The father of the 15 year old suspect purchased the handgun and three magazines that may have been involved. Should pops be held “responsible?” The family has lawyered up. ‘Murica, thoughts and prayers.
You don't read about the responsible ones.
I am all for punishing anyone whom can't without a shadow of a doubt, keep their weapons secure and they get used for a crime.
It's become abundantly clear that there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner
To that point, gun owners and manufacturers should be held accountable under 'Strict Liability'
There are two broad categories of activities for which a plaintiff may be held strictly liable - possession of certain animals and abnormally dangerous activities
As an example: Courts have often identified blasting (the controlled use of explosives to break down or remove rocks) as the paradigm of an abnormally dangerous activity because of its inherent dangers, and they applied strict liability in cases where blasting resulted in physical harm. The victims of physical harm resulting from blasting were often totally innocent and uninvolved in the activity, while the persons conducting the blasting were doing so for their own financial benefit and were well-aware of the risks. Courts therefore took the position that defendants should be held strictly liable for any harm caused by projected debris.
Guns can and should be treated the same way. You own a gun? You are held strictly liable for any/all damage caused by that gun. Mandatory liability insurance for the gun owner.
I know your view and guns are the spawn of Satan and I will say no to most of this. If a gun manufacturer can be held liable then a person that dies in a speeding car crash should be able to sue the car manufacturer for making it able to drive over the legal speed limit...
The father of the 15 year old suspect purchased the handgun and three magazines that may have been involved. Should pops be held “responsible?” The family has lawyered up. ‘Murica, thoughts and prayers.
You don't read about the responsible ones.
I am all for punishing anyone whom can't without a shadow of a doubt, keep their weapons secure and they get used for a crime.
It's become abundantly clear that there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner
To that point, gun owners and manufacturers should be held accountable under 'Strict Liability'
There are two broad categories of activities for which a plaintiff may be held strictly liable - possession of certain animals and abnormally dangerous activities
As an example: Courts have often identified blasting (the controlled use of explosives to break down or remove rocks) as the paradigm of an abnormally dangerous activity because of its inherent dangers, and they applied strict liability in cases where blasting resulted in physical harm. The victims of physical harm resulting from blasting were often totally innocent and uninvolved in the activity, while the persons conducting the blasting were doing so for their own financial benefit and were well-aware of the risks. Courts therefore took the position that defendants should be held strictly liable for any harm caused by projected debris.
Guns can and should be treated the same way. You own a gun? You are held strictly liable for any/all damage caused by that gun. Mandatory liability insurance for the gun owner.
I know your view and guns are the spawn of Satan and I will say no to most of this. If a gun manufacturer can be held liable then a person that dies in a speeding car crash should be able to sue the car manufacturer for making it able to drive over the legal speed limit...
I'm talking about guns, not cars
I'm not talking about the manufacturer
The gun owner should be held liable
I misinterpreted this then? To that point, gun owners and manufacturers should be held accountable under 'Strict Liability'
You mention the manufacturer should also be held accountable.
The father of the 15 year old suspect purchased the handgun and three magazines that may have been involved. Should pops be held “responsible?” The family has lawyered up. ‘Murica, thoughts and prayers.
You don't read about the responsible ones.
I am all for punishing anyone whom can't without a shadow of a doubt, keep their weapons secure and they get used for a crime.
It's become abundantly clear that there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner
To that point, gun owners and manufacturers should be held accountable under 'Strict Liability'
There are two broad categories of activities for which a plaintiff may be held strictly liable - possession of certain animals and abnormally dangerous activities
As an example: Courts have often identified blasting (the controlled use of explosives to break down or remove rocks) as the paradigm of an abnormally dangerous activity because of its inherent dangers, and they applied strict liability in cases where blasting resulted in physical harm. The victims of physical harm resulting from blasting were often totally innocent and uninvolved in the activity, while the persons conducting the blasting were doing so for their own financial benefit and were well-aware of the risks. Courts therefore took the position that defendants should be held strictly liable for any harm caused by projected debris.
Guns can and should be treated the same way. You own a gun? You are held strictly liable for any/all damage caused by that gun. Mandatory liability insurance for the gun owner.
