the Michigan High School shooter and Mom & Dad...

[Chillicothe]

There is a nearby thread about the Michigan high-school shooter and his parent's gun. It is a good thread with erudite posters examining Michigan's current laws. It's worth the time to read it, but.....but this thread takes a little bit different tack that perhaps warrants a stand alone thread,

I suggest that and post this topic in order to discuss the 'liability' one incurs in bringing a firearm into our society. Perhaps, 'responsibility' is a better word than 'liability'.

Regardless, in my view the parents of that shooter-kid need be held accountable because they are the 'owner-of-record' who introduced that high-lethality instrument in our society.

Which, launches me into my view that ALL gun owners need be responsible to some degree whenever any weapon they own causes harm.
In short, if you own the gun, you own the harm it may cause. At least a portion of it. Even if gun was used by an 'unauthorized' shooter, even if the gun was stolen from you. You 'own' the gun. You own what it produces.

That means -- if you didn't put trigger-locks on the gun and your 4yr old kills his 3yr old sibling.....you are criminally liable.
That means, if your Glock21 is stolen from under your car seat....and it ends up killing the 7/11 clerk you are criminally liable to some degree.

Sure, one could argue 'contributory negligence'.....but I desire it be stricter, more black & white than that.

If I was king....ANY harm by a firearm to which you possess as the "owner-of-record" comes burdened with strict liability. You own the gun, you own the benefits that accrue to it, you own the harms (to some degree) that it causes.

It is not a free lunch...to own a gun. If the gun was used to cause harm, you own part of the harm.

You pay to reimburse those harmed for your share of the harm.

No exceptions. You brought the high-lethality tool into society. You have the responsibility (liability) to ensure that it neve causes harm.

Thus, when it is used to do so.......you share in the liability.

 

[Oddball]

Go ahead and bring that weak-assed sauce into court, F. Lee Dershowitz.

 

[odanny]

The mom is an ignorant and profane Trumpster

 

[Ringel05]

"the 'owner-of-record' who introduced that high-lethality instrument in our society."

Like this one?

 

[night_son]

There is a nearby thread about the Michigan high-school shooter and his parent's gun. It is a good thread with erudite posters examining Michigan's current laws. It's worth the time to read it, but.....but this thread takes a little bit different tack that perhaps warrants a stand alone thread,

I suggest that and post this topic in order to discuss the 'liability' one incurs in bringing a firearm into our society. Perhaps, 'responsibility' is a better word than 'liability'.

Regardless, in my view the parents of that shooter-kid need be held accountable because they are the 'owner-of-record' who introduced that high-lethality instrument in our society.

Which, launches me into my view that ALL gun owners need be responsible to some degree whenever any weapon they own causes harm.
In short, if you own the gun, you own the harm it may cause. At least a portion of it. Even if gun was used by an 'unauthorized' shooter, even if the gun was stolen from you. You 'own' the gun. You own what it produces.

That means -- if you didn't put trigger-locks on the gun and your 4yr old kills his 3yr old sibling.....you are criminally liable.
That means, if your Glock21 is stolen from under your car seat....and it ends up killing the 7/11 clerk you are criminally liable to some degree.

Sure, one could argue 'contributory negligence'.....but I desire it be stricter, more black & white than that.

If I was king....ANY harm by a firearm to which you possess as the "owner-of-record" comes burdened with strict liability. You own the gun, you own the benefits that accrue to it, you own the harms (to some degree) that it causes.

It is not a free lunch...to own a gun. If the gun was used to cause harm, you own part of the harm.

You pay to reimburse those harmed for your share of the harm.

No exceptions. You brought the high-lethality tool into society. You have the responsibility (liability) to ensure that it neve causes harm.

Thus, when it is used to do so.......you share in the liability.

You are not fooling anyone, Rabbit. Tricks are for kids. High-lethality tool, huh? Name a tool which is not "high-lethality" in hands determined to use it as such. Further, police, the military and all armed criminals possess innumerable "high-lethality" tools which can be turned on ordinary, law-abiding citizens at any time. Tell me, Rabbit, how many criminals doing life in prison for gun murder will be reimbursing anyone? Ideas such as yours exist only to punish armed citizens who care to practice their second Amendment rights. All other armed parties, legally or otherwise, will skate after using guns to harm the average citizen, while the average citizen will be severely punished for daring to want to defend himself with a gun.

 

[daveman]

Chilli, just say you want guns banned and be done with it.

 

[night_son]

I for one am sick of anti-gun Americans calling themselves American. These asshole anti-Second Amendment pricks have the audacity to suggest guns are evil, have the fucking nerve to take pretend moral high ground, when every moment of their lives they depend on ARMED men to run to their rescue should bad men come for them. Even the staunchest anti-gunner relies on guns to protect their lives. Cops carry and use guns for them. So do soldiers. In fucking fact without men carrying and using guns for these anti-gun pricks they wouldn't have the freedom to complain about the Second Amendment at all. Someone wants to be anti-Second Amendment? Fine. Let them speak their peace. And then remove their citizenship status. Make them half-citizens.

