Why gun owners should be legally accountable for any gun they own.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:15:06 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:

Peter Principle <petesfeats@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote in
news:406lq5pcqdbt7pklq9lkqhrhbm57rr4l40@4ax.com:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:40:34 -0700 (PDT), Tater Gumfries
<tater@kernsholler.net> wrote:

On Mar 24, 4:38 pm, Bill Smith <quand...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>If you don't responsibly secure your gun and it is subsequently
>used in ANY way that involves ANY liability, YOU should be the one
>held liable.

If someone steals your car and kills someone with it should you be
held liable?

Yes, accordin to TMT's logic.

Um, actually, the answer is yes according to tort law in every single
civil court in this country, if your car has been taken DUE TO YOUR
NEGLIGENCE.

Now, is there still some part of this simple and irrefutable FACT you
just can't quite ken?

Just what is your definition of what constitutes negligence? Take all
the screens you need to make sure that you are understood.

Just what spectacular flight of idiocy, what unscalable mountain of
stupidity, what prodigious ignorance causes you to foolishly believe MY
definition of "negligence" to be in any way relevant to any civil
proceeding?

<tap, tap, tap>

FYI, subliterate rightarded imbecile, there is an accepted LEGAL definition
of civil liability. THAT definition is the only germane definition. Witness,
witless...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liability

And, in point of fact, were you not an ignorant stupid asshole, you might
even know that virtually ALL statutes define their terms internally and
virtually ALL civil cases are about, duh fucking duh, duh, duh, determining
what constitutes NEGLIGENCE in the specific situation.

Jaybus Freaking Crisco, what a bunch of ignorant stupid assholes you
rightarded gun nuts truly are. Un-fucking-believable...

---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University

ABSTRACT:
...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:13:17 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:

Peter Principle <petesfeats@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote in
news:al5lq5d1ubu3c8bp783hcs41mtp9ue0lfn@4ax.com:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:32:34 -0500, Ken <Ken@invalid.com> wrote:

Peter Principle wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:07:05 -0700, Bill Smith<quandary@newsguy.com>
wrote:


Speaking of a few short, ignoramus, say one of your subliterate
gun nut stupid asshole buddies trips on your front porch 'cause
you haven't secured it properly and breaks his fat stupid goober
ass.

Did the porch commit a crime?

Did anyone, in this case?

Hoo, boy...

Um, NO. Duh fucking duh, duh, duh...

The POINT, slow boi, is criminal behavior is entirely IRRELEVANT to
legal liability. If you don't take responsible care of your porch
and someone busts their ass, YOU are liable, period, EOS, move the
fuck on.

If you don't responsibly secure your gun and it is subsequently used
in ANY way that involves ANY liability, YOU should be the one held
liable.

So I guess if someone were to steal your car and get into an
accident,
you would be responsible for the accident?? You liberals are too
much!!!

Jaybus Freaking Crisco, how fucking STUPID are you rightarded maroons?

<boggle>

FYI, you unbelievable imbecile, should someone take possession of your
car due to your negligence, for example you left the keys in the
ignition, OF COURSE you are legally liable. Duh fucking duh, duh,
duh...

If it is on my private property, why would I be responsible? The asshole
who stole it was trespassing.

Now, try to follow along, sparky. Use your finger, if it helps...

So, get yours out of your nose now and let's read along.......

If someone takes possession of your gun due to your negligence, then
YOU should be held liable, just as is the case in every other arena of
tort law in this ector of the galaxy.

The problem is in the definition of "negligence". If I have my guns
laying on the bed in my bedroom in my locked house, whose fault is it if
it is stolen?

Man, if you idjuts had just hung around 'til 6th grade you'd have
gotten CIVICS classes. But no, you idiots CHOSE to be ignorant, which
is a pretty darn good definition of stupidity.

In this case with you, it appears we need to start with the basics. Now
answer the question I asked just above. Then we will try to proceed from
there.

You, sir, are an ignoramus, at least as regards the law. You haven't the
slightest hint of an iota of an inkling about civil law and you're
determined to prove it beyond any possible doubt.

Well, guess what? You've succeeded! Congratulations! Well done! Keep up the
good work!

Jaybus...

Just what spectacular flight of idiocy, what unscalable mountain of
stupidity, what prodigious ignorance causes you to foolishly believe MY
definition of "negligence" - or yours or anyone else's - to be in any way
relevant to any civil proceeding anywhere ever?

<tap, tap, tap>

FYI, subliterate rightarded imbecile, there is an accepted LEGAL definition
of civil liability. THAT definition is the only germane definition. Witness,
witless...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liability

And, in point of fact, were you not an ignorant stupid asshole, you might
even know that virtually ALL statutes define their terms internally and
virtually ALL civil cases are about, duh fucking duh, duh, duh, determining
what constitutes NEGLIGENCE in the specific situation.

Jaybus Freaking Crisco, what a bunch of ignorant stupid assholes you
rightarded gun nuts truly are. Un-fucking-believable...

---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University

ABSTRACT:
...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:41:33 -0500, Peter Principle
<petesfeats@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:13:17 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:

And, in point of fact, were you not an ignorant stupid asshole, you might
even know that virtually ALL statutes define their terms internally and
virtually ALL civil cases are about, duh fucking duh, duh, duh, determining
what constitutes NEGLIGENCE in the specific situation.

BTW, another irrefutable FACT about civil tort law dating back to Roman
times of which you are also no doubt completely ignorant is that one need
only prove the respondent is more responsible than less, more wrong than
right. IOW, the litigant does not need to prove liability beyond a
reasonable doubt, as is the case in criminal law. The litigant need only
prove the respondent 51% liable to win damages.

Now you know. Go forth and fart FUD no more.

