Saturday, December 3, 2011

Question for gunloons

O.K., you lot like to tell us what "elitists" we are about self-defense?

Can you tell us how much it will cost you to defend yourself if you are:
a) charged with a firearms offence?
b) civilly sued for use of a firearm?
c) both?

Let's face it, you're walking around with a weapon. You're setting yourself up for criminal and civil penaties for the misuse of your firearm.

Let's face it, you are getting your share of misinformation from the internet by experts such as Greg--you're bound to screw up in some way.

Ignorantia legis neminem excusat!


  1. Your article points to a need in our legal system: better Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws, including protection against civil suits. Thanks for the tip. We'll get on that right away, unless you're offering to come to our aid pro bono.

    But, of course, part of the problem here is lawyers looking for fees. It's no revelation to us that we live in a litigious age. You complain about the NRA's influence in politics. What about the American Bar Association? Take the log out of your own eye, Laci the Dog.

    And, in case you're wondering, I'd rather be alive and in debt than dead.

  2. "Can you tell us how much it will cost you to defend yourself"

    Probably far more than my funeral will cost. You win. I'll just be defenseless since dead is cheaper.

  3. Laci the Dog,

    Dog Gone has told us that you're qualified to carry a concealed weapon. Presumably that comes from your status as an officer of the court. What training do you have in doing so?

  4. Both of us have qualified for concealed carry, Greg.

  5. GC wrote:

    including protection against civil suits.

    So you're telling us you are afraid of being held legally accountable for making a mistake and harming someone with your firearm.

    You don't want to require people to be able to afford secure storage for their firearms, to prevent theft resulting in firearms falling into criminal hands.

    You don't want the sane measure of any fees charged for background checks.

    You don't want any kind of bond or insurance coverage either on the part of gun owners, despite the fact that there is a clear risk, as evidenced by the statistics in this country compared to less gun saturated nations, when their firearms do harm.

    You in fact Greg are unwilling to have any lawful accountability for the actions of people with guns, OR for anyone who is injured by one of you to be compensated.

    You want the rights, Greg, but you don't want the responsibility.

    There ARE no rights without responsibility. Too bad for you. That isn't going to change any time soon, and once we have the extremists from the tea party and the far from center right wingers out who got in during the 2010 elections, which appears to be inevitable next election cycle, there will likely be some shifts in gun policy along with undoing the other harmful changes made by the right.

  6. Dog Gone,

    It's not fear; it's reasonable concern over frivolous lawsuits, and many states are making the laws better with regard to a legitimate shoot. I'm willing to have accountability for gun owners, but only when they break the law or act negligently. In a self-defense shooting, the goblin doesn't deserve to sue if he lives.

    But you have a carry license or once had one? Whatever made you get that? I thought that carrying a gun was a disaster looking for a place to happen. Why on earth would you carry a gun? I note that you didn't answer my question about training for yourself.

    As for safe storage, it's really none of your business how I store my guns, and I'm not going to give you information in a public forum with regard to it. Morally, it's enough for me to be on my property. It's even commendable that I lock my doors. Stop defending criminals, would you--people who break into someone's property? They're the ones at fault if they steal something and do evil with it.

    What will come of the next election isn't clear, but do you really see such a shift that the gun rights achievements of the last several years will be erased? For one thing, there would have to be sixty votes in the Senate, and that isn't going to happen this time. It's not even clear that Obama will be reelected. It's not clear that many Democrats will suddenly move over to the gun control side, since siding with us is one of the things that keeps Bluedog Democrats in office in right-leaning states.

  7. I would imagine the more responsible a gun owner is, the more he knows the laws.

  8. Mikeb302000,

    Thank you. I study the laws of my state with regard to guns and gun carrying. Staying within the law is important to me. Being morally responsible with my guns is also important. When I moved to Arkansas from Tennessee, I took a concealed carry class here, even though I'd already transferred my license, just to see what differences in the law there were (not much, as it turns out). I'd like more gun owners to be responsible, and if that were the focus of the discussions here, we could work together. But the prevailing attitude on the part of the gun control advocates on this site and others is that the only responsible thing to do is to give up one's guns. Please don't deny that. You really do want a whole lot fewer people to have them. That's something that my side can't accept.

  9. Greg Camp:

    "But the prevailing attitude on the part of the gun control advocates on this site and others is that the only responsible thing to do is to give up one's guns."

    Another FUCKING LIE, you fucking liar.

    Jeez, Greg, am I being harsh? Gosh, I'm sorry, it's just that fucking liars tend to piss me off. Liars like you tend to piss me off more than some others, 'cuz you be lyin' while you're strapped. And it is amply documented that people wit teh gunz are ALWAYS the ones who shoot people--always.

    You want to be able to shoot people that scare you with no legal responsibility if you fuck up? Move to someplace like Afghanistan where all killings are avenged, forget the law. They've been avengin' away for over 2,000 years that we know of--so far, not a polite and civil society.

  10. Democommie,

    Again, you're confusing disagreement with lying. My interpretation of what Mikeb, Dog Gone, and Laci the Dog have written here is that they want drastically reduced gun ownership. They don't like private ownership of guns. They see no right to having guns. They claim that we're irresponsible for having firearms.

    How is that a lie? That's my interpretation.

    And by the way, it's been amply documented that the people with guns are always the ones who shoot people. Um, duh. It would be a neat trick to shoot someone without a gun, genius.