 

[dudmuck]

I for one am sick of anti-gun Americans calling themselves American. These asshole anti-Second Amendment pricks have the audacity to suggest guns are evil, have the fucking nerve to take pretend moral high ground, when every moment of their lives they depend on ARMED men to run to their rescue should bad men come for them. Even the staunchest anti-gunner relies on guns to protect their lives. Cops carry and use guns for them. So do soldiers. In fucking fact without men carrying and using guns for these anti-gun pricks they wouldn't have the freedom to complain about the Second Amendment at all. Someone wants to be anti-Second Amendment? Fine. Let them speak their peace. And then remove their citizenship status. Make them half-citizens.

 

[daveman]

You notice none of these crazies ever shoot up a gun show?

No, it's always places where Democrats made it illegal for normal people to carry guns.

Always.

 

[Winco]

Chilli, just say you want guns banned and be done with it.

Guns don't kill people, People kill People.
Can it be any clearer?

Nope.

I leave my gun on the table, return 5 weeks later from my Vacation, gun is still on the table.
It (the gun) didn't KILL anyone.

Guns Don't Kill People.

 

[Oddball]

 

[daveman]

Guns don't kill people, People kill People.
Can it be any clearer?

Nope.

I leave my gun on the table, return 5 weeks later from my Vacation, gun is still on the table.
It (the gun) didn't KILL anyone.

Guns Don't Kill People.

I agree. However, irrational gun-haters don't. Look at Alec Baldwin.

 

[dudmuck]

View attachment 571121

 

[Chillicothe]

the 'owner-of-record' who introduced that high-lethality instrument in our society." Like this one?

No. Not like that wrecked car.
We are talking about guns here.
I regret if I wasn't clear.
------------------------------------------

High-lethality tool, huh? Name a tool which is not "high-lethality" in hands determined to use it as such.

Yup. A gun is a "high(er) lethality" tool. Period.
It's potential for killing is greater than your scissors, ball bat, or hammer.

If you own a gun and use a gun. You know that.
Guns are singularly different in their ability to inflict injury and damage.
And illustration: If only Stephen Paddock had carried 47 hammers up to the 33rd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel......rather than 47guns.
Maybe, just maybe, there wouldn't be as many as 60 dead, and 411 wounded.

Guns are singularly different. Most people know that.
-----------------------------------------

Ideas such as yours exist only to punish armed citizens who care to practice their second Amendment rights.

Noper. It is intended to spark a dialogue on treating guns with more respect and more responsibility by the owner-of-record, and our government, and our society.
----------------------------------

"just say you want guns banned and be done..."

No, poster 'dave' I won't say that. There is no need. And it would be untrue. I own guns. I have 9 of them. Downstairs in the safe. I use 'em. I enjoy em. As I have for more than 60 years. And I want to keep them.
-----------------------------

"I for one am sick of anti-gun Americans calling themselves American. These asshole anti-Second Amendment pricks have the audacity to suggest guns are evil,........the fucking,,,,,,,,In fucking fact without men carrying and using guns for these anti-gun pricks......."

You know, it is emotionalism such as above that makes us think there are people out there who should not be allowed to have guns.

Guns ain't toys. Nor props for projecting one's machismo. Owning a gun must be a serious responsibility. For our individual safety. For our society as a whole.
.
And as a society we must know that those folks who are the 'owners-of-record' ARE stable people who are not subject to inappropriate emotionalism that could cause them to use their firearm irresponsibly. Could use it and cause harm.
--------------------------------

Guns don't kill people, People kill People.

A safely secured gun all by itself....doesn't kill people. Nor do bombs. Or poisons. Or cars.

The all too obvious reality is ---- guns don't stay all by themselves. People use them. And they use them in ways that they don't use scissors, hammers, ball bats.....or automobiles.

Guns are different. Singularly different. We all know that. An example: Our armies don't use ball bats to storm a hill.

As such a greater level of responsibility/liability must accrue to those who choose to own them.

 

[Chillicothe]

The above post was getting a tad long.
Lemme take it to sort of a page 2.

My view is that if one enjoys the benefits of owning a firearm, e.g., self-defense safety, recreational target shooting, dispatching varmints, sport hunting, etc.....one also owns the liabilities of owning a gun.

If it causes harm... You own it (at least a portion of it).
It is a 'strict liability' dynamic. You were the agency that introduced it to our society. And with that comes responsibility. Comes liability when things go wrong.