I know your view and guns are the spawn of Satan and I will say no to most of this. If a gun manufacturer can be held liable then a person that dies in a speeding car crash should be able to sue the car manufacturer for making it able to drive over the legal speed limit...
I'm talking about guns, not cars
I'm not talking about the manufacturer
The gun owner should be held liable
I misinterpreted this then? To that point, gun owners and manufacturers should be held accountable under 'Strict Liability'
You mention the manufacturer should also be held accountable.
Cars are not manufactured to kill people.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
The father of the 15 year old suspect purchased the handgun and three magazines that may have been involved. Should pops be held “responsible?” The family has lawyered up. ‘Murica, thoughts and prayers.
You don't read about the responsible ones.
I am all for punishing anyone whom can't without a shadow of a doubt, keep their weapons secure and they get used for a crime.
It's become abundantly clear that there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner
To that point, gun owners and manufacturers should be held accountable under 'Strict Liability'
There are two broad categories of activities for which a plaintiff may be held strictly liable - possession of certain animals and abnormally dangerous activities
As an example: Courts have often identified blasting (the controlled use of explosives to break down or remove rocks) as the paradigm of an abnormally dangerous activity because of its inherent dangers, and they applied strict liability in cases where blasting resulted in physical harm. The victims of physical harm resulting from blasting were often totally innocent and uninvolved in the activity, while the persons conducting the blasting were doing so for their own financial benefit and were well-aware of the risks. Courts therefore took the position that defendants should be held strictly liable for any harm caused by projected debris.
Guns can and should be treated the same way. You own a gun? You are held strictly liable for any/all damage caused by that gun. Mandatory liability insurance for the gun owner.
I know your view and guns are the spawn of Satan and I will say no to most of this. If a gun manufacturer can be held liable then a person that dies in a speeding car crash should be able to sue the car manufacturer for making it able to drive over the legal speed limit...
I'm talking about guns, not cars
I'm not talking about the manufacturer
The gun owner should be held liable
I misinterpreted this then? To that point, gun owners and manufacturers should be held accountable under 'Strict Liability'
You mention the manufacturer should also be held accountable.
And you went blabbering on about cars for some goddamn reason
The father of the 15 year old suspect purchased the handgun and three magazines that may have been involved. Should pops be held “responsible?” The family has lawyered up. ‘Murica, thoughts and prayers.
You don't read about the responsible ones.
I am all for punishing anyone whom can't without a shadow of a doubt, keep their weapons secure and they get used for a crime.
It's become abundantly clear that there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner
To that point, gun owners and manufacturers should be held accountable under 'Strict Liability'
There are two broad categories of activities for which a plaintiff may be held strictly liable - possession of certain animals and abnormally dangerous activities
As an example: Courts have often identified blasting (the controlled use of explosives to break down or remove rocks) as the paradigm of an abnormally dangerous activity because of its inherent dangers, and they applied strict liability in cases where blasting resulted in physical harm. The victims of physical harm resulting from blasting were often totally innocent and uninvolved in the activity, while the persons conducting the blasting were doing so for their own financial benefit and were well-aware of the risks. Courts therefore took the position that defendants should be held strictly liable for any harm caused by projected debris.
Guns can and should be treated the same way. You own a gun? You are held strictly liable for any/all damage caused by that gun. Mandatory liability insurance for the gun owner.
I know your view and guns are the spawn of Satan and I will say no to most of this. If a gun manufacturer can be held liable then a person that dies in a speeding car crash should be able to sue the car manufacturer for making it able to drive over the legal speed limit...
I'm talking about guns, not cars
I'm not talking about the manufacturer
The gun owner should be held liable
I misinterpreted this then? To that point, gun owners and manufacturers should be held accountable under 'Strict Liability'
You mention the manufacturer should also be held accountable.
Cars are not manufactured to kill people.
Neither are guns. They are created for law abiding sportsmen and good guys...duh
The father of the 15 year old suspect purchased the handgun and three magazines that may have been involved. Should pops be held “responsible?” The family has lawyered up. ‘Murica, thoughts and prayers.
You don't read about the responsible ones.