  11. Greg Camp wrote:
    . My interpretation of what Mikeb, Dog Gone, and Laci the Dog have written here is that they want drastically reduced gun ownership. They don't like private ownership of guns.

    NO. WRONG. FAIL on reading for comprehension.

    We DO want the current prohibition on criminals, including stalkers and domestic abusers, the dangerously mentally ill, who may be dangerous to themselves and/OR others, drug users, and those who are too impaired - such as blindness - to safely use a firearm barred from owning firearms.

    We'd also like to see certain large capacity magazines and weapons which might be identified as military or military like automatic or assault style weapons banned, and certain kinds of ammunition which could be a hazard to law enforcement even if they were wearing some form of armor or bullet proof protection.

    And we'd like to see everyone have to be checked, every time, for compliance with the above restrictions on who can own a firearm, full compliance by all states and territories with the NICS, and registration of firearms transfers between all private parties.

    That is NOT banning all firearms.

    I don't speak for any of my co-bloggers, only for myself, but I'd like to see less open and concealed carry, limiting it to those who have either a very specific court-recognized need to carry - as in having a crminal restraining order against someone, as an example - or those who transfer items of value, such as making cash bank deposits for a business.

    That would be in part because people like YOU can't correctly identify when it is acceptable to shoot someone or even just draw your weapon and/or point it.

    Your explanation Greg, for disagreeing with Ayoob about giving a robber your money instead of shooting them? Or seeing a weapon before drawing yours?

    We are still waiting for you to complete your missing information on who is a threat to you, and how you identify them. Your previous answer was horribly incomplete, and not satisfactory.

  12. Greg Camp wrote:
    Your article points to a need in our legal system: better Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws, including protection against civil suits.

    You point out that we definitely need laws requiring gun owners / carriers to have insurance so that those they might wrongly shoot can be indemnified against losses. Ditto that if they can't afford the fees for registration / licensing and checks, as well as a high standard of secure storage.....then they can't afford to own and carry a firearm.

    I'm guessing from your prior comments Greg, that would include you.

    When Greg writes:
    Morally, it's enough for me to be on my property.

    The HELL it is; it isn't anything like 'enough', not by any measurement or values.

  13. Dog Gone,

    To translate what you wrote, you don't want to ban guns. You only want to impose a long list of restrictions. You only want to ban certain cosmetic aspects of guns. You only want to ban weapons that do the job that they were designed to do. (The vests that police wear can be penetrated by a standard deer rifle and cartridge.) You only want to impose a list of tests and qualifying factors for gun ownership. You want and you want and you want. Please explain to me how that's different, in practical terms, from an outright ban. During Prohibition, medicinal and religious uses were permitted, but a lot of people got alcohol through illegal means, and the same will happen if your proposals ever become law.

    Of course, we won't allow that to happen.

    And regarding when I'd ever draw my gun and use it to defend myself, how much clearer can I be? I've told you: If someone makes a threat against my life or the life of another innocent person. What else do you want?

  14. Greg Camp:

    You teach english?

    This is what you typed:

    "But the prevailing attitude on the part of the gun control advocates on this site and others is that the only responsible thing to do is to give up one's guns."

    That does not say, anywhere in the comment that it is an opinion, a surmise or a conclusion arrived at after weighing the evidence. It is a blanket statement that is unsupported by anything. Not only that it is presented as fact. It's a FUCKING LIE. There is a very simple way to have me stop calling you a fucking liar. That would be for you to stop telling fucking lies. Do you understand that?

  15. Democommie,

    That's the impression that I've formed after reading your comments and those of others here. It's not a lie; it's a judgement. Perhaps you understand the difference?

  16. Greg, when I read your comment, I thought that's great, I like it. Then I scrolled down to democommie's take on it and burst out laughing.

    Don't you just love us? Are we a diverse and colorful bunch, or what?

  17. Mikeb302000,

    I find you to be an intelligent and reasonable person, someone with whom a genuine conversation is possible.

    Your friends, on the other hand, leave me with an altogether different impression.

    But I really do believe in freedom, including the freedom to express one's opinions in an open forum. That these discussions so often disintegrate into name calling and cursing ought to trouble us all, but I suppose that as long as the audience is gaining some benefit, it's for the best.

  18. Greg, you have yet to show me that you are capable of backing up your arguments with actual facts.

    You are debating someone with more knowledge on some topics than you have, yet you claim to teach.

    You refuse to admit that you have been shown to be wrong.

    As for the audience gaining benefit, perhaps I am educating you, bt I seriously doubt that.

    I think you are incapable of cogent thought.

  19. Greg Camp:

    Mikeb302000 is far too polite to call you a fucking liar. I am not. I am also accurtate, at least about the lying part--I have no idea about your sexlife.

    I frequently run into guyz like you that claim to know more than others, expeshly 'bout usin' de englizh. Here's the thing, bub; when one says, "I think, in my opinion, my conclusion--THEN we know that what they're saying is NOT a fact in evidence. I mean, actually, we usually know it already, but it tends to annoy us when somebody tries to bullshit us by saying something as if it was a fact when it's simply their wish for reality.

    So, yeah, you're a liar.

  20. Democommie,

    And yet, you cannot point to a statement of fact that I made while knowing it to be false. You may say that I'm wrong, but if you call me a liar, you have to show where I lied. Not where I expressed an opinion. Where I lied.

  21. Greg, I realize my co-bloggers are tough on you, and I think you handle it well. I appreciate your continuing participation.

  22. I would apprecitae his participation if he would make an intelligent comment or two.