soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
So if you sell your old used car to some guy who gets drunk and drives it head on into a minivan full of kids, does that make you responsible for the crime he committed with that car?
Chattanooga, TN Marine Shooter
- Thread starter Babagounj
- Start date
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Then do you support "shall-issue" concealed carry permits for the law-abiding, with 50 state reciprocity? Because the best way to disarm bad guys who commit crimes with guns is for a good guy with a gun to shoot them first.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
I already own 12 guns and I have 2 concealed handgun licenses that are valid in a total of 36 states. To get these licenses I had to undergo extensive criminal background checks and fingerprinting. Twice. Please explain to me why I should have to undergo a waiting period to buy another gun.
It is also worth noting that all of the recent mass shootings were committed with guns that had been legally purchased several months prior to the murders. So a waiting period would not have prevented them from occurring.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
If there were known defects which you failed to disclose at the time of sale-----yes.
upschuck
Well-Known Member
Apples and oranges.
Cars primary purpose is to transport people/things
Guns primary purpose is to shot people/things.
In your example, whoever served him those drinks are also partly responsible for that crime as well.
upschuck
Well-Known Member
Yes I do, as long as the states have a true class to originally obtain them. I know a guy who lived in Iowa, and he said to get a conceal carry permit was an utter joke.
upschuck
Well-Known Member
The waiting period shouldn't be long to purchase a gun, maybe longer for first time gun buyer because it is more intensive, but a short time for other buyers. Because you may have committed/convicted of a crime between those two purchases to cause you to lose that right.
My what??
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
No, its apples to apples.
Cars and guns are both inantimate objects. Both can kill if used in a criminal or negligent manner.
The fundamental question is this: is the seller of an inantimate object responsible for the criminal misuse of that object by the person who bought it from him?
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
Bad analogy. A car isn't designed to kill people.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
Again, steak knives aren't designed to kill people. Guns are. I could take a rock and beat someone with it. We don't regulate rocks because they aren't designed to kill people either.
upschuck
Well-Known Member
But you are responsible if you give someone too much to drink, and they run over someone.
upschuck
Well-Known Member
That is why I'm trying to keep them out of the wrong hands.
"as is"
This is a STUPID comparison towards guns. Automobiles are not designed weapons. Automobiles have a litany of registration provisions before selling a vehicle that eliminates responsibility.
THATS CALLED REGISTRATION.
GUNS that are bought by straw buyers have NO SUCH REGISTRATION.
Dont be desperate bro.
TOS.
How's that working out?
upschuck
Well-Known Member
It's not, because anybody can buy a gun, and you support that.
If the laws on the books were followed, it wouldn't be.
You cannot knowingly sell a gun to a criminal. If that were honored, it'd be fine.
Arm more people, so when these a-holes who shoot up Schools, movie theaters, churches, and military recruitment facilities pull out their guns, they get blown away.