I am all for punishing anyone whom can't without a shadow of a doubt, keep their weapons secure and they get used for a crime.
It's become abundantly clear that there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner
To that point, gun owners and manufacturers should be held accountable under 'Strict Liability'
There are two broad categories of activities for which a plaintiff may be held strictly liable - possession of certain animals and abnormally dangerous activities
As an example: Courts have often identified blasting (the controlled use of explosives to break down or remove rocks) as the paradigm of an abnormally dangerous activity because of its inherent dangers, and they applied strict liability in cases where blasting resulted in physical harm. The victims of physical harm resulting from blasting were often totally innocent and uninvolved in the activity, while the persons conducting the blasting were doing so for their own financial benefit and were well-aware of the risks. Courts therefore took the position that defendants should be held strictly liable for any harm caused by projected debris.
Guns can and should be treated the same way. You own a gun? You are held strictly liable for any/all damage caused by that gun. Mandatory liability insurance for the gun owner.
I know your view and guns are the spawn of Satan and I will say no to most of this. If a gun manufacturer can be held liable then a person that dies in a speeding car crash should be able to sue the car manufacturer for making it able to drive over the legal speed limit...
I'm talking about guns, not cars
I'm not talking about the manufacturer
The gun owner should be held liable
I misinterpreted this then? To that point, gun owners and manufacturers should be held accountable under 'Strict Liability'
You mention the manufacturer should also be held accountable.
And you went blabbering on about cars for some goddamn reason
So yes, you misinterpreted what was being said
k, but you did say gun owners and manufacturers should be held liable. but then said you aren't talking about the manufacturer. which is it?
The father of the 15 year old suspect purchased the handgun and three magazines that may have been involved. Should pops be held “responsible?” The family has lawyered up. ‘Murica, thoughts and prayers.
You don't read about the responsible ones.
I am all for punishing anyone whom can't without a shadow of a doubt, keep their weapons secure and they get used for a crime.
It's become abundantly clear that there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner
To that point, gun owners and manufacturers should be held accountable under 'Strict Liability'
There are two broad categories of activities for which a plaintiff may be held strictly liable - possession of certain animals and abnormally dangerous activities
As an example: Courts have often identified blasting (the controlled use of explosives to break down or remove rocks) as the paradigm of an abnormally dangerous activity because of its inherent dangers, and they applied strict liability in cases where blasting resulted in physical harm. The victims of physical harm resulting from blasting were often totally innocent and uninvolved in the activity, while the persons conducting the blasting were doing so for their own financial benefit and were well-aware of the risks. Courts therefore took the position that defendants should be held strictly liable for any harm caused by projected debris.
Guns can and should be treated the same way. You own a gun? You are held strictly liable for any/all damage caused by that gun. Mandatory liability insurance for the gun owner.
I know your view and guns are the spawn of Satan and I will say no to most of this. If a gun manufacturer can be held liable then a person that dies in a speeding car crash should be able to sue the car manufacturer for making it able to drive over the legal speed limit...
I'm talking about guns, not cars
I'm not talking about the manufacturer
The gun owner should be held liable
I misinterpreted this then? To that point, gun owners and manufacturers should be held accountable under 'Strict Liability'
You mention the manufacturer should also be held accountable.
And you went blabbering on about cars for some goddamn reason
So yes, you misinterpreted what was being said
I'm curious if you do think the gun manufacturer should be liable.
The car comment won't make any dent so i will just drop it. It's hard to make a point when all you get is backlash from anything that is not in a certain point of view.
The father of the 15 year old suspect purchased the handgun and three magazines that may have been involved. Should pops be held “responsible?” The family has lawyered up. ‘Murica, thoughts and prayers.
You don't read about the responsible ones.
I am all for punishing anyone whom can't without a shadow of a doubt, keep their weapons secure and they get used for a crime.
