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

#51
#51
lawgator1 said:
I'm saying that, many times, people buy guns for a seemingly good reason, then someone takes it and lo and behold ....
Click to expand...

And many times people buy guns for a seemingly good reason and nothing happens or they successfully defend themselves, what's your point Einstein?
 
Last edited:
#52
#52
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...

Gun insurance? It would need to be mandated, regulated and provided by the government, of course. And if I can't afford such insurance, I assume it would be provided to me free of charge? Now that i think about it, we could probably provide this to every American (both legal and illegal) if we dip into Social Security and increase tax rates on the wealthy. Proof of gun insurance could be denoted on our National ID cards.

Sorry. Carry on.
:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#53
#53
Freak said:
Gun insurance? It would need to be mandated, regulated and provided by the government, of course. And if I can't afford such insurance, I assume it would be provided to me free of charge? Now that i think about it, we could probably provide this to every American (both legal and illegal) if we dip into Social Security and increase tax rates on the wealthy. Proof of gun insurance could be denoted on our National ID cards.

Sorry. Carry on.
:)
Click to expand...

You should post here more often.
 
#55
#55
lawgator1 said:
I'm saying that, many times, people buy guns for a seemingly good reason, then someone takes it and lo and behold ....
Click to expand...

And so what? People misuse legal items all the time, would it make the people less dead if they would have been beaten to death with a bat?
 
#56
#56
Ten_Titans said:
I am a proponent of the 2nd amendment, but there is no real reason for handguns to exist.

For home protection, a shotgun or rifle is vastly more effective than a handgun.

As for CCWs, I can see where people are coming from, but, while small, handguns are not CQC weapons. I've played around with Kali (knife Martial Art) before.. And frankly.. People who carry a knife with some training on how to use it are more readily able to defend themselves IMO. Also, given a small amount of training, knives can be effectively used to defend yourself in a non-lethal way. Where as handgun instructors teach to shoot until you see daylight.

Once again, JMO. I personally know many people who disagree vastly. But the people who can use a knife and a gun will prefer to just carry a knife instead of a CCW.
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah, a trained person will always have an advantage over an untrained individual.

I've had the training and learned one thing. It's always better to bring a gun to a knife fight!
 
#57
#57
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...

He/she is a lawyer, whoever has the deepest pockets is responsible.
 
#58
#58
I don't particularly support the theory of premises liability in which the property owner can be held liable when someone comes on the property and commits a crime.

But I understand it.

What if your wife or parent went to a store where there had been five robberies in the lot in a short time before, say a month. And the store, decided neither to warn people or to hire security. And lets say your loved one was attacked and injured.

Would you be so quick to absolve the store of any liability?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#60
#60
lawgator1 said:
I don't particularly support the theory of premises liability in which the property owner can be held liable when someone comes on the property and commits a crime.

But I understand it.

What if your wife or parent went to a store where there had been five robberies in the lot in a short time before, say a month. And the store, decided neither to warn people or to hire security. And lets say your loved one was attacked and injured.

Would you be so quick to absolve the store of any liability?
Click to expand...

Unless the store failed to report the robberies, which is unlikely, I'm sure it would have been in the news & way before the 5th robbery security would've been much better. After the 2nd robbery the 3rd robbery would've probably resulted in a dead robber after the store owner got fed up & armed himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#61
#61
hndog609 said:
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.
Click to expand...

F'n this.
 
#62
#62
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...

Only when you make the decision to operate it on a public road. Merely owning a car doesn't mean you have to purchase liability insurance. You don't even have to buy it when you drive on a private road. How does all of that apply to firearm's ownership?

For God's sake, isn't your mother embarrassed? My mom would slap me across the face and tell me to man up if I was acting like a weak-kneed, pre-pubescent girl like you.
 
#63
#63
lawgator1 said:
I don't particularly support the theory of premises liability in which the property owner can be held liable when someone comes on the property and commits a crime.

But I understand it.

What if your wife or parent went to a store where there had been five robberies in the lot in a short time before, say a month. And the store, decided neither to warn people or to hire security. And lets say your loved one was attacked and injured.

Would you be so quick to absolve the store of any liability?
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely I would absolve the store. Liability lies fully with the perpetrator.

It is ridiculous to try and place blame anywhere but on the actions of those responsible. Your line of thinking is exactly what wrong with society today.
 
#64
#64
lawgator1 said:
What if your wife or parent went to a store where there had been five robberies in the lot in a short time before, say a month. And the store, decided neither to warn people or to hire security. And lets say your loved one was attacked and injured.

Would you be so quick to absolve the store of any liability?
Click to expand...

Yes. I wouldn't consider the store liable for the actions of thieves. Sounds like a sleazy mentality to have.
 
#69
#69
Anti gun threads crack me up. The fact is, the right to have guns is in our law. I will always have guns, as long as I live. Sorry anti gun nuts, you will just have to live with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#70
#70
Freak said:
Gun insurance? It would need to be mandated, regulated and provided by the government, of course. And if I can't afford such insurance, I assume it would be provided to me free of charge? Now that i think about it, we could probably provide this to every American (both legal and illegal) if we dip into Social Security and increase tax rates on the wealthy. Proof of gun insurance could be denoted on our National ID cards.

Sorry. Carry on.
:)
Click to expand...

He's just looking for another income stream.....too much competition chasing ambulances and bogus workers comp claims . .....not to mention the sharper knives are the ones that make the cut.....the dull ones get left in the drawer
 
#72
#72
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...

lighting is not to blame for a worthless human being deciding to attack another. Quit trying to make excuses for a criminal that has no business being allowed in society
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#73
#73
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...

No, we don't. Not at all.
 
#74
#74
govols/cc said:
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.
Click to expand...

Better check on that......You are outlining two entirely different situations.
 
#75
#75
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...

In LG's case.....EVERYONE SHOULD PAY. SUE THEM ALL and let the courts sort them out. The lawyers get paid either way.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top