Handgun, yes or no....?

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You ducked the question again.

There, I acknowledged Zipr's single data point. Now will he answer my question about if this guy passed his background check? What was the follow up to this story?

No, he won't answer, and he'll say his non-answer is me not answering. Again.

Stop ducking the question. It is what you do all the time in every thread.

Also:
Me: Is this how gun owners behave?
You: This one did so yes.

There is a plural in what I wrote. Think about that.

Also, stop ducking my question.

I have no interest in your question and I'm not required to answer any question. If you think there's more pertinent information in that story that relates to the thread, post it.

Personally, I just think you're projecting.

One standard for you, one standard for me.

You are ducking the question.

Where are all the people who pile on me when I say "answer my question first and I'll answer yours"? I answered his, he's still ducking mine.

Don2, Elixir, laughing dog, Jahryn, Jimmy Higgins, KeepTalking, Rhea? You wouldn't want people to think you have a doub-, er, different standard.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Thanks for the selfie.

 

[ZiprHead]

Thanks for the selfie.

You're a funny guy. Too bad you don't realize it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

And you're ducking the question.

 

[ZiprHead]

And you're ducking the question.

The question isn't pertinent to the O.P. Do you have some proof of pertinence.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

And you're ducking the question.

The question isn't pertinent to the O.P. Do you have some proof of pertinence.

Yeah. If he didn't pass a background check is he considered in the same category as "gun owners"? If he didn't acquire the firearm through legal channels, is that proof gun control laws would have kept the firearm out of his hands? Yet you don't want to talk about the individual in the story you presented. You prefer to duck the question.

 

[ZiprHead]

And you're ducking the question.

The question isn't pertinent to the O.P. Do you have some proof of pertinence.

Yeah. If he didn't pass a background check is he considered in the same category as "gun owners"? If he didn't acquire the firearm through legal channels, is that proof gun control laws would have kept the firearm out of his hands? Yet you don't want to talk about the individual in the story you presented. You prefer to duck the question.

You made a statement. I countered it with an example.

Strange a Libertarian relying on the state for background checks and proof of ownership.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yeah. If he didn't pass a background check is he considered in the same category as "gun owners"? If he didn't acquire the firearm through legal channels, is that proof gun control laws would have kept the firearm out of his hands? Yet you don't want to talk about the individual in the story you presented. You prefer to duck the question.

You made a statement. I countered it with an example.

Strange a Libertarian relying on the state for background checks and proof of ownership.

Personally, I find it quite likely that if gun owners were held liable when their shit was stolen, or were expected to hold liability insurance, or even where the loss of a firearm triggered liability insurance for further ownership, or some other heretofore unseen machination that Jason is sure to never contribute towards, that we would see a lot less of this illegal gun ownership in the first place. Illegal guns start legal, with owners who are not held accountable for their irresponsible ownership.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yeah. If he didn't pass a background check is he considered in the same category as "gun owners"? If he didn't acquire the firearm through legal channels, is that proof gun control laws would have kept the firearm out of his hands? Yet you don't want to talk about the individual in the story you presented. You prefer to duck the question.

You made a statement. I countered it with an example.

Strange a Libertarian relying on the state for background checks and proof of ownership.

You ducked the question again.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah. If he didn't pass a background check is he considered in the same category as "gun owners"? If he didn't acquire the firearm through legal channels, is that proof gun control laws would have kept the firearm out of his hands? Yet you don't want to talk about the individual in the story you presented. You prefer to duck the question.

You made a statement. I countered it with an example.

Strange a Libertarian relying on the state for background checks and proof of ownership.

Personally, I find it quite likely that if gun owners were held liable when their shit was stolen, or were expected to hold liability insurance, or even where the loss of a firearm triggered liability insurance for further ownership, or some other heretofore unseen machination that Jason is sure to never contribute towards, that we would see a lot less of this illegal gun ownership in the first place. Illegal guns start legal, with owners who are not held accountable for their irresponsible ownership.

So Boeing is liable for the World Trade Center attacks?

 

[zorq]

So Boeing is liable for the World Trade Center attacks?

Boeing didn't own the jets. United Airlines and American Airlines did. And they were found to not be liable in court because they claimed that it was lapses in airport security that allowed the attack, not their airplaine security.

So yes, negligent owners of dangerous objects are often found liable when they don't take adequate measures to secure them.

 

[Gospel]

Yes

 

[Trausti]

So Boeing is liable for the World Trade Center attacks?

Boeing didn't own the jets. United Airlines and American Airlines did. And they were found to not be liable in court because they claimed that it was lapses in airport security that allowed the attack, not their airplaine security.