BWA HA HA HA, whew! Yeah, sure, THAT'S gonna happen...

---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University

ABSTRACT:
...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.

In article <hrvkq55nmh2d3eq34gvgiri4jjeqqeunk4@4ax.com>,
Bill Smith <quandary@newsguy.com> wrote:

>Speaking of a few short, ignoramus, say one of your subliterate gun nut
>stupid asshole buddies trips on your front porch 'cause you haven't secured
>it properly and breaks his fat stupid goober ass.
>
>Did the porch commit a crime?

Did anyone, in this case?


I suspect Pecker Principle is whining because he did trip on someone's
front porch and his law suit was laughed out of court.

On Mar 24, 6:130pm, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
Peter Principle <petesfe...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote innews:al5lq5d1ubu3c8b=
p783hcs41mtp9ue0lfn@4ax.com:





> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:32:34 -0500, Ken <K...@invalid.com> wrote:

>>Peter Principle wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:07:05 -0700, Bill Smith<quand...@newsguy.com>
>>> 0wrote:

>>>>> Speaking of a few short, ignoramus, say one of your subliterate
>>>>> gun nut stupid asshole buddies trips on your front porch 'cause
>>>>> you haven't secured it properly and breaks his fat stupid goober
>>>>> ass.

>>>>> Did the porch commit a crime?

>>>> Did anyone, in this case?

>>> Hoo, boy...

>>> Um, NO. Duh fucking duh, duh, duh...

>>> The POINT, slow boi, is criminal behavior is entirely IRRELEVANT to
>>> legal liability. If you don't take responsible care of your porch
>>> and someone busts their ass, YOU are liable, period, EOS, move the
>>> fuck on.

>>> If you don't responsibly secure your gun and it is subsequently used
>>> in ANY way that involves ANY liability, YOU should be the one held
>>> liable.

>> 0 0 So I guess if someone were to steal your car and get into an
>> 0 0 accident,
>>you would be responsible for the accident?? 0You liberals are too
>>much!!!

> Jaybus Freaking Crisco, how fucking STUPID are you rightarded maroons?

> <boggle>

> FYI, you unbelievable imbecile, should someone take possession of your
> car due to your negligence, for example you left the keys in the
> ignition, OF COURSE you are legally liable. Duh fucking duh, duh,
> duh...

If it is on my private property, why would I be responsible? 0The assho=
le
who stole it was trespassing.

> Now, try to follow along, sparky. Use your finger, if it helps...

So, get yours out of your nose now and let's read along.......

> If someone takes possession of your gun due to your negligence, then
> YOU should be held liable, just as is the case in every other arena of
> tort law in this ector of the galaxy.

The problem is in the definition of "negligence". 0If I have my guns
laying on the bed in my bedroom in my locked house, whose fault is it if
it is stolen?

> Man, if you idjuts had just hung around 'til 6th grade you'd have
> gotten CIVICS classes. But no, you idiots CHOSE to be ignorant, which
> is a pretty darn good definition of stupidity.

In this case with you, it appears we need to start with the basics. 0No=
w
answer the question I asked just above. 0Then we will try to proceed fr=
om
there.

--
Sleep well, tonight........

RD (The Sandman)

The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you
run out of other people's money.

Margaret Thatcher - February 5, 1976- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
"The problem is in the definition of "negligence". If I have my guns
laying on the bed in my bedroom in my locked house, whose fault is it
if
it is stolen? "

Yours...if you own a gun it is your responsibility to have it under
control at all times.

No excuses.

TMT

On Mar 24, 8:010pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
In article <ri4lq51fd8ool9g3qteij5am6dbbvai...@4ax.com>,
0Bill Smith <quand...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> >If you don't responsibly secure your gun and it is subsequently used i=
n ANY
> >way that involves ANY liability, YOU should be the one held liable.

> If someone steals your car and kills someone with it should you be
> held liable?

I and others keep asking that question. 0Pecker Principle and
Too_Few_Tools keep dodging it.

snicker.

Does a car shoot bullets?

TMT

On Mar 24, 4:550pm, Peter Principle <petesfe...@SNIPITgmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:40:34 -0700 (PDT), Tater Gumfries

<ta...@kernsholler.net> wrote:
>On Mar 24, 4:38 pm, Bill Smith <quand...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >If you don't responsibly secure your gun and it is subsequently used =
in ANY
>> >way that involves ANY liability, YOU should be the one held liable.

>> If someone steals your car and kills someone with it should you be
>> held liable?

>Yes, accordin to TMT's logic.

Um, actually, the answer is yes according to tort law in every single civ=
il
court in this country, if your car has been taken DUE TO YOUR NEGLIGENCE.

Nothin wrong with Tater's answer, but you had to pile that extra on?
You sure are an arrogant SOB, ain't you? You ain't as superior as you
think, feller.

Tater

In article <3b36a33a-c21c-4ebb-a12e-
75d4c31ccb2f@u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, too_many_tools@yahoo.com
says...
This is a great example of why any gun owner should be legally
acountable for any gun registered to them.

After a few irresponsible gun owners serve hard time for letting their
guns commit crimes, the real cost of owning a gun will be understood.

TMT

Gun in Ala. campus shooting bought 2 decades ago
By DESIREE HUNTER, Associated Press Writer Desiree Hunter, Associated
Press Writer
Tue Mar 23, 6:14 pm ET


What's wrong ? your masters wont let you condem the womans politics ?

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:15:40 -0500, Peter Principle
<petesfeats@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:

If you don't responsibly secure your gun and it is subsequently used in ANY
way that involves ANY liability, YOU should be the one held liable.

So you are saying that if someone steals your car, by hotwiring the
ignition, or by busting up the ignition switch after breaking out a
window and they run over a person, the car owner is liable?

Is that your claim?

Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost