Thursday, August 27, 2009

New Dirty Lib Question

Sorry I have been away from the wheel for a week. I have been working hard in Canada, well I have been in Canada.

My coworker is a Dirty Lib from Austria, but a level headed one. He does not like guns and doesn't see the point.

Today, he asked me what I thought about the government forcing everyone to keep their guns in a safe when not at home and being held responsible if the gun is stolen and used in a crime. I believe this was a hypothetical question and not anything being presented as a law, so don't worry.

I ask you guys. What do you think about this?

6 comments:

James said...

There is no way you should be held liable for the criminal act of another person. Thats like saying you deserve to have your car stolen if you leave it unlocked. If you have a gun in your house, and it is legal for you to own it, then why should you be the one in trouble if someone steals it. Should you be held criminally liable if you let a person drink in your house and they get a DUI?

The dirty Austrian Lib said...

Let me introduce my self. I'm the Dirty Lib austrian, Steve is talking about.

Well now that our depbate become a topic on that blog, I would like to explain my self.

I didn't say anthing such as if your gun gets stolen, you should be made resposible for whatever happens or any crime that would be comitted with your gun. All I'm saying is, that if you not home you should store your gun at a safe place. If you are a gun owner your are responsible for that gun. So if it gets in the wrong hands, because you acted irepsonsible, yes i truely believe that you should be held criminally liabl. Having a gun home, always brings liablity with it.

There is one more thing i want to add. If you leave your car unlucked, insurance does not cover the theft, since you disobey your duty of securing your car. That's the way it is in Austria and what I also consider personal responsibility.

Warthog said...

Thank you for responding my Dirty Austrian Lib Friend and joining the discussion on Personal Responsibility.

We have talked about this subject in person so I will let my readers voice their opinions. I am sorry I misunderstood you yesterday, but I do not think it changes the debate too much. You still think a person should be held responsible for a crime committed against them in the sanctity of their own home.

I would like to remind any posters that Austria has its own laws, culture, and history so keep this in mind when responding. This is not an American arguing against our rights, this is a foreigner attempting to understand American culture and debating personal rights and responsibilities.

I hope to hear more from the Dirty Austrian Lib; he is intelligent and has firmly held beliefs that make for fun, heated, and interesting debate. Now let’s welcome him properly and respectfully challenge him with our thoughts and opinions.

beatlebumm said...

Haha. Hey Dirty Lib Austrian, this is Dirty Lib American. Mr Warthog has a way of taking your words, mixing them around and posting them on his blog. Don't feel put upon, this is normal!

James said...

OK.....I'm just trying to clarify a few things.

First, you have to remember that it is perfectly legal to own a gun in this country, so please take any preconceptions of this being right or wrong out of your mind.

Now lets say you own a 12th century Japanese Katana sword and you have it on display, unsecure, in you house. Someone then breaks into your house, steals this, and uses it to kill someone. Are you saying that the owner should be criminally liable? How about if they steal a baseball bat? What if they steal your car from your garage and then kill someone in a police pursuit?

I could go on forever about this. In my opinion, I believe you have a predisposed problem with individual gun ownership. I am not trying to put you down or in any way disparage your nationality, but as you can see I think your logic is flawed.

Now if a person hands a loaded gun to a person he or she knows is either a felon, or knows is going to commit a crime, I can maybe see some type of liability. I can not understand a perfectly legal gun owner being held responsible for an overt criminal act of another.

One last thing....I can understand that the dirty lib is very exited to have a friendly voice on this blog however, I noticed that there was no opinion listed on his post.....

Just curious as to what you think.

The dirty Austrian Lib said...

Well I have to admitt you got a point there. None the less I stick with what i said.

Again, I'm not saying people should be held responsible for a crime that was comitted with their weapon, after it has been stolen. This would be rediciloous.

Let me use an example. Somebody breaks into your house and steals all your weapons and ammunation, because your firearms was not safely stored. If he is going to sell them or using them for a criminal act, doesn't matter. My opinion is that if you would have looked them in a safe, it would not have been so easy to steal them and there might be less weapon on the streets.

Just let me say one thing here. You cannot compare a japanese sword with a 9mm Glock. When was the last case that someone robbed a bank with and traditional japanese sword. No offend, but that comparion is a little lame.


I used this as an example for another possiblities to strick the laws on weapons, without limit the right of having a weapon. It would just be a little extra work.

One more thing at the end. This has nothing to do with my nationality. I guess a lot of people in America think the same way i do.

One last thing at the end. Warthog didn't twist my word, I simpy didn't made my point clear when we had our little debate.