I guess you didn't read the rest of my posts. It's not the policeman, per se. It's the circumstance in which armed security is necessary. No. It doesn't make me feel better knowing that one or two armed policemen are stationed at the entrance to the movie theater I'm going into are there to protect me. I'd rather stay home and Red Box a movie.

I had not read the rest, I edited and re-asked my question.

Good point. But hammers, axes and propane tanks are not bought for the purpose of harming. In the case of the hammer and ax as weapons, we can go into the whole cultural dynamic of the time that such were primary weapons of war, but it's really not relative to the current debate. And, we should thank the propane tank inventors for our current abilty to grill conveniently.

 

I have no issue with people owning guns. And I have stated that NUMEROUS times. I have huge, HUGE problems with unchecked gun ownership. Guns have no use other than to kill or maim. You can call target shooting a use, but in the end, you target shoot because you want to destroy...at least you've mentioned that as a source of enjoyment a few times....but I won't bring up the objects you mentioned.

A firearm is not made to maim and kill anymore than a bottle of bourbon, a bat or hammer is. Each has a use and each can be mis-used and lead to harm or injury others.

 

 

As to KYTM's question, I just want to know reasonable argument against liability insurance against a dangerous device. At the very least, it protects someone who may be wounded, or the family of someone wounded or killed by a gun. It could also protect the owner of the gun from catastrophic finacial circumstances related to a civil suit leveled against them in such an instance.

 

I think it's an intersting proposaly that KYTM brings to the table. Heck, I'm for much stronger measures. I want automatic charges to be brought against the owners of guns involved in "accidental shootings". There is absolutely no incentive to be responsible.

Well one pretty big incentive is the safety and life of those they love...think that is a much bigger incentive than $$$$ or jail time.

 

Your two year old finds your loaded handgun in your night stand drawer and shoots and kills herself? Awwww....a tragedy. Your 13 year old son finds your high powered rifle and unsecured ammo and loads the gun and shoots his friend....again...awww...so sad for the parents...a tragedy. Those are senseless, irresponsible gun owners. And no one will convince me otherwise.

Those are tragedies, I agree. Isn't it just as irresponsible that the neighborhood watering hole or hotel bar just keeps bringing the drinks racking up the tab and then turns a blind eye when the guy that just had 12 drinks goes to the parking lot and leaves.

A firearm is not made to maim and kill anymore than a bottle of bourbon, a bat or hammer is. Each has a use and each can be mis-used and lead to harm or injury others.

 

Please stop, because statements like this do not help your argument. Guns have one purpose, and that is to stop whatever you're shooting at. You can say "I'm just doing it for target practice." But if you're doing that, what's the point unless you're preparing for the moment of truth -- when deadly and/or debilitating force is needed? If it wasn't, target shooters would opt for BB guns. Heckuvalot cheaper.

Please stop, because statements like this do not help your argument. Guns have one purpose, and that is to stop whatever you're shooting at. You can say "I'm just doing it for target practice." But if you're doing that, what's the point unless you're preparing for the moment of truth -- when deadly and/or debilitating force is needed? If it wasn't, target shooters would opt for BB guns. Heckuvalot cheaper.

 

Agreed. It's irrelevant how it's used.

I think it's an intersting proposaly that KYTM brings to the table. Heck, I'm for much stronger measures. I want automatic charges to be brought against the owners of guns involved in "accidental shootings". There is absolutely no incentive to be responsible. Your two year old finds your loaded handgun in your night stand drawer and shoots and kills herself? Awwww....a tragedy. Your 13 year old son finds your high powered rifle and unsecured ammo and loads the gun and shoots his friend....again...awww...so sad for the parents...a tragedy. Those are senseless, irresponsible gun owners. And no one will convince me otherwise.

 

I'd really, REALLY love to see the breakdown of gun incidents by legal gun owners, criminal against innocent victim, and criminal against criminal.

 

So then do you support the idiot parents who leave children in cars in summer being prosecuted if their child dies? And I'm not just talking the stupid person who left her kid in a car while she came down from a high and was convicted, but also the professional man who was so consumed with getting to work that he forgot his son was in the back seat. He was not prosecuted.

 

So then do you support the idiot parents who leave children in cars in summer being prosecuted if their child dies? And I'm not just talking the stupid person who left her kid in a car while she came down from a high and was convicted, but also the professional man who was so consumed with getting to work that he forgot his son was in the back seat. He was not prosecuted.

 

Of course I am! Why would you think otherwise?

