RE: Treating gun owners like bar owners?

RE: Treating gun owners like bar owners? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

muhly22222 -> RE: Treating gun owners like bar owners? (3/5/2013 12:20:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: muhly22222 quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I would think it would have to be proven the family knew he was a danger. In the case of a bartender, that person is "aiding and abetting" by continuing to give the patron more alcohol. Seems to be the families would have to prove the same with the gun, as in knowing he had these plans and doing nothing about it. I'm on board with this. In the same way that it's negligent for a bartender to continue to serve beer to a clearly intoxicated person, it's negligent for a gun owner to allow a clearly dangerous person to use their gun. That negligence is why liability falls on the bartender, not the negligence (or recklessness) of the drunk person then going out and killing somebody while driving. The key here is "clearly dangerous". Was there any indication he was? Was he a gang member? Did he have a criminal record? The bar analogy has a big fault. A bartender actively hands the drink to the patron. Did the uncle/guardian hand the gun to the kid? If someone steals a half bottle of Scotch while the bartender isn't looking and gets drunk, is the bartender liable for the actions of a criminal. Remember, he didn't serve the guy. Same with the kid. Did he take the gun without permission? (in other words, did he steal it?) I have a hard time assigning liability to someone who is the victim of a crime. Sorry, I should have clarified...I wasn't talking about this case specifically, merely about this type of case. So yes, those would all be major issues that would have to be resolved in each case. Most of those are matters of fact that would heavily depend on the exact circumstances of individual cases; the definition of "allow" could be tricky. And would require quite a bit of litigation to hammer out, I'd suspect. If a gun owner were to hand a gun to a person, or even (although this is more of a stretch) tell him that he was free to take and use the gun whenever he liked, that would be where the problem would come it. But merely having then gun in the house where the shooter gains access to it wouldn't be enough, to me. You can get into discussions about whether the gun should have been in a safe of some sort, or whether the shooter was ever expressly told not to touch the gun, but those are all gray areas that I'll leave to people far more qualified than I am.

tazzygirl -> RE: Treating gun owners like bar owners? (3/5/2013 1:41:32 PM)
quote: You can get into discussions about whether the gun should have been in a safe of some sort, or whether the shooter was ever expressly told not to touch the gun, but those are all gray areas that I'll leave to people far more qualified than I am. Those, to me, would be more along the lines of penalties. And it is also how the state law defines the issue. Each state is different in how they see gun laws with minors in mind. http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.21

BlkTallFullfig -> RE: Treating gun owners like bar owners? (3/6/2013 8:35:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: BlkTallFullfig I cannot fathom why people who continue to stick their heads in the sand, regarding sensible gun control laws. It cannot be that they don't care about all of the distruction caused by people with firearms every year, can it? well it starts here, you only need to change one word: Repealed: the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Resolved: the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall be infringed. You know, sometimes I wish y'all (generic you) 2nd ammendment screamers would get a chance to apply this thinking/action, to real situations exactly as you imagine them; so the rest of us could than assess how helpful your (generic you) owning all those guns would be. Let the government experiment with coming for your guns say to 100 homes of people who say "I own a house full of guns to protect myself from your tyranny." My sentiment, which Obama unfortunately does NOT share, is; no one, needs more than 1 gun. Okay, you can have your hunting fun, but no one ought to be allowed to buy/aquire guns/ammunition, designed for wars. If you are in Afghanistan, you can hold and operate one; if you are a cop, in a swat team, you may hold these, etc.. For paranoia, you can only buy one, or two handguns.

Nosathro -> RE: Treating gun owners like bar owners? (3/6/2013 8:43:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BlkTallFullfig quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: BlkTallFullfig I cannot fathom why people who continue to stick their heads in the sand, regarding sensible gun control laws. It cannot be that they don't care about all of the distruction caused by people with firearms every year, can it? well it starts here, you only need to change one word: Repealed: the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Resolved: the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall be infringed. You know, sometimes I wish y'all (generic you) 2nd ammendment screamers would get a chance to apply this thinking/action, to real situations exactly as you imagine, in your real lives, than we can assess how helpful your (generic you) owning all those guns would be. My sentiment, which Obama unfortunately does NOT share, is; no one, needs more than 1 gun. Okay, you can have your hunting fun, but no one ought to be allowed to buy/aquire guns/ammunition, designed for wars. If you are in Afghanistan, you can hold and operate one; if you are a cop, in a swat team, you may hold these, etc.. For paranoia, you can only buy one, or two handguns. Thank you. I am reminded of what Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, creator of the US Nuclear Navy said at a congressional hearing on nuclear weapons during the Reagan years I am paraquoting "We have the ability to destory this planet 35 times, how many more nuclear weapons do we need before we feel safe."