So yes, negligent owners of dangerous objects are often found liable when they don't take adequate measures to secure them.

Generally there is no liability for third-party criminal activity.

 

[JohnG]

Being in Canada guns are foreign to most of us. Excluding the police, I've seen a handgun in person twice, and a hunting rifle once. I'd prefer to keep the number at three, if I can.

I concur as a fellow Canadian.

At no point in my life have I ever thought, "Boy I could really use a gun"

I've come across many bears in the wild, and been mugged in the city twice. Once some kids rolled me in a park when I was a drunk college boy and they stole my jacket and shoes. Thank christ I didnt have a gun then, someone could have been killed.

Another time someone pulled a knife on me in the subway. I got off at the next stop.

If I had a gun in either of those scenarios there's a chance I'd be dead now.

 

[Jarhyn]

Personally, I find it quite likely that if gun owners were held liable when their shit was stolen, or were expected to hold liability insurance, or even where the loss of a firearm triggered liability insurance for further ownership, or some other heretofore unseen machination that Jason is sure to never contribute towards, that we would see a lot less of this illegal gun ownership in the first place. Illegal guns start legal, with owners who are not held accountable for their irresponsible ownership.

So Boeing is liable for the World Trade Center attacks?

Just commenting to point out that Zorq already smelled what I was stepping in. It makes me curious how Loren was so far from the mark?

I said nothing about gun manufacturers, which would be the analog to Boeing here.

Ultimately, the analog here is that the owner is the "airline" but they "rent" space as from a storage yard. So the two towers attacks could be analogied by people breaking into a storage facility and stealing a gun from a locker there.

Why would H&K (the "Boeing" here) be liable for that? The liability looks to be on "the storage facility" who let just anyone in, despite holding a lot of important and sensitive stuff.

Or at least that was the argument from the owner.

To properly target this with an analogy, you have to have a situation where some object is owned by party A, held in securement by party B, and that property is stolen by person C to be used nefariously.

Party A is the owner, party B is the airport/storage owner, party C is the thief. At no point does the originator of the artifact enter in, unless they make a product that flies into buildings or shoots people all on its own.

They might be held responsible for other foolish decisions, though, like selling airplanes to airlines that will clearly refuse to secure them. But even that is by a fifth uninvolved party that ostensibly must be licensed (a broker) at least with respect to airplanes though is "Boeing"

Even so, the Manu still started adding security doors and retrofitting.

Literally everyone involved stepped up here and said "we can help prevent this.

Not so much with the gun crowd.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So Boeing is liable for the World Trade Center attacks?

Boeing didn't own the jets. United Airlines and American Airlines did. And they were found to not be liable in court because they claimed that it was lapses in airport security that allowed the attack, not their airplaine security.

So yes, negligent owners of dangerous objects are often found liable when they don't take adequate measures to secure them.

The issue was holding the owner liable for misdeeds caused by theft.

I got the wrong owner but my point still stands--we didn't blame the owners for the misuse of their stolen property.

 

[Jarhyn]

So Boeing is liable for the World Trade Center attacks?

Boeing didn't own the jets. United Airlines and American Airlines did. And they were found to not be liable in court because they claimed that it was lapses in airport security that allowed the attack, not their airplaine security.

So yes, negligent owners of dangerous objects are often found liable when they don't take adequate measures to secure them.

The issue was holding the owner liable for misdeeds caused by theft.

I got the wrong owner but my point still stands--we didn't blame the owners for the misuse of their stolen property.

Actually, we did seek to hold them liable. It was just that the liability was, perhaps appropriately (perhaps not) revealed to rest with the party who was responsible for general pre-boarding security.

You are missing the fact that liability WAS found, and if we translate this to gun ownership, would map to the owner. Both "airport" and "airline" merge into "owner" as most guns are stored on the owner's property.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The issue was holding the owner liable for misdeeds caused by theft.

I got the wrong owner but my point still stands--we didn't blame the owners for the misuse of their stolen property.

Actually, we did seek to hold them liable. It was just that the liability was, perhaps appropriately (perhaps not) revealed to rest with the party who was responsible for general pre-boarding security.

You are missing the fact that liability WAS found, and if we translate this to gun ownership, would map to the owner. Both "airport" and "airline" merge into "owner" as most guns are stored on the owner's property.

Which relates to the question that Zipr is ducking (and nobody is calling him on) of what if the firearm was not legally acquired?

Like what if the Obama administration flooded the Mexican cartels with guns, and then one of them crossed back across the border, and was used in the USA.

 

[Trausti]

Like what if the Obama administration flooded the Mexican cartels with guns, and then one of them crossed back across the border, and was used in the USA.

FFS. When has that ever happened? Other than that one time?