It's become abundantly clear that there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner
To that point, gun owners and manufacturers should be held accountable under 'Strict Liability'
There are two broad categories of activities for which a plaintiff may be held strictly liable - possession of certain animals and abnormally dangerous activities
As an example: Courts have often identified blasting (the controlled use of explosives to break down or remove rocks) as the paradigm of an abnormally dangerous activity because of its inherent dangers, and they applied strict liability in cases where blasting resulted in physical harm. The victims of physical harm resulting from blasting were often totally innocent and uninvolved in the activity, while the persons conducting the blasting were doing so for their own financial benefit and were well-aware of the risks. Courts therefore took the position that defendants should be held strictly liable for any harm caused by projected debris.
Guns can and should be treated the same way. You own a gun? You are held strictly liable for any/all damage caused by that gun. Mandatory liability insurance for the gun owner.
I know your view and guns are the spawn of Satan and I will say no to most of this. If a gun manufacturer can be held liable then a person that dies in a speeding car crash should be able to sue the car manufacturer for making it able to drive over the legal speed limit...
I'm talking about guns, not cars
I'm not talking about the manufacturer
The gun owner should be held liable
I misinterpreted this then? To that point, gun owners and manufacturers should be held accountable under 'Strict Liability'
You mention the manufacturer should also be held accountable.
And you went blabbering on about cars for some goddamn reason
So yes, you misinterpreted what was being said
I'm curious if you do think the gun manufacturer should be liable.
The car comment won't make any dent so i will just drop it. It's hard to make a point when all you get is backlash from anything that is not in a certain point of view.
WARNING: This is graphic. Someone is actually shot dead here. Without even broaching the debate of whether this is self-defense, it makes me sad about gun culture. (Not to mention the seemingly lack of curiosity as to whether the victim* is still alive.) This just didn't need to happen.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
The father of the 15 year old suspect purchased the handgun and three magazines that may have been involved. Should pops be held “responsible?” The family has lawyered up. ‘Murica, thoughts and prayers.
You don't read about the responsible ones.
I am all for punishing anyone whom can't without a shadow of a doubt, keep their weapons secure and they get used for a crime.
It's become abundantly clear that there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner
To that point, gun owners and manufacturers should be held accountable under 'Strict Liability'
There are two broad categories of activities for which a plaintiff may be held strictly liable - possession of certain animals and abnormally dangerous activities
As an example: Courts have often identified blasting (the controlled use of explosives to break down or remove rocks) as the paradigm of an abnormally dangerous activity because of its inherent dangers, and they applied strict liability in cases where blasting resulted in physical harm. The victims of physical harm resulting from blasting were often totally innocent and uninvolved in the activity, while the persons conducting the blasting were doing so for their own financial benefit and were well-aware of the risks. Courts therefore took the position that defendants should be held strictly liable for any harm caused by projected debris.
Guns can and should be treated the same way. You own a gun? You are held strictly liable for any/all damage caused by that gun. Mandatory liability insurance for the gun owner.
I know your view and guns are the spawn of Satan and I will say no to most of this. If a gun manufacturer can be held liable then a person that dies in a speeding car crash should be able to sue the car manufacturer for making it able to drive over the legal speed limit...
I'm talking about guns, not cars
I'm not talking about the manufacturer
The gun owner should be held liable
I misinterpreted this then? To that point, gun owners and manufacturers should be held accountable under 'Strict Liability'
You mention the manufacturer should also be held accountable.
And you went blabbering on about cars for some goddamn reason
So yes, you misinterpreted what was being said
k, but you did say gun owners and manufacturers should be held liable. but then said you aren't talking about the manufacturer. which is it?
I'm talking about guns, not cars
I'm not talking about the car manufacturer
The gun owner should be held liable
better?
For clarification, yes gun manufacturers should be held accountable / liable
WARNING: This is graphic. Someone is actually shot dead here. Without even broaching the debate of whether this is self-defense, it makes me sad about gun culture. (Not to mention the seemingly lack of curiosity as to whether the victim* is still alive.) This just didn't need to happen.
This is the kind of shit we need to get used to until our gun laws change. Time will tell if the shooter is charged but he should be...he could have walked away and waited on the police to show up.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
The father of the 15 year old suspect purchased the handgun and three magazines that may have been involved. Should pops be held “responsible?” The family has lawyered up. ‘Murica, thoughts and prayers.
You don't read about the responsible ones.
