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

[Chillicothe]

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

Yupper.
Exactly.
You read my post correctly.

The thief bears the 'primary' responsibility and deserves the greater punishment.

But the 'owner-of-record' introduced that gun into our society......he is not without liability. He owns a share of the harm....determined by jury, or determined by yet to be passed legislation .... he owns a share .

If the gun had been more adequately secured......

 

[Lakhota]

Long overdue that parents be held accountable!

 

[surada]

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

Who is talking about civil war other than the most demented
Trumpies?

 

[Chillicothe]

Can someone go on a killing spree with a knife and kill twenty people? Uuuummmmm, yeah.

Sure they could. Ummmmm, yeah.
We can agree that that has happened.
But it ain't knives that are killing multiples of our 2nd graders.
Guns are doing that. Guns purchased and owned by somebody.

I don't care how long you say you've used guns......yet, you still do not comprehend that it ain't ball bats, or hammers that are the 'killing tool' of choice. Ain't the 'killing tool' that is the most highly effective in doing exactly that.....killing.

My point is...regardless if you were 9 when you shot a gun....my points is: If you brought this high-lethality tool into our society you need to be burdened with 'strict liability'.
You own it. You own its benefits. You own its harms.

Period.

 

[daveman]

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.
-----------------------------

"Rights for me but not for thee."

Typical leftist.

 

[Ringel05]

Sure they could. Ummmmm, yeah.
We can agree that that has happened.
But it ain't knives that are killing multiples of our 2nd graders.
Guns are doing that. Guns purchased and owned by somebody.

I don't care how long you say you've used guns......yet, you still do not comprehend that it ain't ball bats, or hammers that are the 'killing tool' of choice. Ain't the 'killing tool' that is the most highly effective in doing exactly that.....killing.

My point is...regardless if you were 9 when you shot a gun....my points is: If you brought this high-lethality tool into our society you need to be burdened with 'strict liability'.
You own it. You own its benefits. You own its harms.

Period.

There are already strict liability laws in place, state and federal. You seem to want more that in reality will do little or nothing to prevent future incidents.

 

[Chillicothe]

"Rights for me but not for thee." Typical leftist.

Ummm??
Spit it out, good poster 'dave'.
I, for one, don't know what you are signaling here.
Can you explain yourself?

 

[daveman]

Ummm??
Spit it out, good poster 'dave'.
I, for one, don't know what you are signaling here.
Can you explain yourself?

It's really very simple. You say you don't want guns banned.

I don't believe you.

 

[Chillicothe]

"I don't believe you."

That's OK, good poster 'dave'.
But, you could have simply said as such....instead of trying to be politically correct and not spit it out right away.

But I appreciate your attempt at being so woke.

 

[daveman]

That's OK, good poster 'dave'.
But, you could have simply said as such....instead of trying to be politically correct and not spit it out right away.

But I appreciate your attempt at being so woke.

You're really not very good at this.

 

[night_son]

Sure they could. Ummmmm, yeah.
We can agree that that has happened.
But it ain't knives that are killing multiples of our 2nd graders.
Guns are doing that. Guns purchased and owned by somebody.

I don't care how long you say you've used guns......yet, you still do not comprehend that it ain't ball bats, or hammers that are the 'killing tool' of choice. Ain't the 'killing tool' that is the most highly effective in doing exactly that.....killing.

My point is...regardless if you were 9 when you shot a gun....my points is: If you brought this high-lethality tool into our society you need to be burdened with 'strict liability'.
You own it. You own its benefits. You own its harms.

Period.

Wrong. Period. Your sentiment is anti-American in the extreme. Every time you get behind the wheel and drive you introduce a lethal tool into public space. Everyday tens of millions of Americans drive their routine routes without incident. From time to time, as recently witnessed, a psychopathic driver uses his or her car to its fullest lethal potential. Gun and car ownership and misuse are no different. The more likely answer to your problem with unregulated firearm ownership is guns terrify you to your core being. No real American would trade the illusion of government provided safety for the right to possess the ultimate means of self-defense. Broadly and specifically your entire argument drips hypocrisy. You rely on law enforcement and the military to guarantee your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. You depend on armed men, on men armed with guns, to ensure your existence. Like it or not, the gun is as much your corporeal God as any other American's.

 

[Lakhota]

CNN Breaking News: Parents arrested in Detroit.

Parents of alleged school shooter taken into custody​

 

[SavannahMann]

Canada had a law that gun owners had to secure their weapons satisfactorily. A man had a huge vault built. Heavy steel door. Reinforced walls and such. He even had it alarmed.

