What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

USA Shootings (10 Viewers)

dkp993 said:
Sure, of course.  But I don’t know how much more clear I can be.  

Which side am I on? I’m in the middle.  I’m not anti gun and see there value in the right context. But I also understand they are extremely dangerous and as a society we have an addiction and issue with guns.

For your other question I can’t lay it out better then I have already in previous posts today.   
Click to expand...
Which side do you think I'm on?

 
-fish- said:
So your question is should I have liability for not securing a knife when there is no law requiring me to secure my knife?  The answer is yes, if that rises to the level of criminal negligence.

But that’s not actually what we’re talking about, so it’s a useless question.
Click to expand...
Seems you talk a lot with not a lot to say.

Have a nice day.

 
zDragon said:
Seems you talk a lot with not a lot to say.

Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
Seems like you were trying for some "gotcha" because he said SC should be liable if he has an unsecured gun get stolen and used in a crime.  

I take it you are in SC's camp that thinks guns, knives, and baseball bats should be treated equally? 

 
dkp993 said:
I’m going to let this lay here.  Not sure I have the energy or ammunition to defend my thoughts.  But generally the same. 
Click to expand...
Why would it be difficult to defend your thoughts? 

But, you agree that we are generally the same. As many have pointed out, there are very few people that are at one extreme or the other. Where the conversation breaks down is over the specifics of things like registry, weapons bans, etc.

I would argue there is more difference between the people in the middle, than many realize. 

 
KCitons said:
Why would it be difficult to defend your thoughts? 

But, you agree that we are generally the same. As many have pointed out, there are very few people that are at one extreme or the other. Where the conversation breaks down is over the specifics of things like registry, weapons bans, etc.

I would argue there is more difference between the people in the middle, than many realize. 
Click to expand...
I really just don’t want to get into a nuanced discussion about what I view your position is.   

Re: bolded- No. That what I think your perception of your position is generally the same as my perception of your position.    

 
dkp993 said:
I really just don’t want to get into a nuanced discussion about what I view your position is.   

Re: bolded- No. That what I think your perception of your position is generally the same as my perception of your position.    
Click to expand...
This would be an example of not wanting to have an honest discussion.

I've stated that I want want universal background checks. I'd also be for expanding the reasons why a person would be denied purchase to include alcohol abuse. I'm still on the fence about magazine capacity. I'm against bans on specific types of weapons. I'm for funding studies to gather granular data on every aspect of every shooting that we can. I believe that each regulation should have two things in mind. Prevention and in line with the 2nd Amendment. 

I don't care what others think the purpose of a gun is, or isn't. I'm sure they knew what the purpose was when the 2nd Amendment was written. 

 
KarmaPolice said:
Seems like you were trying for some "gotcha" because he said SC should be liable if he has an unsecured gun get stolen and used in a crime.  

I take it you are in SC's camp that thinks guns, knives, and baseball bats should be treated equally? 
Click to expand...
Direct answers to questions are a problem when the answer doesn’t fit the agenda.

 
KarmaPolice said:
I take it you are in SC's camp that thinks guns, knives, and baseball bats should be treated equally? 
Click to expand...
did I ever say treated equally ?

I don't think I did ... because they should be treated differently in that I don't think there should be an age limit to buy a bat do you? 

I do not think you should lock up bats and knives at night, do you ?

Don't tell me what to do in my home .... why is that so hard? And if I am a victim of a crime, please don't prosecute me for it - that's insane

that's insane IMO

 
Stealthycat said:
did I ever say treated equally ?

I don't think I did ... because they should be treated differently in that I don't think there should be an age limit to buy a bat do you? 

I do not think you should lock up bats and knives at night, do you ?

Don't tell me what to do in my home .... why is that so hard? And if I am a victim of a crime, please don't prosecute me for it - that's insane

that's insane IMO
Click to expand...
You admit they aren’t treated equally.  Then you argue that they should be treated equally.  Why do you lie so much?