I am all for punishing anyone whom can't without a shadow of a doubt, keep their weapons secure and they get used for a crime.
It's become abundantly clear that there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner
To that point, gun owners and manufacturers should be held accountable under 'Strict Liability'
There are two broad categories of activities for which a plaintiff may be held strictly liable - possession of certain animals and abnormally dangerous activities
As an example: Courts have often identified blasting (the controlled use of explosives to break down or remove rocks) as the paradigm of an abnormally dangerous activity because of its inherent dangers, and they applied strict liability in cases where blasting resulted in physical harm. The victims of physical harm resulting from blasting were often totally innocent and uninvolved in the activity, while the persons conducting the blasting were doing so for their own financial benefit and were well-aware of the risks. Courts therefore took the position that defendants should be held strictly liable for any harm caused by projected debris.
Guns can and should be treated the same way. You own a gun? You are held strictly liable for any/all damage caused by that gun. Mandatory liability insurance for the gun owner.
I know your view and guns are the spawn of Satan and I will say no to most of this. If a gun manufacturer can be held liable then a person that dies in a speeding car crash should be able to sue the car manufacturer for making it able to drive over the legal speed limit...
I'm talking about guns, not cars
I'm not talking about the manufacturer
The gun owner should be held liable
I misinterpreted this then? To that point, gun owners and manufacturers should be held accountable under 'Strict Liability'
You mention the manufacturer should also be held accountable.
And you went blabbering on about cars for some goddamn reason
So yes, you misinterpreted what was being said
k, but you did say gun owners and manufacturers should be held liable. but then said you aren't talking about the manufacturer. which is it?
I'm talking about guns, not cars
I'm not talking about the car manufacturer
The gun owner should be held liable
better?
For clarification, yes gun manufacturers should be held accountable / liable
thanks for the clarification. not sure why so salty about it though.
WARNING: This is graphic. Someone is actually shot dead here. Without even broaching the debate of whether this is self-defense, it makes me sad about gun culture. (Not to mention the seemingly lack of curiosity as to whether the victim* is still alive.) This just didn't need to happen.
Crazy how he shot him and then went on talking with the woman in the car as if it was just a typical day. If I shot someone, even if I was totally justified, I’d be trembling with fear after it happened.
On the other hand, if the guy went and got his gun, I’d back down quick. The last thing I’d say is “you better be ready to use it!” and get in his face.
The father of the 15 year old suspect purchased the handgun and three magazines that may have been involved. Should pops be held “responsible?” The family has lawyered up. ‘Murica, thoughts and prayers.
You don't read about the responsible ones.
I am all for punishing anyone whom can't without a shadow of a doubt, keep their weapons secure and they get used for a crime.
It's become abundantly clear that there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner
To that point, gun owners and manufacturers should be held accountable under 'Strict Liability'
There are two broad categories of activities for which a plaintiff may be held strictly liable - possession of certain animals and abnormally dangerous activities
As an example: Courts have often identified blasting (the controlled use of explosives to break down or remove rocks) as the paradigm of an abnormally dangerous activity because of its inherent dangers, and they applied strict liability in cases where blasting resulted in physical harm. The victims of physical harm resulting from blasting were often totally innocent and uninvolved in the activity, while the persons conducting the blasting were doing so for their own financial benefit and were well-aware of the risks. Courts therefore took the position that defendants should be held strictly liable for any harm caused by projected debris.
Guns can and should be treated the same way. You own a gun? You are held strictly liable for any/all damage caused by that gun. Mandatory liability insurance for the gun owner.
I know your view and guns are the spawn of Satan and I will say no to most of this. If a gun manufacturer can be held liable then a person that dies in a speeding car crash should be able to sue the car manufacturer for making it able to drive over the legal speed limit...
I'm talking about guns, not cars
I'm not talking about the manufacturer
The gun owner should be held liable
I misinterpreted this then? To that point, gun owners and manufacturers should be held accountable under 'Strict Liability'
You mention the manufacturer should also be held accountable.
And you went blabbering on about cars for some goddamn reason
So yes, you misinterpreted what was being said
k, but you did say gun owners and manufacturers should be held liable. but then said you aren't talking about the manufacturer. which is it?
