America's Gun Violence #2

1679111275

Comments

  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 6,529
    CM189191 said:
    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
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020 AT 07/07/2020
  • CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    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.
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 14,026
    CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    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, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland1, Oakland2
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 6,529
    CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    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
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020 AT 07/07/2020
  • static111static111 Posts: 3,733
    CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    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
    Scio me nihil scire
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,346
    CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    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 think I'll move to Australia


  • CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    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.
  • nicknyr15nicknyr15 Posts: 6,077
    CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    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 definition of ATM 
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 4,325
    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.

    *If we're allowed to call him that.

    https://twitter.com/davenewworld_2/status/1464217544294866965
    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
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 6,529
    CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    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
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020 AT 07/07/2020
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 14,026
    OnWis97 said:
    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.

    *If we're allowed to call him that.

    https://twitter.com/davenewworld_2/status/1464217544294866965
    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, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland1, Oakland2
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,346
    CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    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.  
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • OnWis97 said:
    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.

    *If we're allowed to call him that.

    https://twitter.com/davenewworld_2/status/1464217544294866965
    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. 
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now.

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,346
    that's insane. everyone involved just keeps arguing after he's lying there dead. uh, cpr anyone? jesus christ. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 14,026
    that's insane. everyone involved just keeps arguing after he's lying there dead. uh, cpr anyone? jesus christ. 
    yeah the shooter just acts like he did what he needed to do and he didn't have any other choice...
    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, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland1, Oakland2
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 6,529
    CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    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
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020 AT 07/07/2020
  • CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    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.
  • OnWis97 said:
    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.

    *If we're allowed to call him that.

    https://twitter.com/davenewworld_2/status/1464217544294866965
    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.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,346
    100% agree with that. when you purposely step back, aim and fire, no chance that's self defense. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • 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. 
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now.

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 6,529
    CM189191 said:
    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
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020 AT 07/07/2020
  • nicknyr15nicknyr15 Posts: 6,077
    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.
  • static111static111 Posts: 3,733
    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.
    Scio me nihil scire
  • CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    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
    Hail Satan then.

    Wow...
  • nicknyr15 said:
    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.
    This guy may have been a real burden on them to act like that, not that it makes it right but damn man...
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,346
    nicknyr15 said:
    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.
    This guy may have been a real burden on them to act like that, not that it makes it right but damn man...
    or the other possibility: they're psycho. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 4,325
    nicknyr15 said:
    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
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 6,529
    You really bring nothing good to any conversation as of late.

    If I did pray would you demonize me for that too?

    Hail Satan then.

    Wow...

    submitted without additional comment
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020 AT 07/07/2020
  • CM189191 said:
    You really bring nothing good to any conversation as of late.

    If I did pray would you demonize me for that too?

    Hail Satan then.

    Wow...

    submitted without additional comment
    lol you got me.  On what I don't know but you got me.

    Only thing I can think of is that you think I actually worship satan and if that's true then whooo boy...
Sign In or Register to comment.