Gun bought for personal protection: how'd that work out?

#29
#29
hndog609 said:
Anyone familiar with the Tueller Drill can smell what you're cooking but let's face it, you talk to anyone that makes a habit of putting themselves in harms way and you'll find damn few (I'm hedging here, I'd honestly expect none) that would opt for a knife over a firearm outside of some very finite scenarios.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I would agree with this. As far as self defense goes a gun is probably more effective. That said, going down the street to get your groceries, a person with some training will defend themselves from 99% of attacks with their knife in a CQ situation that another person could with a gun. This is minus Gun costs, classes, and everything else that goes with carry permits. On top of that, it doesn't have to be lethal. Doesn't sound like a big deal. But pulling a gun and shooting someone who is attacking you without a weapon is a sticky situation, even if it is warranted. I think we can all think of an ongoing trial about that.

As far as an offensive weapon in CQ, it isn't close. I would take a gun-armed robber any day over a knife. Atleast with a gun it is either a disarm or I am shot. With a knife.. SOOO much can go wrong with any disarm you pick, even against someone with no training
 
#30
#30
Freak said:
Story references sex with a runaway. Crimes of passion are rampant in today's society and could be prevented by legislating the extermination of women. IMO.
Click to expand...


Reducing it to its most rudimentary possibilities, as though there were no others, come on you can do better.

How about we hold the father who bought the gun financially responsible for the deaths? Make him buy adequate insurance when he buys the gun to cover such an eventuality.

We require people who buy cars to buy insurance for the car, because ti is a dangerous instrumentality. Same could surely be said for guns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#32
#32
lawgator1 said:
Reducing it to its most rudimentary possibilities, as though there were no others, come on you can do better.

How about we hold the father who bought the gun financially responsible for the deaths? Make him buy adequate insurance when he buys the gun to cover such an eventuality.

We require people who buy cars to buy insurance for the car, because ti is a dangerous instrumentality. Same could surely be said for guns.
Click to expand...

So if somebody steals your car & plows through a playground killing kids you're responsible?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#33
#33
lawgator1 said:
Reducing it to its most rudimentary possibilities, as though there were no others, come on you can do better.

How about we hold the father who bought the gun financially responsible for the deaths? Make him buy adequate insurance when he buys the gun to cover such an eventuality.

We require people who buy cars to buy insurance for the car, because ti is a dangerous instrumentality. Same could surely be said for guns.
Click to expand...

What about knives, or fireworks, or anything else that COULD kill people?
 
#34
#34
lawgator1 said:
Reducing it to its most rudimentary possibilities, as though there were no others, come on you can do better.

How about we hold the father who bought the gun financially responsible for the deaths? Make him buy adequate insurance when he buys the gun to cover such an eventuality.

We require people who buy cars to buy insurance for the car, because ti is a
dangerous instrumentality. Same could surely be said for guns.
Click to expand...

That first paragraph summarizes the moronic stance in the Zimmerman trial. But anyway, what would insurance do in this case? If your car is stolen you're not responsible. Unless of course you want people to be able to replace their stolen gun.
 
#35
#35
volinbham said:
Watch this and tell me most women and many men would be better off with a shotgun than a handgun.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/v/dwDFWX33lSI[/youtube]
Click to expand...

Yes, firing weapons without training is a bad idea. If you don't want to learn how to use it you don't need a gun at all. I wouldn't trust those women with a handgun either.
 
#36
#36
govols/cc said:
So if somebody steals your car & plows through a playground killing kids you're responsible?
Click to expand...


Two different issues.

You can be sued if you negligently allowed it to be stolen. The more common is where you "lend" it to someone. Now, insurance might not cover it, but you can be sued, its just a question of not having indemnity.