I'm talking about guns, not cars
I'm not talking about the car manufacturer
The gun owner should be held liable
better?
For clarification, yes gun manufacturers should be held accountable / liable
thanks for the clarification. not sure why so salty about it though.
In the last 72 hours in America 108 people were killed and 219 injured by guns that's why I'm salty
The father of the 15 year old suspect purchased the handgun and three magazines that may have been involved. Should pops be held “responsible?” The family has lawyered up. ‘Murica, thoughts and prayers.
You don't read about the responsible ones.
I am all for punishing anyone whom can't without a shadow of a doubt, keep their weapons secure and they get used for a crime.
It's become abundantly clear that there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner
To that point, gun owners and manufacturers should be held accountable under 'Strict Liability'
There are two broad categories of activities for which a plaintiff may be held strictly liable - possession of certain animals and abnormally dangerous activities
As an example: Courts have often identified blasting (the controlled use of explosives to break down or remove rocks) as the paradigm of an abnormally dangerous activity because of its inherent dangers, and they applied strict liability in cases where blasting resulted in physical harm. The victims of physical harm resulting from blasting were often totally innocent and uninvolved in the activity, while the persons conducting the blasting were doing so for their own financial benefit and were well-aware of the risks. Courts therefore took the position that defendants should be held strictly liable for any harm caused by projected debris.
Guns can and should be treated the same way. You own a gun? You are held strictly liable for any/all damage caused by that gun. Mandatory liability insurance for the gun owner.
I know your view and guns are the spawn of Satan and I will say no to most of this. If a gun manufacturer can be held liable then a person that dies in a speeding car crash should be able to sue the car manufacturer for making it able to drive over the legal speed limit...
I'm talking about guns, not cars
I'm not talking about the manufacturer
The gun owner should be held liable
I misinterpreted this then? To that point, gun owners and manufacturers should be held accountable under 'Strict Liability'
You mention the manufacturer should also be held accountable.
And you went blabbering on about cars for some goddamn reason
So yes, you misinterpreted what was being said
k, but you did say gun owners and manufacturers should be held liable. but then said you aren't talking about the manufacturer. which is it?
I'm talking about guns, not cars
I'm not talking about the car manufacturer
The gun owner should be held liable
better?
For clarification, yes gun manufacturers should be held accountable / liable
thanks for the clarification. not sure why so salty about it though.
In the last 72 hours in America 108 people were killed and 219 injured by guns that's why I'm salty
And here I thought it was the great weather you have in twin cities... Nope.
WARNING: This is graphic. Someone is actually shot dead here. Without even broaching the debate of whether this is self-defense, it makes me sad about gun culture. (Not to mention the seemingly lack of curiosity as to whether the victim* is still alive.) This just didn't need to happen.
Guy that shot him will go to prison. That is not self defense and that is not defending your castle. He had more than ample opportunity to avoid the situation.
100% agree with that. when you purposely step back, aim and fire, no chance that's self defense.
Yeah if the other guy took even a step towards him after he stepped back, he’d have a self-defense claim. The other guy did try to grab his gun in the moments before that. So if he came at him again, he could claim that he felt the other guy was coming got the gun again. But he never let that situation develop.
The father of the 15 year old suspect purchased the handgun and three magazines that may have been involved. Should pops be held “responsible?” The family has lawyered up. ‘Murica, thoughts and prayers.
You don't read about the responsible ones.
I am all for punishing anyone whom can't without a shadow of a doubt, keep their weapons secure and they get used for a crime.
It's become abundantly clear that there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner
To that point, gun owners and manufacturers should be held accountable under 'Strict Liability'
There are two broad categories of activities for which a plaintiff may be held strictly liable - possession of certain animals and abnormally dangerous activities
As an example: Courts have often identified blasting (the controlled use of explosives to break down or remove rocks) as the paradigm of an abnormally dangerous activity because of its inherent dangers, and they applied strict liability in cases where blasting resulted in physical harm. The victims of physical harm resulting from blasting were often totally innocent and uninvolved in the activity, while the persons conducting the blasting were doing so for their own financial benefit and were well-aware of the risks. Courts therefore took the position that defendants should be held strictly liable for any harm caused by projected debris.
