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...

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

nicknyr15 · December 2021

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.

static111 · December 2021

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.

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...

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...

tempo_n_groove · December 2021

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...

HughFreakingDillon · December 2021

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

OnWis97 · December 2021

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.

CM189191 · December 2021

tempo_n_groove said:

You really bring nothing good to any conversation as of late.

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

tempo_n_groove said:

Hail Satan then.

Wow...

submitted without additional comment

tempo_n_groove · December 2021

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

You really bring nothing good to any conversation as of late.

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

tempo_n_groove said:

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...

stuckinline · December 2021

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/michigan-school-shooting-4th-student-dies_n_61a7b252e4b0451e550fe18f

Parksy · December 2021

I dunno I have to be honest here. I came on this thread to read thoughts about the Michigan thing... and there have been stories posted in the last week about kids being killed due to negligence with guns. PLURAL! As in... more than one kid. A point is trying to be made here about responsible gun owners. Which I honestly interpret as guns aren't the problem, people are. Stupid people being negligent. And that's not wrong. But their being killed with guns. So it's stupid people + guns.

What's easier though? Fixing stupid, or removing guns? Call me crazy, but removing the guns is just way more easier. Remove the guns, fix the stupid, and then maybe reintroduce the guns. Know what I mean?

And here's another thing... because of the stupid... if more responsible gun owners aren't doing more to create gun reform, can they really be considered responsible? Like, does a responsible gun owner consider him/her self responsible when they see this crap happening so often and are like: "Yeah, but I'm responsible, so our laws don't need changing."

America, get rid of your guns.... fix your stupid. The figures are there. The numbers are there. The stories are there. This isn't fake news. People are dying. Kids are dying. This isn't opinion. This is fact. Stop the BS. Stop the excuses. Face the facts.

static111 · December 2021

Parksy said:

I dunno I have to be honest here. I came on this thread to read thoughts about the Michigan thing... and there have been stories posted in the last week about kids being killed due to negligence with guns. PLURAL! As in... more than one kid. A point is trying to be made here about responsible gun owners. Which I honestly interpret as guns aren't the problem, people are. Stupid people being negligent. And that's not wrong. But their being killed with guns. So it's stupid people + guns.

What's easier though? Fixing stupid, or removing guns? Call me crazy, but removing the guns is just way more easier. Remove the guns, fix the stupid, and then maybe reintroduce the guns. Know what I mean?

And here's another thing... because of the stupid... if more responsible gun owners aren't doing more to create gun reform, can they really be considered responsible? Like, does a responsible gun owner consider him/her self responsible when they see this crap happening so often and are like: "Yeah, but I'm responsible, so our laws don't need changing."

America, get rid of your guns.... fix your stupid. The figures are there. The numbers are there. The stories are there. This isn't fake news. People are dying. Kids are dying. This isn't opinion. This is fact. Stop the BS. Stop the excuses. Face the facts.

We have a big problem with facts here.

Parksy · 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...

You make a good point. But its comparing apples to oranges in my opinion. The OP used explosives and blasting as an example. Which ... to most people who use common sense... are weapons. Explosives are built to destroy. That's their purpose.

Cars compared to guns.

Cars are built and designed to move people and things. Transportation. That's the category a car would fall under... Transportation. A gun is a weapon. That's the category a gun would fall under. So whether it's legal purposes or insurance purposes... should both categories Transportation and Weapon be equally scrutinized No, not in my opinion. But I do see your point.

tempo_n_groove · December 2021

Parksy 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...

You make a good point. But its comparing apples to oranges in my opinion. The OP used explosives and blasting as an example. Which ... to most people who use common sense... are weapons. Explosives are built to destroy. That's their purpose.

Cars compared to guns.

Cars are built and designed to move people and things. Transportation. That's the category a car would fall under... Transportation. A gun is a weapon. That's the category a gun would fall under. So whether it's legal purposes or insurance purposes... should both categories Transportation and Weapon be equally scrutinized No, not in my opinion. But I do see your point.

I dropped the car comment as it will fall on deaf ears... At least you gave me something though. Yes I do understand the difference between the two, the manspalining was not needed.

Parksy · December 2021

This thread just gets... worse by the page. I'm hardly believing that Texas video is even real. Based on all your reactions... it is real? Like... that happened? Guy pulled a gun on a trespasser, trespasser stupidly tried to grab the gun, the trespasser gets shot dead, and people are like "hey, you started it... we should call 9-1-1." And the conversation just continues... with a fuckin guy shot dead laying there? Like... it's just another Sunday? Wow.

static111 · December 2021

Parksy said:

This thread just gets... worse by the page. I'm hardly believing that Texas video is even real. Based on all your reactions... it is real? Like... that happened? Guy pulled a gun on a trespasser, trespasser stupidly tried to grab the gun, the trespasser gets shot dead, and people are like "hey, you started it... we should call 9-1-1." And the conversation just continues... with a fuckin guy shot dead laying there? Like... it's just another Sunday? Wow.

I live in Texas...I'm willing to bet this is real. I think some people aren't aware of how many loony tunes are out there and capable of doing something like this, because they think they are morally right.

Parksy · December 2021

tempo_n_groove said:

Parksy 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...

You make a good point. But its comparing apples to oranges in my opinion. The OP used explosives and blasting as an example. Which ... to most people who use common sense... are weapons. Explosives are built to destroy. That's their purpose.

Cars compared to guns.