 
How hard is it to understand that not securing guns is stupid and negligent?

in some states, it’s criminal.  Why can’t a law abiding citizen understand that?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
“Responsible” gun owners argue that they shouldn’t have to be responsible.  Why is that?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat said:
if they took a knife from your car are you responsible ? 
Click to expand...
You still can’t admit that in your own state you are responsible for the consequences if you leave your car unlocked with the key in it.   Even though that’s the law.  How can you be a law abiding citizen?

 
Stealthycat said:
did I ever say treated equally ?
Click to expand...
You have said repeatedly that the object does not matter.  If someone wants to kill a bunch of people they can do so with guns, or fire, or knives, or baseball bats.  Gun bans wont save lives because of these statements.  Is that an accurate reflection of your posts in here?  

 
-fish- said:
You still can’t admit that in your own state you are responsible for the consequences if you leave your car unlocked with the key in it.   Even though that’s the law.  How can you be a law abiding citizen?
Click to expand...
why do you keep going back to that lie?

as for your other ramblings .... they're not worthy of a response to be honest. I do not believe that a victim of a crime should be guilty of whatever the criminals did afterwards .... I think that entire concept is insane. you do too - except in the case of guns because you're a scared rabbit

that's ok - to be scared. Some people just are ... and then there are people who stand up and fight and will not be victims. 

you do what you want in your home, please allow the same courtesy to me

 
KarmaPolice said:
You have said repeatedly that the object does not matter.  If someone wants to kill a bunch of people they can do so with guns, or fire, or knives, or baseball bats.  Gun bans wont save lives because of these statements.  Is that an accurate reflection of your posts in here?  
Click to expand...
sigh

ya'll have a real hard time staying on point and merging different concepts

I will try again KarmaPolice because your posts at least are not trolling, they have validity unlike fish's

You cannot stop someone with words or laws. If the guy down the street from you wanted to break into your home tonight, could you stop him? Probably not. You could deter him with gates, a dog, locked doors, fences, security system etc.

The same is true with violence. If that guy wanted to kill you .... he's got a really good chance at doing so. He could use an AR15, a car, poison, a bomb, a knife, a bat ...... that person and his/her intentions have the advantage every time. 

so ... the object they're using for a weapon does not matter do you see that? It matters maybe in how you defend yourself or in fish's case not defending yourself, but what object they use towards you? they're going to do what they want and if you take their AR15, they'll use a rifle, take that they'll use a handgun, take that they'll use a knife, take than and they will ..... see what I mean ? The objects they use isn't the core problem - THEY ARE

does that make more sense ?

 
Stealthycat said:
sigh

ya'll have a real hard time staying on point and merging different concepts

I will try again KarmaPolice because your posts at least are not trolling, they have validity unlike fish's

You cannot stop someone with words or laws. If the guy down the street from you wanted to break into your home tonight, could you stop him? Probably not. You could deter him with gates, a dog, locked doors, fences, security system etc.

The same is true with violence. If that guy wanted to kill you .... he's got a really good chance at doing so. He could use an AR15, a car, poison, a bomb, a knife, a bat ...... that person and his/her intentions have the advantage every time. 

so ... the object they're using for a weapon does not matter do you see that? It matters maybe in how you defend yourself or in fish's case not defending yourself, but what object they use towards you? they're going to do what they want and if you take their AR15, they'll use a rifle, take that they'll use a handgun, take that they'll use a knife, take than and they will ..... see what I mean ? The objects they use isn't the core problem - THEY ARE

does that make more sense ?
Click to expand...
The problem with the bolded and your posts in general is that at no point do you address the chance that the attack will be successful if the person is forced to choose another weapon.  In failing to admit there is a difference, IMO you are implying that you believe the objects don't matter at all, and that you believe there is 0 difference in a guy coming into your house with a gun vs. a bat.   That is what I want I was asking if you truly believe that, since that is what it seems as you post that the objects don't matter over and over again.  

I don't think you believe that because the reason that people choose guns as a popular weapon to commit crimes is the same reason you choose to defend yourself with one.  It's efficient, quick, you don't need to be close to the person, etc...  If all that is true, then yes, the objects we are talking about do matter, and it's why people would be fine making it so that somebody hellbent on death and destruction has to try to do so with a bag knives vs. a bag of guns.  

