or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Massacre in Connecticut
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Massacre in Connecticut - Page 13

post #481 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


I'd love to see that lawsuit go forward. People who are so irresponsible that they can allow their firearms to be stolen belong in jail. This would just drive that message forward.

 

 

 

Quote:
The thieves ransacked the house Wednesday night, breaking into two safes on the home's third floor and stealing a third safe. The guns were in the stolen safe, police said.

 

Oh you're so right. LOCK THEM UP!!11

post #482 of 1058

People are human and make mistakes in life.No one is perfect!
 

post #483 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I'd love to see that lawsuit go forward. People who are so irresponsible that they can allow their firearms to be stolen belong in jail. This would just drive that message forward.
Quote:
The thieves ransacked the house Wednesday night, breaking into two safes on the home's third floor and stealing a third safe. The guns were in the stolen safe, police said.

Oh you're so right. LOCK THEM UP!!11
Lol. They put guns in a "safe" that's not bolted down from the inside. Their other "safes" are pickable, crackable... Like I said too irresponsible to own a fucking gun.

Either that or they sold the guns and made up the story, and conveniently get to blame the whole thing on someone else.
post #484 of 1058

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #485 of 1058
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


I'd love to see that lawsuit go forward. People who are so irresponsible that they can allow their firearms to be stolen belong in jail. This would just drive that message forward.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Lol. They put guns in a "safe" that's not bolted down from the inside. Their other "safes" are pickable, crackable... Like I said too irresponsible to own a fucking gun.

Either that or they sold the guns and made up the story, and conveniently get to blame the whole thing on someone else.

 

You have to be kidding me.  The paper directly exposed them to this crime.  Tell me...what if someone is murdered as a result of this map?  What if there is a rise in crime in neighborhoods with fewer guns as listed on the map?  This paper's actions are beyond reckless.  Speaking as someone that has dealt with a certain amount of liability case studies (and who has family members that do it for a living), I can tell you such a lawsuit has a very good chance of succeeding.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #486 of 1058

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #487 of 1058

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #488 of 1058

Most of you guys are to dam arrogant for your own good and have   no respect for others with postings like this.
 

post #489 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I'd love to see that lawsuit go forward. People who are so irresponsible that they can allow their firearms to be stolen belong in jail. This would just drive that message forward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Lol. They put guns in a "safe" that's not bolted down from the inside. Their other "safes" are pickable, crackable... Like I said too irresponsible to own a fucking gun.


Either that or they sold the guns and made up the story, and conveniently get to blame the whole thing on someone else.

You have to be kidding me.  The paper directly exposed them to this crime.  Tell me...what if someone is murdered as a result of this map?  What if there is a rise in crime in neighborhoods with fewer guns as listed on the map?  This paper's actions are beyond reckless.  Speaking as someone that has dealt with a certain amount of liability case studies (and who has family members that do it for a living), I can tell you such a lawsuit has a very good chance of succeeding.  
So at the end of the day you're excusing these irresponsible gun owners for having their guns stolen. Everyone says that guns aren't the problem. How can you also not recognize that irresponsible gun ownership is definitely part of the problem. The gun owner did NOT have a "safe". A metal box you buy at Home Depot is not a "safe" unless it is 1) secure from picking/cracking and 2) bolted down or too heavy to move. Failure to recognize that means the gun owners shouldn't have been owning a gun.
post #490 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


So at the end of the day you're excusing these irresponsible gun owners for having their guns stolen. Everyone says that guns aren't the problem. How can you also not recognize that irresponsible gun ownership is definitely part of the problem. The gun owner did NOT have a "safe". A metal box you buy at Home Depot is not a "safe" unless it is 1) secure from picking/cracking and 2) bolted down or too heavy to move. Failure to recognize that means the gun owners shouldn't have been owning a gun.

 

 

And then there's right to carry...  how safe is that?  A quick hit to the head and presto! a loaded, unsecured gun.  Or a rock through a car window...

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #491 of 1058
How about a law that if a gun is used in a crime, the registered owner pays a massive fee ($1000+) with revenues to be used exclusively toward firearms education?
post #492 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

How about a law that if a gun is used in a crime, the registered owner pays a massive fee ($1000+) with revenues to be used exclusively toward firearms education?

