Usui Takumi

It makes me sad to see that we talk about how to prevent rape from the victim's standpoint alone rather than teaching men not to rape. Most rapes occur when the victim knows the rapist. Often the victim is coerced against her will by a friend or just someone she knows. Obviously there are precautions all women should take (unfortunately we have to), but it's 2013 and we are still victim-blaming.

With all of these questions related to men, do we think this is still an issue. Is someone still spreading the message that rape is okay?

Here is the NBC clip which confirms that no assult rifle was ever used in Sandy Hooks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGn4o1Lb6L0

Assult rifle was left in the car was was never taken inside the school.

You can watch the NBC report too

The police report said this:

#1. Bushmaster .223 caliber– model XM15-E2S rifle with high standard capacity 30 round clips

#2. Glock 10 mm handgun

#3. Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun

Seized from suspect’s car in parking lot:

#4. Izhmash Canta-12 12 gauge Shotgun (seized from car in parking lot)

Rape is not about the sex, rather its about the attacker getting off on dominating the victim and extorting control over the victim.

So if the victims behaving in a way that would be 'unpleasant' or unconducive to the attackers sexual gratification like urinating or vomiting, its not going to stop the attack, because the goal of the attack is not for the attacker to achieve sexual gratification through the sexual act itself but through the domination of the force and control.

+1 Also there are crazies out there that probably like that sort of thing.

.

Still appears to be a deficit today, one bad guy to six others killed by guns today in the good old USA.

I've heard statics on the high side of 1.9 million and low side of 500,000 per year where a private firearm was used in self defense. Most of these, obviously, did not involve the discharge of the weapon.

I see no deficit, I see a surplus.

They weren't liable for murder due to a lack of foreseeability breaking the chain of causation. However there are numerous cases out there where someone has been held liable because the use was foreseeable (showing kids where the guns were kept, for example). Finnochio v. Mahler has a nice discussion of this. There is no reason why McGrane could not be distinguished on the facts in the future. I was trying to look for cases on Westlaw where McGrane was distinguished or disapproved, but alas it is outside my subscription.

I can see the distinction. In Finnochio, the primary actor had access on multiple occasions and the owner, through his admission to his daughter regarding the boy, was fully aware that the thief was not trustworthy. As a result he had a duty of care to secure the arm.

I'm pretty sure if a person owns a gun and allows it to be accessible to kids, if the neighbor's kid gets shot in the head, you won't need to worry about your homeowners insurance. The parents of said deceased child will sue and take your home from you most likely- negating the need for any future homeowner's insurance. I know I certainly would.

It depends on the incident I suppose. If the neighbor's son or daughter enters your house without permission I would say its unlikely. Many states already have laws that define this including California.

Freedom always has a price.

The insurance companies already have to cover what happens outside the home with a gun. Unless its an illegal act, which no insurance company will cover. So that cost is already being born by gun owners. Obviously its already a small actuary risk, because I don't recall being asked about gun ownership when I bought homeowners insurance. I can't imagine adding in a small adder to cover accidental discharge of stolen guns will make much of a blip on the insurance bill. As to requiring gun owners to buy an insurance product no insurance company would ever offer (illegal use of a stolen firearm), I can only see that as a direct challenge to the 2nd amendment, and it ain't gonna happen no matter how much the anti-gun crowd might like it.

Criminal culpability and liability are very different animals in court though. Or was it a liability case?

It was a liability case.

Injury from the accidental discharge of a gun is usually already covered by homeowners and renters insurance. It has already been found in court that the injury does not need to take place in the home, since the property is the homeowner's. The precedent was set when a homeowner discharged a shotgun while unloading it on his truck bed. How this would apply in the case of a stolen gun, we'd have to see how the courts would rule. But obviously using insurance to get gun owners to secure their guns isn't going to happen, because the vast majority already have that coverage.

Check out McGRANE v. CLINE

In that case, a firearm was stolen from a bedroom and used in a murder. They had a safe but it was left out. The final ruling was that they were not liable for the murder.

You figured that out all by yourself?

My 'logical fallacies' were for your benefit, to expose your 'logical fallacy'!

