Woman Shoots at Suspect at Day Care Center in San Miguel Ranch

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Oct 3, 2017.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loc...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
    good girl with a gun needs more training.
     
  2. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #2
    If the kids had gotten killed by a wayward bullet, would keeping a mattress from an ex boyfriend really be worth their life. For a party that claims to be pro life the right really puts a low value on that life once it is out of the womb.
     
  3. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #3
    do you really think the guy who tried setting the place on fire was there for a mattress? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
     
  4. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #4
    Welcome to jkcerda's utopia, where every dispute is settled with guns blazing.
     
  5. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #5
    Liberals utopia, her and the kids should be dead or burned because all he wanted was a mattress :rolleyes:
     
  6. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #6
    That’s what your article said. I don’t have anything else to go by.
     
  7. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #7
    article also said he tried to set the place on fire and shot at the woman..............maybe you should try reading it
     
  8. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #8
    Oh good. A mattress is safe. This totally makes the pile of dead bodies in Vegas worth it. Thank midget for guns.
     
  9. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #9
    that's 3 liberals who are happy the mattress is safe overlooking the 7 kids that were inside about to be burned to the ground...........
     
  10. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #10
    Give me a break. Anti-gun-control people don't care about dead kids. Anti-gun-control people such as yourself had no problem overlooking the 20 dead kids in Newtown.
     
  11. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #11
    deflection noted..
     
  12. rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #12
    Newtown was caused by a person who killed the gun owner (his mother) and stole her rifle.
    What law proposed after Newtown would have prevented it? Simple answer, none of them.
    He broke so many laws BEFORE he entered Newtown.
    Politicians took it as an excuse to propose ridiculous laws about background checks, because people who steal guns go through a background check. :rolleyes:
    Proposing arbitrary laws banning high capacity magazines... fyi a 20 and 30 round magazines STANDARD capacity for most rifles.
    Some of the deadliest shootings before Vegas were done with pistols using 10 round mags (Columbine, Virginia Tech).

    A full ban is what libs want, but they lack the conviction to just state that is what they want.
    They try to chip away at the 2A with little pieces of legislation here and there... death of a thousand cuts.
     
  13. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #13
    How do you know? How do you know the mother would have still chosen to buy that gun had the registration requirements been different, or if that type of weapon was banned?

    I'll tell you a law I would like to see - if you fail to properly secure your weapon, you are responsible for all harm caused by it if it is stolen. Period. Keep in an underground vault surrounded by concrete if you don't want to risk it.

    His mother should be in jail for life, if she was still alive.

    It's not about the specific perp, it's the fact the weapon was so easily accessible to him. Criminals will be criminals, but that doesn't mean we should sell land mines at Costco. We should do something to prevent obvious and easy implements of violence from being accessible.

    Yep. Again, it's not about the weapon, it's about accessibility and accountability.

    I want gun owners that claim to be "responsible" to actually be responsible. I'm not sure if I can say it any clearer.
     
  14. rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #14
    Woulda, coulda, shoulda, is not an effective argument.

    Define "properly secured".
    Even some of the best gun safes can be broken into by a determined individual.
    Mine has one of the highest ratings on the market, but even the manufacturer warns that it is not impossible to gain entry.

    She paid the ultimate price, but we don't know how the weapon was stored.


    You can say it... you want a ban.

    Many on the left feel it's all about the weapon. Accessibility is another issue that can be addressed if politics are left out of it.

    There are over 100+ million gun owners in America. Most are very responsible.
    When you consider the number of guns that are in civilian hands (over 300 million), I think the argument that gun owners aren't practicing safe handling and storage is a non-starter.
     
  15. Mousse macrumors 68000

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #15
    It's not the mattress. It's what's in the mattress.
    [​IMG]
     
  16. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #16
    no thanks, no reason to compromise with your thinking.
     
  17. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #17
    Yet another gun owner that doesn't want to be responsible.
     
  18. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #18
    why should I be responsible for things that were stolen?
    if your car is stolen and they kill someone with it, should YOU go to jail for that? please :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
     
  19. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #19
    Agreed, hence I made the sarcastic comment. You said it first, and it wasn't an effective argument then either.
    It's not hard. If you have a deadly weapon, you are responsible for what happens to it. Make sure you get a safe that takes longer to break into than the time it takes for the police to get to your house if you don't want to be responsible.

    We do know how it was stored. It was stored such that her son, with known mental health issues, could accessing it.

    No, I don't. I like going to ranges. I like shooting stuff. I just think there should be A LOT more accountability on owners, manufacturers, retailers, and the government.

    That's not true at all. All the left talks about is accessibility. Look at all the studies coming out recently, showing it is increased accessibility to guns that correlates to increased gun crimes. There is no study that says an AR15 is more likely to lead to gun crime than a 10mm. It's the quantity of guns, not the "quality" for lack of a better word.

    Responsibility is a two way street. Being responsible means taking the right precautions before the fact, and accepting the consequences after the fact if your precautions weren't enough. Most gun owners only do the first part.

    If they were truly responsible, they wouldn't be supporting the NRAs efforts to fight against various safe handling and storage laws and regulations.
    --- Post Merged, Oct 3, 2017 ---
    Because they are your things. That is why you should be responsible.

    If I left my car unlocked and easily accessible, then yes, I should.
     
  20. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #20
    what did you say earlier?
    MY house is supposed to be "secured", it's under lock so that is good enough .
     
  21. rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #21
    The left talks about accessibility in the retail store, not in the home.


    I will not take any responsibility for the actions of a criminal that stole my property and used it in an illegal manner.
    Again, even the best gun safes can be compromised. The toughest gun safe on the market can be opened in 30 minutes with common hand tools (UL TL-30x6). Most people cannot afford those let alone have a place to put a 750+ pound safe.
    The average handgun safe can be picked up and carried away and worked on in another location.
    They're designed to prevent instant access, not against theft.

    The NRA works against unrealistic storage laws like what you propose.
    As for safe handling, the NRA is the #1 organization in the U.S. for training people on proper safe handling and storage of firearms.
     
  22. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #22
    They talk about all accessibility. Accessibility in homes is a huge issue too.

    "I will not take responsibility for the dangerous things I have dominion over." That is essentially what you're saying.

    If I fail to store dangerous chemicals in their proper containers, and someone gets burned, I am liable. Yet if I fail to store a gun safely, and someone gets shot, not my problem. Makes sense.

    Sounds like an engineering issue.

    In any case, it's about reasonableness. As long as all gun owners store their guns in the safest commercially reasonable way, and the gun is still stolen, it's not their fault. But if one guy decides to cheap out and store it in a shoe box, and his gun gets stolen, he should be liable. If you can afford the "sport" of having guns, you can afford good safes.

    I would also be totally in favor or requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance, like most car owners have to do.

    Oh bullplop. If that were true, there would be NRA training centers on every city block in Chicago. They only care about the safety of white rural people.
     
  23. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #23
    all my home needs is the front lock engaged, that is "Secured", your idea is to have them buried under concrete. :rolleyes:
     
  24. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #24
    If that is viewed as not enough by the gun-owning community at large, then you should be responsible if it is stolen. In other words, if more than half of gun owners see it necessary to take additional precautions in securing their guns, then you should be liable if it is stolen and used to cause harm.

    Google "reasonably prudent person standard."
     
  25. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #25
    So it’s the victim’s fault that an individual breaks into the victim’s house, kills the owner, steals guns, and goes on a killing spree? I mean, if anything this has proven that the gun(s) should’ve been more accessible to the owner.
     

Share This Page

44 October 3, 2017