 

If a car is stolen and used to commit a crime or injure someone else, should the owner of the car be punished?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #493 of 1058

No, because there is an actual practical use for a car besides violence or threat of violence (or hunting).

post #494 of 1058

It's rather amusing how our anti-gun "friends" dismiss the valid, practical uses of firearms (defense and hunting) as if these don't really matter or count.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #495 of 1058
Yes, practical uses besides hunting, violence, or threat of violence:

1. Shootin' targets that look like people.
2. Shootin' cans off tha fence!

Now, I know you count personal protection as a practical use of a firearm. But that's still violence or threat of violence. Therefore, NOT analogous to a car FFS.
post #496 of 1058

Your casual dismissals of legitimate and practical uses of firearms (such as defense...or hunting) notwithstanding, it is true that this particular use of firearms does involve violence (or the threat of.) Of course this, in and of itself, does not disqualify it as a legitimate and practical use. This violence or threat of violence, by its very definition, is done for the purpose and pursuit of someone's personal (or familial) defense in the face of someone else that has immorally initiated violence (or is threatening to.) If you are unable to distinguish the moral difference between these two actions, you are quite daft (or dishonest.)

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #497 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Your casual dismissals of legitimate and practical uses of firearms (such as defense...or hunting) notwithstanding, it is true that this particular use of firearms does involve violence (or the threat of.) Of course this, in and of itself, does not disqualify it as a legitimate and practical use. This violence or threat of violence, by its very definition, is done for the purpose and pursuit of someone's personal (or familial) defense in the face of someone else that has immorally initiated violence (or is threatening to.) If you are unable to distinguish the moral difference between these two actions, you are quite daft (or dishonest.)


So would you never point a gun (or use it) against someone who has done a "grab and run" theft? That's not violence. You're not using your gun to respond to violence. You're using violence to respond to a non-violent act.

 

Just like someone not paying their taxes might be arrested by an armed officer.

post #498 of 1058

Dumb law would never work in the states.
 

post #499 of 1058

Only because the paranoid selfish penis envy people wouldn't let it.

post #500 of 1058

Guns don't kill people... Idiots kill people.

 

And there sure are a hell of a lot of idiots, so we're better off not letting them have guns.

post #501 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So would you never point a gun (or use it) against someone who has done a "grab and run" theft? That's not violence. You're not using your gun to respond to violence. You're using violence to respond to a non-violent act.

 

I don't own a firearm, but I don't believe I would do that, no.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Just like someone not paying their taxes might be arrested by an armed officer.

 

Yes, the armed tax officer is initiating (or threatening) violence.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #502 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Only because the paranoid selfish penis envy people wouldn't let it.

 

Do you have anything left to say except ad hominems?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #503 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Guns don't kill people... Idiots kill people.

 

And there sure are a hell of a lot of idiots, so we're better off not letting them have guns.

 

That's true, but probably not strictly relevant to the issue, since when it comes to accidental death, idiots manage to kill themselves and others in all kinds of creative ways. The anti-gun control slogans are particularly annoying though, because they are themselves classic examples of intentional logical fallacies.

 

"Guns don't kill people - people kill" people manages to be an incomplete observation and an irrelevant conclusion. Without stating it, it is clearly predicated on the assumption that it is the person, rather than the gun, who has the intent to kill. Superficially correct, although it ignores that the gun itself is specifically designed to kill - that is the primary design criterion for all light arms. So even if we cannot assign intent to the gun, that is its purpose. It is incomplete, though, because a more reasonable restatement of it would be "Guns don't kill people - people kill people, mostly with guns". Stated in that form, we see evidence of a problem with at least two elements - people with a desire to kill, and the ready availability of an effective mechanism for them to do so; it is an irrelevant conclusion to imply that we should only tackle one element.

 

Standard problem solving strategy suggest that the most effective way to tackle a problem is to address all its contributing factors, which in this case, of course, means to try to treat and control those people and to attempt to restrict their access to guns. The NRA undoubtedly understand this logic, and, for example, have publicly said that they do not oppose more rigorous background checks, but they are clearly worried that the extent of any measures will significantly impact the bottom line of the gun manufacturers who fund them. They are probably right to worry - not because gun ownership would actually be more restricted for law-abiding citizens, but simply because there might be more checks, more paperwork, stricter storage requirements etc., and the erosion of casual availability would decrease sales to those who only bother to acquire guns because it is currently so easy to do so. And, of course, possible real restrictions on sales of the more lucrative semi-automatic rifles. Money wins this argument, and so we see the depressingly inevitable strategy of intentionally deceptive straw man arguments used to stoke the ancient fears of the rise of dictatorship combined with a (literal) call to arms to protect the 2nd amendment, all in an attempt both to disguise and further the real goal of protecting the gun manufacturers' profits.

 

And so, for example, we get the spectacularly fatuous "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun", which, remarkably, packs begging the question (it assumes that the problem starts after he acquired the gun and that he cannot be prevented from getting the gun in the first place), non sequitur (there are clearly many ways to stop such an individual) and straw man (that the intent of gun control is to prevent good guys from having guns) all into one short sentence. It is sad that so many people fall for this nonsense. 

post #504 of 1058
More idiots...