Even if the harm is primarily caused by your 15yr old son who took it to school to shoot a mean teacher.
Even if it was stolen from your dresser drawer or from under the seat of your truck....and then used to injure the bank-teller.

That teacher would likely still be un-shot if you hadn't allowed the gun to get in the hands of your 15yr old. That teller would be unshot if you had been more attentive to securing the weapon.

Now, if one objects to having such responsibility, such liability......well then, get insurance to cover your butt.

I am more confident that the underwriting protocols of a private-party for-profit insurance company will be more vigilant and ensure more discipline ---and safety ---- to gun ownership than what is currently being done by governmental agencies.

 

[Ringel05]

No. Not like that wrecked car.
We are talking about guns here.
I regret if I wasn't clear.
------------------------------------------

Yup. A gun is a "high(er) lethality" tool. Period.
It's potential for killing is greater than your scissors, ball bat, or hammer.

If you own a gun and use a gun. You know that.
Guns are singularly different in their ability to inflict injury and damage.
And illustration: If only Stephen Paddock had carried 47 hammers up to the 33rd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel......rather than 47guns.
Maybe, just maybe, there wouldn't be as many as 60 dead, and 411 wounded.

Guns are singularly different. Most people know that.
-----------------------------------------

Noper. It is intended to spark a dialogue on treating guns with more respect and more responsibility by the owner-of-record, and our government, and our society.
----------------------------------


No, poster 'dave' I won't say that. There is no need. And it would be untrue. I own guns. I have 9 of them. Downstairs in the safe. I use 'em. I enjoy em. As I have for more than 60 years. And I want to keep them.
-----------------------------


You know, it is emotionalism such as above that makes us think there are people out there who should not be allowed to have guns.

Guns ain't toys. Nor props for projecting one's machismo. Owning a gun must be a serious responsibility. For our individual safety. For our society as a whole.
.
And as a society we must know that those folks who are the 'owners-of-record' ARE stable people who are not subject to inappropriate emotionalism that could cause them to use their firearm irresponsibly. Could use it and cause harm.
--------------------------------


A safely secured gun all by itself....doesn't kill people. Nor do bombs. Or poisons. Or cars.

The all too obvious reality is ---- guns don't stay all by themselves. People use them. And they use them in ways that they don't use scissors, hammers, ball bats.....or automobiles.

Guns are different. Singularly different. We all know that. An example: Our armies don't use ball bats to storm a hill.

As such a greater level of responsibility/liability must accrue to those who choose to own them.

Being narrowly focused you missed my point......... Automobiles, scissors, hammers & ball bats amoung other things have been used to intentionally or unintentionally kill someone, some of these items are used for that purpose as much as if not more than firearms. Check the FBI stats, not the Brady Campaign stats, the FBI doesn't have a political agenda (despite what some claim) but the Brady Campaign does. According to the FBI knives are five times deadlier than guns, maybe you should focus on knives.

 

[Chillicothe]

"According to the FBI knives are five times deadlier than guns, maybe you should focus on knives."

If only Stephen Paddock had gone to the Mandalay Bay with 47 skinning knives.....instead of 47 guns?

If only Adam Lanza's Bushmaster and those 300 rounds had been......300 Buck Knives. Maybe 20 six & seven year-olds would now be 15 & 16 year-olds?

If only Nicholas Cruz had gone to the Parkland School with a boning knife.....maybe he wouldn't have killed 17?

Let's agree: Guns are singularly different in many degrees of magnitude in their 'lethality quotient' than your 8" Chef's knife.

If you have ever used a gun.....you would know that. Most people in our society know that almost instinctively.

IMHO

 

[DigitalDrifter]

So someone breaks into your home, steals your secured firearm, and uses said firearm, you want the original owner held liable?

 

[Ringel05]

If only Stephen Paddock had gone to the Mandalay Bay with 47 skinning knives.....instead of 47 guns?

If only Adam Lanza's Bushmaster and those 300 rounds had been......300 Buck Knives. Maybe 20 six & seven year-olds would now be 15 & 16 year-olds?

If only Nicholas Cruz had gone to the Parkland School with a boning knife.....maybe he wouldn't have killed 17?

Let's agree: Guns are singularly different in many degrees of magnitude in their 'lethality quotient' than your 8" Chef's knife.

If you have ever used a gun.....you would know that. Most people in our society know that almost instinctively.

IMHO

If I have ever used a gun.......... That's funny. I'm 67 and I've been handling firearms since I was 9. Former military and former state and federal law enforcement. Should people learn to handle firearms responsibly? Of course but the problem is in how our Constitution is written and well regulated is not what you think it is in this instance. Can someone go on a killing spree with a knife and kill twenty people? Uuuummmmm, yeah.

 

[percysunshine]

Imagine how many people Alec Baldwin could kill if he did not have a chauffeur.