Cars are built and designed to move people and things. Transportation. That's the category a car would fall under... Transportation. A gun is a weapon. That's the category a gun would fall under. So whether it's legal purposes or insurance purposes... should both categories Transportation and Weapon be equally scrutinized No, not in my opinion. But I do see your point.

I dropped the car comment as it will fall on deaf ears... At least you gave me something though. Yes I do understand the difference between the two, the manspalining was not needed.

What's 'manspalining'? If it's offensive, no offence was intended and I offer apologies.

Gern Blansten · December 2021

static111 said:

Parksy said:

This thread just gets... worse by the page. I'm hardly believing that Texas video is even real. Based on all your reactions... it is real? Like... that happened? Guy pulled a gun on a trespasser, trespasser stupidly tried to grab the gun, the trespasser gets shot dead, and people are like "hey, you started it... we should call 9-1-1." And the conversation just continues... with a fuckin guy shot dead laying there? Like... it's just another Sunday? Wow.

I live in Texas...I'm willing to bet this is real. I think some people aren't aware of how many loony tunes are out there and capable of doing something like this, because they think they are morally right.

silenced shotgun....I thought it was a bb gun at first but holy shit

CM189191 · December 2021

tempo_n_groove said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

You really bring nothing good to any conversation as of late.

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

tempo_n_groove said:

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...

say what you like about the tenets of Satanism, at least it's an ethos

mickeyrat · December 2021

https://apnews.com/article/shootings-michigan-4e1a14622ed8c5a6bcc7e8da88e3c33d

Crime Shootings Education Michigan School shootings Terrorism

Michigan teen charged in Oxford High School shooting

By COREY WILLIAMS and ED WHITE

57 mins ago

OXFORD TOWNSHIP, Mich. (AP) — A 15-year-old boy was charged with murder and terrorism for a shooting that killed four fellow students and injured others at a Michigan high school, authorities said Wednesday, revealing that his parents were summoned just a few hours before the bloodshed.

No motive was offered by Oakland County authorities, a day after violence at Oxford High School, roughly 30 miles (50 kilometers) north of Detroit. But prosecutor Karen McDonald said the shooting was premeditated, based on a “mountain of digital evidence” collected by police.

“This was not just an impulsive act,” McDonald said.

Indeed, sheriff's Lt. Tim Willis told a judge that Ethan Crumbley recorded a video the night before the violence in which he discussed killing students.

Crumbley was charged as an adult with murder, attempted murder, terrorism causing death and gun crimes. During his arraignment, he replied, “Yes, I do,” when asked if he understood the charges. Defense attorney Scott Kozak entered a plea of not guilty.

“He deliberately brought the handgun that day with the intent to murder as many students as he could,” assistant prosecutor Marc Keast said in successfully arguing for no bail and a transfer to jail from a juvenile facility.

Earlier, Sheriff Mike Bouchard told reporters that Crumbley’s parents were called to the school Tuesday “for behavior in the classroom that was concerning.” The teen remained in school, and the shooting occurred a few hours later.

TOP HEADLINES

Justices signal they'll OK new abortion limits, may toss Roe

US reports 1st case of omicron variant in returning traveler

Michigan teen charged in Oxford High School shooting

Mysteries of omicron variant could take weeks to untangle

Keast said in court that Crumbley entered a bathroom with a backpack and came out holding a semi-automatic handgun, firing at students while moving down the hallway. The four students who were killed were identified as 16-year-old Tate Myre, 14-year-old Hana St. Juliana, 17-year-old Madisyn Baldwin and 17-year-old Justin Shilling.

Bouchard didn’t offer details about what had troubled school officials. He said investigators believe the gun was already in school.

“There is nothing that he could have faced that would warrant senseless, absolutely brutal violence on other kids,” the sheriff said.

Deputies rushed to the school around lunchtime Tuesday and arrested Crumbley in a hallway within minutes of the shooting. His father bought the 9 mm Sig Sauer gun last week, according to the sheriff.

McDonald said charges were being considered against the parents.

“Owning a gun means securing it properly and locking it and keeping the ammunition separate,” she said.

The shooting should be a wake-up call for new gun laws in a country that has become “desensitized to school shootings,” McDonald told reporters.

“We have to do better,” the prosecutor said without offering specific changes. “How many times does this have to happen? How many times?”

She said the terrorism charge also fits.

“What about all the children who ran, screaming, hiding under desks? ... Those are victims, too, and so are their families and so is the community,” McDonald said.

Video posted on social media showed students rushing to get out of first-floor classroom windows rather than open a door to someone who claimed to be a police officer. The sheriff said he likely was a detective.

After the attack, authorities learned of social media posts about threats of a shooting at the roughly 1,700-student school. The sheriff stressed how crucial it is for such tips to be sent to authorities, while also cautioning against spreading social media rumors before a full investigation.

Isabel Flores, a 15-year-old ninth grader, told Detroit television station WJBK that she and other students heard gunshots and saw another student bleeding from the face. They then ran from the area through the rear of the school, she said.

A concerned parent, Robin Redding, said her son, 12th-grader Treshan Bryant, stayed home Tuesday after hearing threats of a possible shooting.

“This couldn’t be just random,” she said.

Bryant said he had heard vague threats “for a long time now” about plans for a shooting.

___

Associated Press journalists Ryan Kryska, Mike Householder and David Aguilar in Oxford Township, Michigan; Kathleen Foody in Chicago; and Josh Boak in Rosemount, Minnesota, contributed to this report. AP researcher Rhonda Shafner in New York also contributed.

America's Gun Violence #2

Comments

Categories