This story didn't end as badly as it could have, but makes you think about what might happen if a disgruntled student gets a hold of a gun that's meant to protect students. Guns should be kept out of schools, not brought into them.
post #505 of 1058

Why not round all the "idiots" up - force them under threat of violence, if needed - and put them in a secure location where they can't harm anyone else, tonton?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #506 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Why not round all the "idiots" up - force them under threat of violence, if needed - and put them in a secure location where they can't harm anyone else, tonton?
Because that's not necessary to stop the gun violence.

Any other stupid questions that show just how insanely polarized you are about the reality of the matter?
Edited by tonton - 1/20/13 at 4:01pm
post #507 of 1058
If the security officer who left a gun in a school bathroom still has his gun license and his job, do we really need to ask what's wrong with this country?
post #508 of 1058
I bet the mother of the seven year-old boy who was fatally shot by his father in a gun store parking lot might be having second thoughts about the second amendment.
post #509 of 1058
Or the people killed by falling bullets on New Year's Eve...
post #510 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

How about a law that if a gun is used in a crime, the registered owner pays a massive fee ($1000+) with revenues to be used exclusively toward firearms education?

If a car is stolen and used to commit a crime or injure someone else, should the owner of the car be punished?
People who drive drunk get their drivers' licenses taken away. Are you against that, too?

Having a gun stolen, just like driving drunk, is something that's 100 percent preventable.
post #511 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Having a gun stolen, just like driving drunk, is something that's 100 percent preventable.

 

Don't be ridiculous.

 

Any other stupid statements that show just how insanely naive you are about the reality of the matter?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #512 of 1058

tonton, I've noticed that you've started to revert to basically ad hominem "arguments"...attempting to simply dismiss and discredit those with whom you disagree by trying to paint them as extremist, polarizing, radical, etc.

 

I find this interesting.

 

This must be an admission of your inability to logically or reasonably counter any of the points made.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #513 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Having a gun stolen, just like driving drunk, is something that's 100 percent preventable.

Don't be ridiculous.

I can guarantee you 100% that I will never drive drunk.

I can also guarantee you 100% that I will never have a gun stolen.

100% preventable.
post #514 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


I can guarantee you 100% that I will never drive drunk.

I can also guarantee you 100% that I will never have a gun stolen.

100% preventable.

 

I see what you did there. Does your dishonesty have no limit?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #515 of 1058
I'm not the one claiming that more guns will make us safer. What was dishonest about what I said? Gun theft is 100% preventable.
post #516 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

How about a law that if a gun is used in a crime, the registered owner pays a massive fee ($1000+) with revenues to be used exclusively toward firearms education?

 

How about a law that if a gun is used in a crime after the government has controlled and outlawed them, that the government owes everyone in that zip code a million dollars?

 

It's against the law and the laws are for our protection. There shouldn't be any crime at that point so the government should pay for its failures.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Having a gun stolen, just like driving drunk, is something that's 100 percent preventable.

Don't be ridiculous.

I can guarantee you 100% that I will never drive drunk.

I can also guarantee you 100% that I will never have a gun stolen.

100% preventable.

 

Why is it that when this same argument is put to people about sex, std's and pregnancy?

 

I don't look forward to your counterpoint where the government gets to confiscate your penis.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #517 of 1058
There are already massive consequences for pregnancy. But let's make it more analogous and say rape, shall we? What happens to the person who rapes someone?
post #518 of 1058
By the way, you guys are making assumptions about my point.

With a proper safe, and proper precautions, even a gun owner can prevent gun theft. The stupid gun owner in the story above didn't take proper precautions.
post #519 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

There are already massive consequences for pregnancy. But let's make it more analogous and say rape, shall we? What happens to the person who rapes someone?

 

You've got it ass-backwards. You aren't arguing to charge the person who commits the crime. You are arguing to charge or at a minimum fine the person who, per you, fails to take enough precautions to prevent the crime. Per your reasoning, women should be fined or charged for failing to prevent their own rape.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

By the way, you guys are making assumptions about my point.

With a proper safe, and proper precautions, even a gun owner can prevent gun theft. The stupid gun owner in the story above didn't take proper precautions.

 

You do realize you are blaming the victim of the crime for the crime.

 

What precautions did the woman do to prevent her rape?

What precautions did the mugged take to prevent the mugger?

What precautions did the African-American youth take to prevent someone from lynching him or calling him a racial slur?

 

Your reasoning is ridiculous at face value. It has to be trolling. If you applied it to anything besides the areas of your authoritarian interest, then you'd mock and ridicule yourself.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #520 of 1058

So with all your posts here I presume you are against brandishing assault weapons and large magazine clips.Good for you at least you have a heart and are a logical person with smarts.
 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Massacre in Connecticut