America's Gun Violence #2

CM189191 · December 2021

tempo_n_groove said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax 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

tempo_n_groove · December 2021

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax 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 Blansten · December 2021

tempo_n_groove said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax 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.

CM189191 · December 2021

tempo_n_groove said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax 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

static111 · December 2021

Gern Blansten said:

tempo_n_groove said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax 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

HughFreakingDillon · December 2021

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax 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?

tempo_n_groove · December 2021

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax 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.

nicknyr15 · December 2021

tempo_n_groove said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax 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

OnWis97 · December 2021

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

CM189191 · December 2021

HughFreakingDillon said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax 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

Gern Blansten · December 2021

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.

HughFreakingDillon · December 2021

CM189191 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax 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.

Ledbetterman10 · December 2021

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.

HughFreakingDillon · December 2021

that's insane. everyone involved just keeps arguing after he's lying there dead. uh, cpr anyone? jesus christ.

Gern Blansten · December 2021

HughFreakingDillon said:

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...

CM189191 · December 2021

HughFreakingDillon said:

CM189191 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax 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

tempo_n_groove · December 2021

CM189191 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

CM189191 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax 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.

tempo_n_groove · December 2021

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.

HughFreakingDillon · December 2021

100% agree with that. when you purposely step back, aim and fire, no chance that's self defense.

Ledbetterman10 · December 2021

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

America's Gun Violence #2

Comments

Categories