Mine was not a logical fallacy, its even highlighted in recent court decisions.

It is also my constitutional right to be able to own property. But I cannot afford to buy my own island in Hawaii. So it is unconstitutional to make me have to pay for it?

It is my constitutional right to have 'free speech' in political matters. I want the entire country to know my opinion but I cannot afford the millions in advertising fees they want to charge. So it is unconstitutional for them to charge me?

Your statement is a logical fallacy. You are highlighting the cost of the item as opposed to the insurance or tax rate.

Yep. The liability argument is solid, the prior requirement would take a bit more work. The courts would first have to redefine the 2nd Amendment. They have done it several times already. They will probably do several more times in the future.

The whole insurance argument will create a financial barrier in exercising a constitutional right. It will affect the poor at a far greater rate - its similar to a poll tax and thus unconstitutional.

We are not talking about a small fee here, probably 2,000 USD minimum a year.

Why do you constantly confuse the hypothetical with fact?

Perhaps there should be. If the gun owner would be held liable, and if the gun owner would have to demonstrate financial responsibility in order to own a firearm, then I am certain these sort of things would be less common as insurance companies begin establishing their own rules to provide coverage.

Of course that won't happen. Lets assume CA passes such a bill, there will be an injunction against it almost immediately and it will go on to fail in the court system.

Vehicles don't rob banks.

They make good getaway devices though.

And? If a neighbor's child wanders into your backyard, falls in the pool and drowns, because you forgot to latch the gate, are you not still liable?

By code your gate must be self latching.

I remember registering at 18. That being said was I supposed to keep an up to date address, because I never did anything more with it after the initial registration.

No, gun nut paranoia which the NRA rather than the government or the media feeds is what pumped up gun sales.

Or perhaps it was CA and NY that helped. They have the most far reaching laws. For instance Steinberg's SB374 practically calls any firearm an "assault weapon".

Media and liberal hysteria has been more than matched by NRA hysteria. Calls of impeachment, arresting federal officials, armed revolution, how is that not whipping up hysteria. I've seen little common sense on either side if the gun debate.

The NRA said these things? I thought it was just Alex Jones.

Pig vs Hog

Pig is faster, with (better) electronics.

Hog has the gun, manoeuvrability, diversity of loadout and survivability.

Pig vs Bug

Matched in capability, the pig has the edge in electronics and power, while the Bug has 2 engines, a traditional USN preference.

Pig vs Viper

The Pig has better electronics, more power and range, while the Viper is cheaper and just as flexible.

Pig vs Harrier

The Pig is faster, can carry more and is more versatile, but the Harrier is VTOL capable, has a less complex, more flexible thrust vectoring capability.

The main problem with the Thunderpig is that it is far more costly than every system it is designed to replace, while barely more capable, if at all, than any of them.

As for the stealth capability, the Pig has limited internal carry capacity, and it is only stealthy if it is externally clean. The moment you need to put a useful combat loadout on one, and therefore carry ordnance externally, any stealth capability it may have had goes to hell in a handbasket.

I thought they were making a VTOL version of the F35? I'm guessing it was cut?

Biden has openly said the same thing that such measures won't really work. Yet he keeps pushing anyway...

Apart from the poll options, which are inane and irrelevant ...

The Thunderpig is in trouble yet again. Having canned the parallel engine option, The US Goernment and Lockheed Martin are saddled with a plane that doesn't meet the original performance criteria (so they rewrote them around what the 'Pig can do), is plagued by serious development issues and is seriously over-budget. Epic.

As for being defeceless against anyone, the 'Pig is not operational yet, so that's plainly untrue.

Can you compare its current performance to the planes its replacing (forgetting the stealth component)?

I know its replacing the following (probably more than these):

A10

F18

F16

AV8

I'm sorry. I was referring to humor. I should have used emoticons.

Oh right. Actually I wasn't being humorous. I'm tired of him throwing around worthless stereotypes in order to demean other people's points of view.

Is that the best you can do?

Not sure what you mean.

Thank you Mr Big Dog, but there was another underlying subject behind that statement. has nothing to do with guns at all. Please don't mind me...

He just has a thing for small penises. He posts ####### like that in practically every thread.