Hillwilliam -> RE: Treating gun owners like bar owners? (3/6/2013 8:49:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BlkTallFullfig \My sentiment, which Obama unfortunately does NOT share, is; no one, needs more than 1 gun. There is a problem with this. Let's say I only own firearms for hunting. Guns are like hammers. One size does not fit all. My .22 rifle is great for small game but illegal for deer. My .243 is a great deer rifle but totally inappropriate for wild turkeys and upland birds (quail and grouse) A shotgun is great for upland game birds but a shotgun with a different choke (tightness of the shot pattern) and a longer barrel is better for turkey or waterfowl hunting. If I wish to pursue larger game (Elk, moose, bear, etc.) my .243 just won't cut it and I'd have to go with something heavier. Want me to complicate things even further? There is a special deer season for muzzle loaders so that's another firearm with a totally different purpose. All the above is just for hunting.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Treating gun owners like bar owners? (3/6/2013 9:15:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BlkTallFullfig My sentiment, which Obama unfortunately does NOT share, is; no one, needs more than 1 gun. Well, then, don't own more than one gun. But, you are not in a position to decide how many guns I own. Nor are you in any position to decide for what reasons (so long as they are legal reasons) I am allowed to own guns.

BlkTallFullfig -> RE: Treating gun owners like bar owners? (3/6/2013 9:42:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: BlkTallFullfig \My sentiment, which Obama unfortunately does NOT share, is; no one, needs more than 1 gun. There is a problem with this. Let's say I only own firearms for hunting. Guns are like hammers. One size does not fit all. My .22 rifle is great for small game but illegal for deer. My .243 is a great deer rifle but totally inappropriate for wild turkeys and upland birds (quail and grouse) A shotgun is great for upland game birds but a shotgun with a different choke (tightness of the shot pattern) and a longer barrel is better for turkey or waterfowl hunting. If I wish to pursue larger game (Elk, moose, bear, etc.) my .243 just won't cut it and I'd have to go with something heavier. Want me to complicate things even further? There is a special deer season for muzzle loaders so that's another firearm with a totally different purpose. All the above is just for hunting. Wow, that is more information than I ever wanted to know about hunting. Let it be known that I would never take away a man's fun weapons. Actually, yes I would, but that is for another thread. Do hunting weapons utilize high capacity magazines? I don't know enough about guns, outside of their destructiveness to humans/humanity. If hunting weapons, can also be utilized to mass murder people, they should absolutely regulated, and monitored. I hate the idea of big brother watching. What I hate even more however, is finding out too late, that my neigbor has been stockpiling, after he's taken out the neignorhood. quote: DesideriScuri But, you are not in a position to decide how many guns I own. Nor are you in any position to decide for what reasons (so long as they are legal reasons) I am allowed to own guns. Thank God for that heh! It's all for nothing. M

BamaD -> RE: Treating gun owners like bar owners? (3/6/2013 9:59:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BlkTallFullfig quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: BlkTallFullfig \My sentiment, which Obama unfortunately does NOT share, is; no one, needs more than 1 gun. There is a problem with this. Let's say I only own firearms for hunting. Guns are like hammers. One size does not fit all. My .22 rifle is great for small game but illegal for deer. My .243 is a great deer rifle but totally inappropriate for wild turkeys and upland birds (quail and grouse) A shotgun is great for upland game birds but a shotgun with a different choke (tightness of the shot pattern) and a longer barrel is better for turkey or waterfowl hunting. If I wish to pursue larger game (Elk, moose, bear, etc.) my .243 just won't cut it and I'd have to go with something heavier. Want me to complicate things even further? There is a special deer season for muzzle loaders so that's another firearm with a totally different purpose. All the above is just for hunting. Wow, that is more information than I ever wanted to know about hunting. Let it be known that I would never take away a man's fun weapons. Actually, yes I would, but that is for another thread. Do hunting weapons utilize high capacity magazines? I don't know enough about guns, outside of their destructiveness to humans/humanity. If hunting weapons, can also be utilized to mass murder people, they should absolutely regulated, and monitored. I hate the idea of big brother watching. What I hate even more however, is finding out too late, that my neigbor has been stockpiling, after he's taken out the neignorhood. quote: DesideriScuri But, you are not in a position to decide how many guns I own. Nor are you in any position to decide for what reasons (so long as they are legal reasons) I am allowed to own guns. Thank God for that heh! It's all for nothing. M If that was more than you wanted to know about hunting then you don't know much about guns at all. I will not attempt to divest you of your misconceptions as you have been well indoctrinated by gungrabbers. It would be nice if you could even consider the opposing view but that is no doubt too much to ask. I suspect you are unaware that you can now get a semi auto for several hundred dollars less that a simular quality revolver. This means that they fit into the average persons budget much better. Your knowledge level of firearms means you are most likely unaware that the typical persons accuracy drops when in a crises situation. This combined with the possibility of mutiple assaliants makes it advisable to have more than six rounds. If you don't need the extra rounds you don't have to use them but if you need them you had better have them.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Treating gun owners like bar owners? (3/6/2013 10:12:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BlkTallFullfig Wow, that is more information than I ever wanted to know about hunting. Let it be known that I would never take away a man's fun weapons. Actually, yes I would, but that is for another thread. Do hunting weapons utilize high capacity magazines? I don't know enough about guns, outside of their destructiveness to humans/humanity. If hunting weapons, can also be utilized to mass murder people, they should absolutely regulated, and monitored. I hate the idea of big brother watching. What I hate even more however, is finding out too late, that my neigbor has been stockpiling, after he's taken out the neignorhood. Why do you call it 'fun weapons'? Unfortunately, this part of Appalachia has a lot of families that are in a situation of "If daddy does well during hunting season, we fill the freezer and the kids eat better this winter". It's not fun, it's feeding the family. Alaska has significant numbers of people who are in literal danger of starvation if the hunting season isn't successful. As jlf mentioned in a different thread, some hunters need high capacity mags for such tasks as culling the feral pig population. This is a multi billion dollar problem for agriculture in many states and they're tasty. The last thing you want with a fast moving, numerous and frequently agressive target is 5 rounds in a bolt action.