Again - never have I said that we don't need to address the people side of the equation, I am just arguing that your constant evasion of this and saying that objects don't matter is just not true.  

 
KarmaPolice said:
The problem with the bolded and your posts in general is that at no point do you address the chance that the attack will be successful if the person is forced to choose another weapon.  In failing to admit there is a difference, IMO you are implying that you believe the objects don't matter at all, and that you believe there is 0 difference in a guy coming into your house with a gun vs. a bat.   That is what I want I was asking if you truly believe that, since that is what it seems as you post that the objects don't matter over and over again.  

I don't think you believe that because the reason that people choose guns as a popular weapon to commit crimes is the same reason you choose to defend yourself with one.  It's efficient, quick, you don't need to be close to the person, etc...  If all that is true, then yes, the objects we are talking about do matter, and it's why people would be fine making it so that somebody hellbent on death and destruction has to try to do so with a bag knives vs. a bag of guns.  

Again - never have I said that we don't need to address the people side of the equation, I am just arguing that your constant evasion of this and saying that objects don't matter is just not true.  
Click to expand...


and you refuse to see that remove 1 type of weapon they'll pick up another and kill you with that ............... can you tell me why that isn't valid ?

 
Stealthycat said:
why do you keep going back to that lie?

as for your other ramblings .... they're not worthy of a response to be honest. I do not believe that a victim of a crime should be guilty of whatever the criminals did afterwards .... I think that entire concept is insane. you do too - except in the case of guns because you're a scared rabbit

that's ok - to be scared. Some people just are ... and then there are people who stand up and fight and will not be victims. 

you do what you want in your home, please allow the same courtesy to me
Click to expand...
27-51-1306. Unattended motor vehicles.

No person driving or in charge of a motor vehicle shall permit it to stand unattended without first stopping the engine, locking the ignition, and removing the key, or, when standing upon any perceptible grade, without effectively setting the brake and turning the front wheels to the curb or side of the highway.

It is illegal in your state to leave your car unattended, unlocked with the key in it.

An illegal act is, under the law, negligence per se.  That means that you can be held liable for the consequences.  

What don't you understand about this?

 
Stealthycat said:
and you refuse to see that remove 1 type of weapon they'll pick up another and kill you with that ............... can you tell me why that isn't valid ?
Click to expand...
Not 100% refusing that.  IMO they MIGHT pick up something else, and the other object that they choose to use will make it so they are less likely to be successful at accomplishing their task.  Just like if somebody is breaking into your house, you want a gun and not poison or a baseball bat.  

Hence, the objects that we are talking about matter.  

 
-fish- said:
27-51-1306. Unattended motor vehicles.

No person driving or in charge of a motor vehicle shall permit it to stand unattended without first stopping the engine, locking the ignition, and removing the key, or, when standing upon any perceptible grade, without effectively setting the brake and turning the front wheels to the curb or side of the highway.

It is illegal in your state to leave your car unattended, unlocked with the key in it.

An illegal act is, under the law, negligence per se.  That means that you can be held liable for the consequences.  

What don't you understand about this?
Click to expand...
http://enginesoff.com/2_7_laws_ordinances.htm

I hate our Puffer laws here in Colorado on cold mornings, but I comply.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
http://enginesoff.com/2_7_laws_ordinances.htm

I hate our Puffer laws here in Colorado on cold mornings, but I comply.
Click to expand...
As you're well aware, normally an intervening criminal act would break the chain of causation, but where that is a foreseeable harm, such as SC keeping loaded guns in his glove compartment, liability attaches.  Although shown this on multiple occasions, SC still argues that he cannot be held responsible for someone stealing his unsecured weapons.   

As a responsible gun owner, do you leave weapons unsecured in your home or vehicle?

 
-fish- said:
As you're well aware, normally an intervening criminal act would break the chain of causation, but where that is a foreseeable harm, such as SC keeping loaded guns in his glove compartment, liability attaches.  Although shown this on multiple occasions, SC still argues that he cannot be held responsible for someone stealing his unsecured weapons.   

