pink comment, sorry my reply was misinterpreted I ws trying NOT to imagine you with a gun . . . crazy. . . in a tutu . . . anyway.

Apples and oranges in MY argument. I'm trying to eliminate them in the pro gun arsenal. I stated I meant only to address an earlier post that seemed to posit that this country's efforts to curtail unwanted deaths would be better served if we addressed traffic fatalities as if we were not doing so. I think even the posterchild would agree (then again, probably not) that there has been, continues to be, and we can expect in the future, significant and intrusive efforts by all levels of government, law-enforcement, non-profits -- my MOM for cryin' out loud!!! to TRY and further reduce traffic fatalities within the context of the beneficial purpose of vehicular traffic. I continue to see a link between the 1st amendment right of assembly as supporting ones access to the highways and byways and the various modes of accessing them . . . alas the founders could not envision anything but a walk, a horse or wagon ride. I'm working on it and when I'm a Justice . . . well I don't want to tip my hand.

Insurance. I concede there are no Bill of Right Amendments that require insurance. But, that doesn't mean there is no liability involved. I am responsible for what I say (BINGO!) What my comes of my assembly (conspiracy to commit) Watch what happens to the government when it violates MY rights (Mr Gideon?)
You are correct ,we are not required to have insurance for most things things. Usually, insurance is required by a lien-holder to protect their interest, after the bill is paid, the final mortgage payment made go ahead, cancel the insurance. When the house burns down or is swept away in the flood se la vie! Except for vehicles. Regardless of who has a financial stake if we want to access the public byways -- a minimum Liability insurance is required by law. And the reason why is because of the greater possibility of catastrophic damage and the potential for loss of life.

I am not required to have liability insurance for my knives, lawn-mower, dog. But I do and I am protected against the financial damage anything I have on my property can cause because my (bank required) home-owners policy is a good one. I have general coverage and I have specific additional coverage. My agent did a risk assessment and advised me in certain situations to get rid of stuff (Insurance companies hate trampolines -- if you have one check your policy injury on a trampoline might not be covered) or add specific coverages. It's prudent. Furthermore, I and my family are at a point in our lives and careers that we have nonspecific coverage.

Dead is dead. Since the potential for destruction, mayhem and innocents suffering -- as you say, "dead is dead" Sandyhook does raise the level of suffering endured in both magnitude and scope it seems intuitive that with rights must come responsibility. Thus my suggestion that 100% background checks (because I concede only crazies and criminals do bad things with guns so they have to be denied access. Mandatoy gunlocks to prevent crazies and criminals from getting the guns of law-abiding citizens and unlimited liability for the damage done by 1) a gun owner who switches side and becomes a crazy or a criminal and the damage done by a gun that a criminal gained access to from a legal owner because it was not properly locked.

Are those three things -- two of which TR points out are already available and required in many case -- and the acceptance of personal and unlimited liability for tightly defined preventable misuse a possible solution?

Last edited by Dozer523; 03-26-2013 at 18:55.
Dozer523 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 16:04.



Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies