Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: The Official Gun Control Thread. « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 38 39 40

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19371
Online
#585 : July 05, 2013, 07:54:49 PM

Btw, when does a "yes with caveats" become a "no"? 

"I am for universal background checks .....but only on the fifth Sunday of the month and just in Indiana".

JG? - my guess is there will be very few if any unqualified responses agreeing to universal background checks. You can be the arbiter of when the caveats make the "affirmative" response and "negstive" response. ;-)

Every time I try to answer it by all accounts.

And FWIW, my idea of anonymous background checks is that no record is kept of the check, who the check was made on and no audit trail.

On anonymous background checks, I get JG?s points but yours - which I still don't understand - seem to undercut the purpose, in part

That is the same issue with many of your caveats, they essentially undercut the purpose, sometime just to save inconvenience to a gun owner. That said, I have already agreed with some of your caveats

You provide your name, dob, ssn or whatever, they run it through and say yay or nay on buying a gun.

If you pas (or fail for that matter), a record is not kept that the check was run. This way the authorities don't have a record of how many guns I have bought and send someone around to my house based on some kind of profile that I bought an "unusually large" number of guns, ammo etc under some pretext of public safety.

You might laugh and send me a silver hat, but the Govt's record on data use and abuse  isn't exactly top notch recently.

I understand you have that fear and that is fine, but I just don't understand how you can have no record of the check? When a felon or a crazy person or really sny person uses a gun to kill someone the obvious question is "how did he get the gun?" There would be no way to answer that question, including to protect the seller from liability


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7033
Offline
#586 : July 05, 2013, 11:05:29 PM


I understand you have that fear and that is fine, but I just don't understand how you can have no record of the check? When a felon or a crazy person or really sny person uses a gun to kill someone the obvious question is "how did he get the gun?" There would be no way to answer that question, including to protect the seller from liability

Why should I be responsible for what you do with an item I legally sell you? Unless of course I know ahead of time that you are going to use that item for nefarious purposes? In that situation the current laws we have on the books are already more than adequate from a civil and criminal perspective.

What's more, I more than understand what you are talking about when you reference liability. It has nothing to do with real liability as we know it, but you you want to grant the ability to punish a gun manufacturer for doing nothing more than engaging in a lawful transaction should that firearm be used at some point in a criminal act, after a seller has followed every law and precaution as outlined at the time of sale. The sole purpose is to sue the sh*t out of gun manufacturers and create a mechanism that will put them out of business. You know it and I know it.
: July 05, 2013, 11:07:57 PM spartan

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46177
Offline
#587 : July 06, 2013, 10:51:42 AM

Strict liability is the aim - which removes the need for a negligence determination.  It becomes if you perform a particular specific act and it leads to harm you pay.  We find this with many dangerous instrumentalities - i.e. those with explosives, those who keep wild animals or specified breed of dogs (lions, tigers and bears... oh my), and other such situations for which specific statutes identifies and labels.  And yes, it impacts the frequency of the specified act


\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19371
Online
#588 : July 06, 2013, 03:49:04 PM

I wasn't talking about strict liability. I was just responding to Spartan's hypothetical. I agree with JG?s reasoning for anonymous background checks but Sparyans font make sense and his own hypothetical illustrates the point

Btw, why all the fear? Every mention of any measure is met with a gun person taking it to an extreme by suggesting an ulterior motive? Why do so many pro gun people seem to think everyone is secretly plotting against them?
: July 06, 2013, 03:50:59 PM VinBucFan


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46177
Offline
#589 : July 06, 2013, 05:39:17 PM

There are already groups looking at requiring specific insurances for gun liability - with the above goal on the horizon.  No secret.