Kirata -> RE: Treating gun owners like bar owners? (3/6/2013 10:23:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam The last thing you want with a fast moving, numerous and frequently agressive target is 5 rounds in a bolt action. That holds true in personal defense situations too. A study on armed resistance to crime notes a U.S. Bureau of Justice statistic that victims face multiple offenders in 24% of incidents. K.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Treating gun owners like bar owners? (3/6/2013 10:28:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam The last thing you want with a fast moving, numerous and frequently agressive target is 5 rounds in a bolt action. That holds true in personal defense situations too. A study on armed resistance to crime notes a U.S. Bureau of Justice statistic that victims face multiple offenders in 24% of incidents. K. That's absolutely true. I was keeping my post strictly with hunting. In my own case about 20 years ago, I was facing 5 assailants. They realized my house was a bad target and they left. Noone hurt. ETA. The only time I ever called 911 when I lived in miami, the response time was a bit over 45 minutes and the person that finally showed up wasn't even a cop. It was an unarmed civilian volunteer.

PeonForHer -> RE: Treating gun owners like bar owners? (3/6/2013 10:30:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Every time I see a thread on guns and/or related issues, it makes me so glad that I live in a place where the laws about guns and gun ownership are strict and strictly enforced. Need I add that discussions like this thread never happen here? Like me, Tweak, you live in a country full of anti gun extremists. Begs the question of exactly what is meant by 'extremist', but there we are.

Kirata -> RE: Treating gun owners like bar owners? (3/6/2013 11:00:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Every time I see a thread on guns and/or related issues, it makes me so glad that I live in a place where the laws about guns and gun ownership are strict and strictly enforced. Need I add that discussions like this thread never happen here? Maybe they should... The Port Arthur massacre in 1996 transformed gun control legislation in Australia... Prime Minister John Howard, then newly elected, immediately took the gun law proposals developed from the report of the 1988 National Committee on Violence and forced the states to adopt them under a National Firearms Agreement. ~Wikipedia Mass Shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A Descriptive Study of Incidence The current paper examines the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand (a country that is socioeconomically similar to Australia, but with a different approach to firearms regulation) over a 30 year period. It does not find support for the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms has prevented mass shootings K.

tazzygirl -> RE: Treating gun owners like bar owners? (3/6/2013 11:20:48 AM)
~FR Other studies are more hesitant to draw conclusions about homicides, but generally agree that the law did a lot to reduce suicides. A study from Jeanine Baker of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia and Samara McPhedran, then of the University of Sydney, concluded (pdf) that suicide rates declined more rapidly after the law’s enactment, but found no significant result for homicides; Leigh and Neill argue (pdf) that this paper’s methodology is deeply flawed, as it includes the possibility that fewer than one death a year could occur. David Hemenway at the Harvard School of Public Health noted (pdf) that the Baker and McPhedran method would find that the law didn’t have a significant effect if there had been zero gun deaths in the year 2004, or if there weren’t negative deaths later on. The authors, he concluded, “should know better.” It goes on to say.... Another paper (pdf) by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi, looks at the firearm death rates in Australia over time and found no ”structural breaks” associated with the law. But Leigh and Neill note that, because of the large number of factors affecting gun violences, real changes due to the law could potentially not show up as “breaks.” “When policies have even modest lags, the structural breaktest can easily miss the effect,” Hemenway explains. “It can also miss the effect of the policy that occurs over several years.” Given those flaws in the studies showing no effect, the Leigh and Neill study appears the most reliable of the ones conducted. It seems reasonably clear, then, that the gun buyback led to a large decline in suicides, and weaker but real evidence that it reduced homicides as well. Such a buyback isn’t in the cards in the U.S. anytime soon — an equivalent buyback here would entail the destruction of 40 million guns — but the data suggest Howard might have a case. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

Real0ne -> RE: Treating gun owners like bar owners? (3/6/2013 11:30:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Every time I see a thread on guns and/or related issues, it makes me so glad that I live in a place where the laws about guns and gun ownership are strict and strictly enforced. Need I add that discussions like this thread never happen here? Like me, Tweak, you live in a country full of anti gun extremists. Begs the question of exactly what is meant by 'extremist', but there we are. anyone who disagrees with fads

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875