He was out of town, out of the country actually. And thieves spent an entire day breaking in. I mean literally an entire day.

He was charged with failure to secure his weapons. The argument. If someone was able to steal it, it wasn’t secured.

The problem is that you can always get around or through any security eventually. You say trigger locks. Ok. And when the thief smashes it with a hammer then you will argue that they should have had a safe.

There is no way to prevent something from being stolen. Fine art is stolen despite highly tech security and often guards. Armored cars despite the presence of guards are robbed. As are Banks.

So how much security is enough? Is a token trigger lock enough? Or is that merely the first step. Later you can blame the owner for not having a lock bock right?

 

[Rogue AI]

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.

So when a homeboy jacks your car and crashes it and kills a few folks, you are liable? What sort of convoluted bullshit is that? Let me guess, it only applies to scary guns.

If you were king, I would treat just like our Founder's treated George .

 

[Chillicothe]

"You're really not very good at this."

My avatar quite agrees.
Yet, he persists.

 

[Chillicothe]

Your sentiment is anti-American in the extreme. Every time you get behind the wheel and drive you introduce a lethal tool...... .....Gun and car ownership and misuse are no different.

homeboy jacks your car and crashes it and kills a few folks, you are liable?

----------------------------------------

The two above posts are of a kind, and thus can be responded to as a twofer.

Let's all cordially agree that......a car ain't a gun. A gun ain't a car. Examples illustrating such are too obvious to mention.

But, if anyone here does not understand there are defining differences between 'em in construction, appearance, and use.....well then, this thread, this forum, may not be the place for you.

Likewise, let us all agree that a gun ain't the same as scissors, or ball bats, or hammers.

Sure, they all can kill. And have.
But then, a rubber-ducky left on the stairway can too.

The real world reality is that firearms are uniquely, singularly, different. In a category wholly different than your F-150, or Fiskar's pruning shears.

And that singularity....their ease of use, concealability, portability, and high lethality potential .... make them uniquely different and inherently dangerous to society.

Sure, there are plenty of a valid reasons to have guns in the American civilian society. For one, our Constitution allows it. But from a utilitarian aspect they possess other appropriate features...... for self-defense safety, for hunting, for recreational plinking.

So eliminating guns ain't the issue. I am not calling for that. After all, I own a bunch of 'em. And want to continue to do so.

However, if one chooses to buy a firearm, it is my position that the new owner...the 'owner-of-record' ..... not only gets the hardware, he gets the 'software' that is an inseparable part of it.
I mean by that, he gets the responsibility of using it safely, appropriately and legally.

AND.....which is my argument......he also gets the liability when that hardware leads to harm.

If you own the benefits of the tool. You own the liability if it causes harm.....in your hands, when you shoot a hole in the neighbors fence, or in your kid's hands if he shoots the principal, or in the hands of the guy sticking it in the face of the 7/11 clerk.

You own the hardware. So you own its uses....and misuses.
--------------------------------------------

As far as me be 'un-American'......please, grow up. This is the Adult Swim section. Go to the wading pool if one cannot participate here in a thoughtful and productive manner.

Maybe quit getting high on your RemOil.

 

[daveman]

My avatar quite agrees.
Yet, he persists.

Your avatar is the letter C.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Yupper.
Exactly.
You read my post correctly.

The thief bears the 'primary' responsibility and deserves the greater punishment.

But the 'owner-of-record' introduced that gun into our society......he is not without liability. He owns a share of the harm....determined by jury, or determined by yet to be passed legislation .... he owns a share .

If the gun had been more adequately secured......

How about the gun manufacturers then?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The mom is an ignorant and profane Trumpster

So ignorant she was the Director of Marketing for a large firm...

Also her like or dislike of any particular politician is irrelevant to this situation.

Making simplistic and juvenile statements like yours makes YOU look ignorant

 

[odanny]

So ignorant she was the Director of Marketing for a large firm...

Also her like or dislike of any particular politician is irrelevant to this situation.

Making simplistic and juvenile statements like yours makes YOU look ignorant

I don't think she was director of marketing for a large firm. Her heard she worked as a real estate agent, and even if she was director of marketing for this, its not really that significant a position. Some real estate agencies are small and only have a handful of people working there.

When I say she was a "profane Trumpster", did you see what she wrote on her blog? It was something really stupid and disgusting, saying "I'd rather be grabbed by my pussy" than something else similarly profane, in regards to her love of Trump.