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner

Please stop, because statements like this do not help your argument. Guns have one purpose, and that is to stop whatever you're shooting at. You can say "I'm just doing it for target practice." But if you're doing that, what's the point unless you're preparing for the moment of truth -- when deadly and/or debilitating force is needed? If it wasn't, target shooters would opt for BB guns. Heckuvalot cheaper.

This is true for some people and some weapons, but absolutely not true for many others. You just can't paint with that broad of a brush.

Please stop, because statements like this do not help your argument. Guns have one purpose, and that is to stop whatever you're shooting at. You can say "I'm just doing it for target practice." But if you're doing that, what's the point unless you're preparing for the moment of truth -- when deadly and/or debilitating force is needed? If it wasn't, target shooters would opt for BB guns. Heckuvalot cheaper.

 

Probably true in many cases but there are a ton of people who want nothing more than to shoot targets for the fun of it. My son is one of them. Never even knew he had a knack for it until his first shooting campout when he knocked 25 clay pigeons out in 29 attempts. A competition shooting team practicing nearby tried to recruit him to join but he was too in to football. He's actually still quite wary of guns and does not own any but he does like to go out and shoot the clay targets.

Please stop, because statements like this do not help your argument. Guns have one purpose, and that is to stop whatever you're shooting at. You can say "I'm just doing it for target practice." But if you're doing that, what's the point unless you're preparing for the moment of truth -- when deadly and/or debilitating force is needed? If it wasn't, target shooters would opt for BB guns. Heckuvalot cheaper.

You really are showing your ignorance on the subject every time you make this same argument. Skeet shooting is a huge industry, heck it's a freaking Olympic sport. 3 gun competitions have become huge. There are many different competitive shooting competitions where guns are made for no other reason then for that competition.

Of course I am! Why would you think otherwise?

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner

 

I honestly didn't know and asked because I have heard people that want owners of guns severely punished when an injury or death occurs because they are irresponsible but are willing to forego punishment in the cases I stated because "they've already suffered their punishment". For what it's worth I fully support prosecuting someone who carelessly stores a gun and who's carelessness leads to an injury or death.

Are we willing to prosecute smokers who subject family members to second hand smoke?

Are we willing to prosecute home owners who have a family member drown in their backyard swimming pool?

Are we willing to prosecute someone who leaves their keys on the kitchen table and their 12 year old kid takes a joy ride and has a fatal accident?

 

Very slippery slope.

 

Saw this on Youtube and thought this kid gets it. Not only that, he is wearing a Reds hat. Gotta love it.

I see the 'guns' are for this and that from people who obviously do not use guns. Most assume it strickly an anti-personnel weapon - i.e. made for human to human action or just target shooting to be prepared for person to person action. Of course there is hunting - and those weapons are usually far more powerful than the 'assault guns' (gag - I really hate this made up term that is worthless except for scaring people). But in rural, farming and wilderness areas guns are used often and usually against animals. Vermin (rats, etc.) are hunted with guns on farms. BTW - the infamous assault rifle is one of the tools of choice for this. If you are alone in bear inhabited areas having an 'assault rifle' with lots of rounds is useful and some would say required.

 

There are lot of simplistic assumptions flying around - the media, the politicians, etc. And they rush to make bad laws. Sounds like AHCA all over again.

This is true for some people and some weapons, but absolutely not true for many others. You just can't paint with that broad of a brush.

 

Probably true in many cases but there are a ton of people who want nothing more than to shoot targets for the fun of it. My son is one of them. Never even knew he had a knack for it until his first shooting campout when he knocked 25 clay pigeons out in 29 attempts. A competition shooting team practicing nearby tried to recruit him to join but he was too in to football. He's actually still quite wary of guns and does not own any but he does like to go out and shoot the clay targets.

 

You really are showing your ignorance on the subject every time you make this same argument. Skeet shooting is a huge industry, heck it's a freaking Olympic sport. 3 gun competitions have become huge. There are many different competitive shooting competitions where guns are made for no other reason then for that competition.

 

Guns were not invented for the purpose of skeet shooting, no more than a bow and arrow were invented solely for bulls-eyes. Please stop. There's better ways of making the argument than trying this one.

Guns were not invented for the purpose of skeet shooting, no more than a bow and arrow were invented solely for bulls-eyes. Please stop. There's better ways of making the argument than trying this one.

 

Invented????? What in God's name does that have to do with the different ways people want to use them? Knives were also invented to kill. So were bats(clubs). Fact remains that there are many people who want to use them in ways that have nothing to do with killing.