If the purchaser has to insure the gun for the life of the gun, that spreads the cost to the gun owners for losses created by the use/misuse/abuse of the gun. When you think about it, that is actually a very conservative principle -- those using the product or service are the ones paying for damages caused thereby.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#38
#38
LG so your suggesting gun owners buy insurance to cover these criminal acts? Aren't criminal acts excluded from coverage in liability policies?
 
#39
#39
lawgator1 said:
Reducing it to its most rudimentary possibilities, as though there were no others, come on you can do better.

How about we hold the father who bought the gun financially responsible for the deaths? Make him buy adequate insurance when he buys the gun to cover such an eventuality.

We require people who buy cars to buy insurance for the car, because ti is a dangerous instrumentality. Same could surely be said for guns.
Click to expand...

Last paragraph is pure comedy considering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#40
#40
lawgator1 said:
Two different issues.

You can be sued if you negligently allowed it to be stolen. The more common is where you "lend" it to someone. Now, insurance might not cover it, but you can be sued, its just a question of not having indemnity.

If the purchaser has to insure the gun for the life of the gun, that spreads the cost to the gun owners for losses created by the use/misuse/abuse of the gun. When you think about it, that is actually a very conservative principle -- those using the product or service are the ones paying for damages caused thereby.
Click to expand...

If I leave my keys in my car while I run in the store to get a cup of coffee while it may not be a smart move the thief will be held accountable just the same. If I have a gun in my nightstand & somebody breaks in while I'm gone & steals it they are accountable the same. The crimes they commit after the first crime they already committed is in no way shape or form a liability on me.
 
#41
#41
OrangePack82 said:
LG so your suggesting gun owners buy insurance to cover these criminal acts? Aren't criminal acts excluded from coverage in liability policies?
Click to expand...

Not if negligence led to the criminal act, ie the supermarket has bad lighting in parking lot leads to attack.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#42
#42
lawgator1 said:
Not if negligence led to the criminal act, ie the supermarket has bad lighting in parking lot leads to attack.
Click to expand...

Lol. So who's at fault? The light bulb company who didn't make bright enough lights, the contractors who didn't add enough lighting, or the grocery store? Of course it's definitely not the actual criminal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#43
#43
lawgator1 said:
Not if negligence led to the criminal act, ie the supermarket has bad lighting in parking lot leads to attack.
Click to expand...

If I leave my carry weapon on a playground park bench and some kid picks it up and starts shooting maybe we can talk. If a criminal has to enter my home or break into my car to obtain said weapon...ummm, no. Any use of force (and that includes defeating a lock/breaking a window) takes any "negligence" off the table as far as I'm concerned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#44
#44
lawgator1 said:
Not if negligence led to the criminal act, ie the supermarket has bad lighting in parking lot leads to attack.
Click to expand...

Your talking about a private business not a citizen. I know my umbrella policy specifically has provisions that any criminal act or omissions on my part will result in them not covering any damages.
 
#45
#45
govols/cc said:
Lol. So who's at fault? The light bulb company who didn't make bright enough lights, the contractors who didn't add enough lighting, or the grocery store? Of course it's definitely not the actual criminal.
Click to expand...

I've never understood this thinking.
 
#48
#48
tumscalcium said:
?
Click to expand...

Maybe I misunderstood you. LG wants to blame everything & everybody other that the actual people who commit crimes or do whatever. Like if somebody robs a bank it's not the robber's fault it's the bank's fault for having too much money.
 
#49
#49
govols/cc said:
Maybe I misunderstood you. LG wants to blame everything & everybody other that the actual people who commit crimes or do whatever. Like if somebody robs a bank it's not the robber's fault it's the bank's fault for having too much money.
Click to expand...

that right there is the liberal mindset of thinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#50
#50
govols/cc said:
Maybe I misunderstood you. LG wants to blame everything & everybody other that the actual people who commit crimes or do whatever. Like if somebody robs a bank it's not the robber's fault it's the bank's fault for having too much money.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I worded it poorly. Personal responsibility is just flat out gone anymore.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top