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

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

I watched her first appearance and that is where the court said she worked and her position as it was required to be disclosed before bail was set.

Why do you lefties ALWAYS make assumptions from a position of ignorance?

 

[odanny]

I watched her first appearance and that is where the court said she worked and her position as it was required to be disclosed before bail was set.

Why do you lefties ALWAYS make assumptions from a position of ignorance?

What got your panties in a twist was me calling her a profane Trump supporter.

There was nothing speculative about that, it was her own blog post that confirmed this.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

What got your panties in a twist was me calling her a profane Trump supporter.

There was nothing speculative about that, it was her own blog post that confirmed this.

Just admit you were wrong like an adult.

Jesus

 

[Rogue AI]

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

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.

Nope, I refuse to accept your politically motivated double standard. Stay away from my rights.

 

[BWK]

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.

But gun owners like the Michigan family don't give a shit. That's the real problem.

 

[Thunderbird]

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.

Let’s say someone steals a gun while the owner is sleeping and then commits murder. You want to blame the victim of the crime for the actions of the criminal?? That’s nuts!

 

[Chillicothe]

"Stay away from my rights."

Your right to responsibly own a gun....remains. No change.
Your liability for an inadequately secured firearm ......is enhanced.

You enjoy the benefits of the gun you brought into the social mix.......Accordingly, you are on the hook for the harms. Yin and Yang.

say someone steals a gun while the owner is sleeping and then commits murder. You want to blame the victim of the crime for the actions of the criminal??

In your scenario, good poser TBird....I think you are suggesting that the victim of the theft (the gun owner) is the guy being murdered?
If so.....then, of course not. The guy is dead. So think that one through.

 

[Chillicothe]

"How about the gun manufacturers then?

How about 'em?
Do you have a proposal about them specifically?

 

[Oddball]

 

[Rogue AI]

Your right to responsibly own a gun....remains. No change.
Your liability for an inadequately secured firearm ......is enhanced.

You enjoy the benefits of the gun you brought into the social mix.......Accordingly, you are on the hook for the harms. Yin and Yang.



In your scenario, good poser TBird....I think you are suggesting that the victim of the theft (the gun owner) is the guy being murdered?
If so.....then, of course not. The guy is dead. So think that one through.

No it doesn't, as you intend to place undue and unconstitutional burdens on the citizens for actions not their own. You collectivist are abhorrent.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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.

I realize that this is off of the immediate topic, but how would you hold Kyle Rittenhouse to this standard? Assuming he hadn't already been acquitted?

What you've outlined is already pretty close to how our laws operate. The problem though is that there are 50 different set of gun laws, one set for each state.

 

[dudmuck]

View attachment 571890

howbout more on topic:

 

[Chillicothe]

you intend to place undue and unconstitutional burdens on the citizens for actions not their own.

Noper. There is nothing 'unconstitutional' about requiring a gun owner....me included....to be responsible in exercising the 2nd A. right.
With rights comes responsibilities.
And when that responsibility is not performed.....then there is a liability.

If you do not adequately secure your weapon you are liable for the harm it does. Not 100% ..... but a share of it.

After all, the 3yr old who shot is 2yr old sister holds the primary responsibility. However, the Dad who left it on the dresser does.....share in the responsibility to a degree (to be determined by a jury or yet to be enacted legislation.)
-----------------------------------------------

how would you hold Kyle Rittenhouse to this standard?

Well, I hadn't thought about Rittenhouse. But......if he is the legal 'owner-of-record' and his actions with his firearm are deemed legal and appropriate......I would suggest there would be little liability for the harms created.

But in the Rittenhouse scenario....there is, I believe, the complication of a straw-purchaser being involved. And I believe the Wisconsin courts are addressing that guy's liability right now.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Noper. There is nothing 'unconstitutional' about requiring a gun owner....me included....to be responsible in exercising the 2nd A. right.
With rights comes responsibilities.
And when that responsibility is not performed.....then there is a liability.

If you do not adequately secure your weapon you are liable for the harm it does. Not 100% ..... but a share of it.

After all, the 3yr old who shot is 2yr old sister holds the primary responsibility. However, the Dad who left it on the dresser does.....share in the responsibility to a degree (to be determined by a jury or yet to be enacted legislation.)
-----------------------------------------------


Well, I hadn't thought about Rittenhouse. But......if he is the legal 'owner-of-record' and his actions with his firearm are deemed legal and appropriate......I would suggest there would be little liability for the harms created.

But in the Rittenhouse scenario....there is, I believe, the complication of a straw-purchaser being involved. And I believe the Wisconsin courts are addressing that guy's liability right now.

So in some cases liability and in other cases not?

 

[Thunderbird]

Your right to responsibly own a gun....remains. No change.
Your liability for an inadequately secured firearm ......is enhanced.

You enjoy the benefits of the gun you brought into the social mix.......Accordingly, you are on the hook for the harms. Yin and Yang.



In your scenario, good poser TBird....I think you are suggesting that the victim of the theft (the gun owner) is the guy being murdered?
If so.....then, of course not. The guy is dead. So think that one through.

I suppose you’d like to collect a fine from his estate.

C’mon you really want to further victimize someone who has been robbed?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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......

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You're really not very good at this.

He doesn't realize that no one else supports his stupid ideas!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

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.

How do you know who the owner of record is without gun registration? Your plan is stupid because it is flawed in it's inception.

Tell me right now what firearms I have in my home. You can't! Other than my wife, my son who was an armorer in the US Army can tell you what firearms I own. How are you going to hold me responsible if someone steals them and uses them in a crime?

 

[Chillicothe]

"So in some cases liability and in other cases not?"

Well, Vine....as always in the type of case you suggested......details an specifics would come to bear.
Look, I ain't trying to go all policy-wonk here, I am merely suggesting a framework that those wonks can build on, and add or subtract the relevant nuances.

And that "framework" I suggest is ----- if the gun YOU own causes harm that is not legal or authorized or rightful self-defense then you own a share of the liability.
View these situations as: ---'but-for-the-gun'--- things woulda turned out differently.
With the 2nd Amendment right to bears arms comes the responsibility to be safe, legal, prudent, and responsible.
If you are not.....then you are liable for the harms.

My advice to you?
Go get increased liability insurance.

Could we speculate---that society may be better off if private-party-for-profit insurance underwrites be the ones to add a sense of graver responsibility when one decides about choosing to possess a gun?
------------------------------------------

I suppose you’d like to collect a fine from his estate.

Ummm, good poster TBird, you can make any kind of speculation you desire.
So you go for it. You be you.

I will sit out such theorizing for the more wonkish types.

But good luck.

 

[Chillicothe]

How are you going to hold me responsible if someone steals them and uses them in a crime?

Yes, you would own a share of the liability for the harm your own firearms caused.

I hope that helps you clarify your approach.

"How" you are held responsible is up to the policy-wonks, the courts of law, or yet to be enacted legislation.