surreptitious57 wrote:
Where do you stand on personal responsibility?
As a law-abiding gun owner I am personally and completely responsible for where each and every bullet I fire ends up.
Do you think that non gun owners should have the right to equal compensation as much as gun owners who get shot?
Not sure what you mean by this, but non-gun owners have recourse to the same civil law system as anybody else and are entitled to the same degree of compensation as is anyone else for a wrongful injury or death, regardless of the implement of injury.
Or should gun owners have more compensation because they took adequate precautions?
I don't understand what you mean.
Why would you not make it a criminal offence for law abiding citizens to carry a gun at all times in public and to have guns in their homes?
Because carrying a gun is a public safety neutral activity that poses no more risk to others than any other peaceable activity like driving a car or hitting golf balls.
Where do you draw the line at gun ownership?
At illegal use of any firearm.
Would you restrict that to law abiding citizens and the police and army but no one else?
Yes.
If someone has no criminal record and then commits a crime should they be banned from having legal possession of a gun even temporarily?
Yes, and they already are.
If someone is prescribed mentally ill should they be banned for life for having legal possession of a gun?
No. This is because "mentally ill" means many different things, some of which are a permanent risk and some of which are a temporary risk. Certainly banning possession of firearms while one is currently adjudicated, after due process, of a mental illness that would create a risk to the patient or others should the individual have a gun is perfectly appropriate. But, by way of example only, a temporary bout of depression being treated by a physician where there is no evidence that the individual poses a risk to himself or others certainly should not result in a lifetime gun ban. On the other hand, a person diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia with delusions who has evidenced violent behavior and is on medication should probably not possess firearms, but that decision is up to a judge, in a courtroom, after the application of due process, not as a simple matter of allegedly suffering from some mental illness.
So long as the process for denying someone's RKBA involves credible medical testimony and due process before a judge or jury, then constraining an individual's gun rights is acceptable. What is not acceptable is generalized laws that say, for example, "if you are consulting a psychologist or psychiatrist and are using medication prescribed by a doctor for any mental condition you are barred from possessing firearms for life." That's how the democrat party wants to revise the current law, which says that if you have been "involuntarily committed to a mental health institution" your gun rights are gone forever, which law is itself entirely unconstitutional as it does not meet the Lemon Test for strict scrutiny of laws which deny fundamental rights.
Should there be a statue of limitations on justifiable homicide with a gun? For example : if a woman kills a man that raped her then how long a period of time should pass after the rape happened before she could be charged with murder?
Yes. The laws regarding the use of deadly physical force are quite specific. In order to justifiably kill someone the threat to you or another person must be both imminent and risk death or serious bodily harm. You are not required to retreat (in my state anyway), but if you escape the situation you cannot come back later and kill the attacker out of revenge or anger. The law requires that if the threat is not both imminent and serious enough to justify the immediate use of deadly physical force then one is obliged to go to the police and handle the matter through the police and the courts and not resort to "vigilante justice" by trying to administer punishment yourself.
Or should she be legally permitted to kill him anyway?
No, not in the scenario you posit.
How would you deal with organised crime that has no respect for the law and very easy access to guns?
Put them in jail or execute them according to the law and add substantial additional penalties for possessing a firearm while committing a crime.
Wait...that's how the law already reads, so never mind.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
Better at it than me? I already have you trapped in a logical puzzle. You're too dumb to know it. Forget it, I'm not wasting time trying to illuminate your idiocy for you anymore.
