|
Post by robeiae on Nov 21, 2017 14:19:49 GMT -5
We could just put a fence around it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2017 14:20:54 GMT -5
And an alarm.
And maybe a few landmines.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 21, 2017 14:26:33 GMT -5
I know! Let's put cray in it. That'll keep people out!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2017 14:29:22 GMT -5
Why couldn't you have thought of that BEFORE I wasted several days of my life that I'll never get back?
ETA:
Ooh. Maybe I'll file a negligence suit.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Nov 21, 2017 15:43:35 GMT -5
Hey all. The reason I keep coming back and replying here is not because I'm having fun but because I really hate to leave the impression out there that I agree with Christine's argument. If I leave off replying (and I'm sure as hell going to try), please take it as exhaustion and not as agreement. Non-replies do not equal endorsement. Thank you. Coincidentally, this is also why I keep posting in this thread. ETA: Yes, you are correct that I've been referring to the bill passed by Congress which includes both acts. I realize now that they are technically separate. I've been assuming they were a package deal. So, you believe people who own or sell firearms have no responsibility to prevent them from being stolen. I believe that people should be allowed to maintain their property their way, by and large, subject to some laws and rules. I have a shotgun and it's in a locked trunk in my attic. I suppose I'm covered from potential liability/blame/guilt--assuming the author of the article had his way--if someone broke into my attic, found the trunk, picked the lock, stole the shotgun, bought some shells (I don't have any), then shot someone. But I don't have my shotgun in the attic so I can be "covered." In fact, I'm thinking of putting it over my fireplace on a gun rack (it's my grandfather's and an antique). And I should be able to do that, without putting my self in legal jeopardy for potential multiple illegal actions by someone else (b&e, theft, aggravated assault, at a minimum). You do realize that's what you are arguing for, right? We are not talking standards of ordinary care here. The author's--and your--apparent expectation is that law-abiding citizens would be liable for multiple crimes committed by an unknown person, simple because they owned a gun. My opinion is that if someone breaks and enters a locked house, then there shouldn't be liability to the owner for a stolen gun. The house was locked. ETA: I do feel differently about gun sellers. To lock up the store doesn't seem sufficient, since thieves targeting gun shops would obviously be looking for guns. Where it becomes an issue for me is that the Child Safety Lock Act, as I understand it, exempts an owner from liability for theft merely because the gun is childproofed. (It requires a safe OR a child safety device.) It would make more sense if a safe, or even just secured premises, was the standard for the exemption from theft. (ETA: Though some these thefts are committed by people the gun owner knows but doesn't suspect. So, once the person is allowed into your house, if the gun isn't secured in a safe, it seems like that's a different situation from a B&E. So re: what I said above about locked houses, maybe in the end, the safe needs to be the standard because you just never know). Additionally, older children aren't prevented from operating a gun by some of these "childproof" devices. So it's good to promote the devices from the standpoint of a toddler or a 5 or 6 year old, but it doesn't work for a 10 or 12 or 14 year old. I think if there was no inherent right to own a gun, people would naturally accept more responsibility required by those who chose to own them. Walking down a dangerous street is dangerous to the person walking down the street. Yes, they could be a victim, but they are putting themselves at risk, not other people. Owning a gun and not securing it properly is dangerous for people other than the gun owner. I agree that those who are stolen from are victims of the crime of theft, but being a victim here doesn't mean you can't be negligent for subsequent harm caused to others. As a side note, I don't feel self-righteous at all. I will assume disagreement, so no pressure from anyone to waste more of their lives.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Nov 21, 2017 17:17:49 GMT -5
I hereby label this thread an extremely unattractive nuisance. If you'll excuse me, I'll be drafting legislation to put a stop to it once and for all. That bill would never get through the current congress.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2017 17:23:36 GMT -5
I hereby label this thread an extremely unattractive nuisance. If you'll excuse me, I'll be drafting legislation to put a stop to it once and for all. That bill would never get through the current congress. I swear, Michael -- ever since you got that puppy avatar, you've become just as evil as haggis. Damn your eyes, I will fight to kill this thread right down to my last breath. Even if it means working with Angie and cray.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 21, 2017 18:57:17 GMT -5
That bill would never get through the current congress. I swear, Michael -- ever since you got that puppy avatar, you've become just as evil as haggis. Damn your eyes, I will fight to kill this thread right down to my last breath. Even if it means working with Angie and cray. -dashes in- Hey, who wants to hear a poem? *exeunt omnes* ~FIN~
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2017 19:08:44 GMT -5
Damn it, I never even thought of trying poetry.
And the solution was right there all the time.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 21, 2017 19:16:44 GMT -5
Nantucket's a very quiet place..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2017 20:06:38 GMT -5
and well-endowed with buckets, I understand.
|
|
|
Post by haggis on Nov 21, 2017 23:58:44 GMT -5
That bill would never get through the current congress. I swear, Michael -- ever since you got that puppy avatar, you've become just as evil as haggis . Damn your eyes, I will fight to kill this thread right down to my last breath. Even if it means working with Angie and cray . In fairness, I don't think he's nearly evil enough. Now, if he changed his avatar to a Chihuey there might be a chance for him. Just sayin'. And as for Angie and cray? Pfft.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2017 0:20:47 GMT -5
In fairness, I don't think he's nearly evil enough. Now, if he changed his avatar to a Chihuey there might be a chance for him. Isn't this thread bad enough without you actively encouraging evil? The LAST thing we need is more Chihuahuas. And as for Angie and cray? Pfft. Well, yeah. It's hard to argue with that.
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Nov 27, 2017 17:46:59 GMT -5
Oh, you were trying to kill this thread?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2017 18:00:45 GMT -5
Gaaah! The VERY last thing this thread needs is Angie!
|
|