Guns can and should be treated the same way. You own a gun? You are held strictly liable for any/all damage caused by that gun. Mandatory liability insurance for the gun owner.
I know your view and guns are the spawn of Satan and I will say no to most of this. If a gun manufacturer can be held liable then a person that dies in a speeding car crash should be able to sue the car manufacturer for making it able to drive over the legal speed limit...
How does the saying go? 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'
Guns are not the spawn of Satan Gun owners are the spawn of Satan
It's almost like there was a recent verdict about seeking out a self defense situation that may have emboldened some people to look for chances to defend themselves.
The father of the 15 year old suspect purchased the handgun and three magazines that may have been involved. Should pops be held “responsible?” The family has lawyered up. ‘Murica, thoughts and prayers.
You don't read about the responsible ones.
I am all for punishing anyone whom can't without a shadow of a doubt, keep their weapons secure and they get used for a crime.
It's become abundantly clear that there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner
To that point, gun owners and manufacturers should be held accountable under 'Strict Liability'
There are two broad categories of activities for which a plaintiff may be held strictly liable - possession of certain animals and abnormally dangerous activities
As an example: Courts have often identified blasting (the controlled use of explosives to break down or remove rocks) as the paradigm of an abnormally dangerous activity because of its inherent dangers, and they applied strict liability in cases where blasting resulted in physical harm. The victims of physical harm resulting from blasting were often totally innocent and uninvolved in the activity, while the persons conducting the blasting were doing so for their own financial benefit and were well-aware of the risks. Courts therefore took the position that defendants should be held strictly liable for any harm caused by projected debris.
Guns can and should be treated the same way. You own a gun? You are held strictly liable for any/all damage caused by that gun. Mandatory liability insurance for the gun owner.
I know your view and guns are the spawn of Satan and I will say no to most of this. If a gun manufacturer can be held liable then a person that dies in a speeding car crash should be able to sue the car manufacturer for making it able to drive over the legal speed limit...
How does the saying go? 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'
Guns are not the spawn of Satan Gun owners are the spawn of Satan
What an absolute piece of shit. And everyone there? Holy fuck. You’d think it’s just another day in the neighborhood. The reactions are surreal.
I hope I'm never that desensitized to violence or death. Watching someone get gunned down and continuing to argue about particulars? Showing indifference to whether the guy's dead (and, on the chance that he's not, not showing interest in saving him)?
And I'm not afraid to admit that I'd be shaking and/or running when the dude comes out with the gun. I just can't imagine having the mindset that it's no big deal. I just haven't been around guns much, I guess. But even if I had, someone who's upset with me brings out a gun...I'm not responding with any aggression or even calmness.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Comments
I'm talking about guns, not cars
I'm not talking about the manufacturer
The gun owner should be held liable
You mention the manufacturer should also be held accountable.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
And you went blabbering on about cars for some goddamn reason
So yes, you misinterpreted what was being said
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
www.headstonesband.com
The car comment won't make any dent so i will just drop it. It's hard to make a point when all you get is backlash from anything that is not in a certain point of view.
*If we're allowed to call him that.
https://twitter.com/davenewworld_2/status/1464217544294866965
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I'm talking about guns, not cars
I'm not talking about the car manufacturer
The gun owner should be held liable
better?
For clarification, yes gun manufacturers should be held accountable / liable
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
www.headstonesband.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
www.headstonesband.com
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
In the last 72 hours in America
108 people were killed
and 219 injured by guns
that's why I'm salty
www.headstonesband.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
How does the saying go?
'guns don't kill people, people kill people'
Guns are not the spawn of Satan
Gun owners are the spawn of Satan
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Wow...
www.headstonesband.com
And I'm not afraid to admit that I'd be shaking and/or running when the dude comes out with the gun. I just can't imagine having the mindset that it's no big deal. I just haven't been around guns much, I guess. But even if I had, someone who's upset with me brings out a gun...I'm not responding with any aggression or even calmness.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
submitted without additional comment
Only thing I can think of is that you think I actually worship satan and if that's true then whooo boy...