As a responsible gun owner, do you leave weapons unsecured in your home or vehicle?
Click to expand...
Me, no. I have a rather substantial gun safe in my basement.  in addition a have those weapons unloaded and secured with trigger locks or action locks.  Further, the ammunition I keep is inside of an additional fire rated safe.  In my bedroom I keep a pistol safe biometrically controlled to my fingerprints.

When I transport guns, to go to the range I have them in a shooters bag.  Same when going hunting, but my long guns go in a lockable hard case.  They are unloaded and with trigger locks or cables through the open action.  I am no longer required to carry and so I do not.  My belief is that the potential utility of carrying for personal protection is outweighed by the risk of accident or ill-considered anger.  Others disagree, obviously. 

I have had a time or two in my life where I might have wanted a weapon on me and did not have one.  In the end those instances played out well enough without the weapon. 

 
Stealthycat said:
i'd love to live in a place like that - reality is, many people don't and home/self protection is what many choose. 
Click to expand...
Personally I think, while places like that do exist, most people don't live in places like that, and those who believe they do live in a place like that are severe cases of hyberbole of their experience of reality. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice said:
Seems like you were trying for some "gotcha" because he said SC should be liable if he has an unsecured gun get stolen and used in a crime.  

I take it you are in SC's camp that thinks guns, knives, and baseball bats should be treated equally? 
Click to expand...
Nope.  I had no gotcha. Just wanted to see if he could directly answer a question. Nothing hard or sneaky about it.

And you would be wrong. Not sure what logic would even lead you to the conclusion.

As far as knives and bats being treated the same as guns of course not.   That makes no logical sense at all.

I've stated else where that people similar to the ones in this thread are the main reason we can't get common sense gun laws here.  Basically all talk, posturing, and an unwillingness to simply look at the problem logically.  

I pointed out the New Zealand laws as an example.  They have done a good job and still allowed enthusiast.

 
-fish- said:
As you're well aware, normally an intervening criminal act would break the chain of causation, but where that is a foreseeable harm, such as SC keeping loaded guns in his glove compartment, liability attaches.  Although shown this on multiple occasions, SC still argues that he cannot be held responsible for someone stealing his unsecured weapons.   

As a responsible gun owner, do you leave weapons unsecured in your home or vehicle?
Click to expand...
Never.  My house and car are always locked.  A gun in the car's console or in a bedroom drawer is secured by the car and house locks. 

P.S. I've only read the last two pages of this thread, in case this has been covered fifty times already.

P.P.S  Full disclosure.  The sole purpose of the bedroom gun is kill someone breaking in and trying to harm us.

 
Oh, the precautions I take with my firearms are those which are prudent coupled with some which are unnecessary but are solid signals of my responsibility so as to back off any overly officious intermeddlers in my affairs.  I do not want any misunderstandings if I get pulled over during hunting season.  I do not want any ambiguity if my house gets robbed or burgled and my weapons turn up in the wrong hands. 

Also, I do not want any curiosity by my wife or child to lead to tragedy due to inexperience handling firearms. 

 
I imagine there are two dozen or more witnesses being that this was at Costco, where only Disney has more people crammed in on a weekend. My bet is this was completely unjustified and that this cop will end up skating. 

 
Jobber said:
I imagine there are two dozen or more witnesses being that this was at Costco, where only Disney has more people crammed in on a weekend. My bet is this was completely unjustified and that this cop will end up skating. 
Click to expand...
Unless you're on of the two dozen witnesses, how can you make the bolded statement with any certainty? 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
At Least 181 K-12 Educators/Teachers Charged With Child Sex Crimes In First Half Of 2022 (10/1/22 9:22 PST)
Replies
36
Views
1K
tymarsas
T
GordonGekko
Did UC Berkeley Law School Enable "Jewish Free Zones" & Antisemitism With Pro Israel Speaker Bans? ( 10/2/22 11:12 PST)
Replies
10
Views
582
(HULK)
(HULK)
E
Taking Politics Out of Public Schools
Replies
37
Views
882
MAC_32
MAC_32

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 11 (members: 0, guests: 11)
Top