And already responses are occurring - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/06/own-gun-time-to-buy-violence-insurance-california-democrats-say/
: July 06, 2013, 05:41:26 PM dbucfan

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19371
Online
#590 : July 07, 2013, 05:28:09 PM

I guess I don't see the connection between requiring insurance and "strict liability" and people already carry liability insurance as part of normal homeowners. Because the homeowners excludes certain high risk things, dog being the classic example seperate cover is available. But that is different than "strict liability". If one in a over my locked five foot fence and gets bitten by my German Shepherd I am not liable, right? Only if negligent, which is the standard for guns, I think
: July 07, 2013, 05:29:42 PM VinBucFan


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46177
Offline
#591 : July 07, 2013, 07:08:44 PM

If one owns a gun and something bad happens strict liability based upon ownership and use is an issue.  Negligence issue is removed with a dangerous instrumentality argument combination. The insurance policy is the sweetener to gain the involvement of the plaintiffs bars.  It becomes a no win for the insurer - which leads to a no possession situation for the owner of the weapon. See dog bites in FL combined with pit bull breed. 

The key is the requirement of insurance. Strict liability law for ownership, use and sale perfects the trap, along with the finding of the gun being a dangerous instrumentality.  This removes negligence, increases financial exposure, and entices the plaintiff's bar to complete the goal of eliminating the targeted property
: July 07, 2013, 07:31:43 PM dbucfan

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19371
Online
#592 : July 07, 2013, 09:29:09 PM

We both obviously understand insurance and the concept of strict liability, I just don't see the leap but that may just be me. Gun ownership comes with many risks and so as a practical matter it may be close to strict liability but negligence concepts still apply I would think.

In my view, any owner if a big dog should pay for the extended coverage or at least up their liability coverage, maybe some just prefer to take the risk. Same with guns, up the liability cover seems basic common sense. Again,maybe just me. Requiring insurance also makes sense because guns contribute to a significant Public Health cost and private insurance helps keep that cost off the taxpayers.

Interesting topic though. I mentioned in another thread that quasi-gun control, if you will, could be a problem for gun owners. Taxes and insurance etc., so this is definitely has some of that.
: July 07, 2013, 09:31:44 PM VinBucFan


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7033
Offline
#593 : July 07, 2013, 09:47:51 PM

I wasn't talking about strict liability. I was just responding to Spartan's hypothetical. I agree with JG?s reasoning for anonymous background checks but Sparyans font make sense and his own hypothetical illustrates the point

Btw, why all the fear? Every mention of any measure is met with a gun person taking it to an extreme by suggesting an ulterior motive? Why do so many pro gun people seem to think everyone is secretly plotting against them?

Pro gun people have a tendency to be more independent. Not always so, but by and large. I have a few liberal friends who own guns but very few. Then we look back at what the Federal Govt has done in the past with the information they have and screams abuse. You look at what the State Govts of New York and California have done to confiscate guns and you have to reflect and say it is only a matter of time that it happens at the Fed level; if they have your information. Paranoid? Maybe. Excusable? Absolutely IMO.

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46177
Offline
#594 : July 08, 2013, 12:00:29 AM

We both obviously understand insurance and the concept of strict liability, I just don't see the leap but that may just be me. Gun ownership comes with many risks and so as a practical matter it may be close to strict liability but negligence concepts still apply I would think.

In my view, any owner if a big dog should pay for the extended coverage or at least up their liability coverage, maybe some just prefer to take the risk. Same with guns, up the liability cover seems basic common sense. Again,maybe just me. Requiring insurance also makes sense because guns contribute to a significant Public Health cost and private insurance helps keep that cost off the taxpayers.

Interesting topic though. I mentioned in another thread that quasi-gun control, if you will, could be a problem for gun owners. Taxes and insurance etc., so this is definitely has some of that.
Insurance carriers are now excluding such coverages - for certain breeds of dogs.  Plaintiff's have a hard time finding counsel to represent them lacking such insurance policies.  Makes is pretty clear to me this one of the paths being explored by the anti-gun crowd.  If you can't get the insurance you can't have the gun... the rest follows

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

Morgan

User is banned from postingMuted
*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 14658
Offline
#595 : July 08, 2013, 04:25:20 PM

New thread located here.

http://www.pewterreport.com/Boards/index.php/topic,1306335.0.html
Page: 1 ... 38 39 40
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: The Official Gun Control Thread. « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools