Nezzer Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Thank goodness no one has those.Or those.I guess my Javelina in February is getting speared to death then.The scientific community will be thrilled to learn that you have developed a test which can indicate whether someone will engage in mass killing or not. Mention us in your Nobel speech.They clearly are since most mass-shootings (and shootings in general) are accomplished with a pistol.Sigh.....So what's your solution? I guess you have a very effective one from the way you speak :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noontidal Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 *pew* *pew* *pew* Die thread, die! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Solution to what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 In every case you've mentioned, there is negligence.Not really. I can be not negligent if I rear end someone. Heck, I can not be at fault but automatically be found in fault because of the law. If you like, we can reword it as follows: you are automatically negligent if you own a gun. Just like you are automatically at fault if you rear-end another car. Otherwise, that person wouldn't be liable because they weren't negligent. That's not what you are doing - you have removed the whole causation element.You purchased the gun. (just like you purchased the pool). No one required you to purchase the gun. You did. There's the causation.And yes, if 'someone drowning in your pool' is reasonably foreseeable, so is 'someone stealing your gun' given the rate of gun thefts in the US. Particularly as I'm unclear what the benefit is??? I like it when the person who hits me has car insurance because they pay to get my car fixed. If my child is killed with an illegally obtained firearm, it's not really going to make me feel better if the original lawful owner of that firearm (which will be hard to discover when the serial numbers are scratched off anyway, by the way) has to pay out damages for wrongful death. Insurance isn't a great solution to anything where our real concern isn't money but justice.Actually, I'd think the real concern would not be either; it'd be mitigation and reduction. The benefit is a pressure used to force people to make better choices because it is financially bad otherwise. It is the same benefit that we use for things like environmental regulation, health insurance, life insurance and the like. If you know that if your gun is stolen or you sell your gun privately and that gun is used in a crime or even an accidental discharge hits that you are going to be liable regardless of whether or not there is specific cause, are you going to be more likely to have a safe? More likely to take training classes to reduce your insurance costs? More likely to have a trigger lock? Perhaps even more likely to simply sell all your weapons legally and move on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle Breaker Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Maybe I'm not following you. Standard negligence rules apply. Duty, breach, cause, harm. A person has a duty to secure their firearms. If they don't, they breach that duty. If a kid's friend wanders in and shoots himself with the unsecured weapon, there is a harm that is reasonably foreseeable, and the breach of the duty of care was both a but-for and proximate cause of that harm. So, civil liability.If a person has a large store of firearms, you definitely might be able to get a jury to say that they have an enhanced duty to secure those firearms, to include against theft. If the person, instead, as them in a display case visible from a window, and they get stolen and subsequently used in a crime, that is also a reasonably foreseeable harm caused by a breach of the duty of care. This is precisely why my father built that safe room I was talking about in an earlier thread.Can you get insurance to cover not only the replacement value, but also any personal liability resulting from your weapons? For one, it's possible your homeowners insurance already covers this. But I would imagine so. It just wouldn't cover anything you didn't have actual liability for, and it was otherwise it wouldn't be "insurance" anymore, it would be something else.I mostly lurk here but this is something that's been on my mind over the last week:Lanza murdered his mother (the owner of the firearms) and then went to the school. Can we definitively prove that she is liable of negligence without having her stand trial to defend herself? Isn't it a constitutional right that you have the opportunity to face your accuser? If she had lived she could have been found to have been at fault for allowing her son access to weapons and could have likely been sued in civil court, correct? She would have had an opportunity to defend herself.Given that she is deceased can her estate still be sued? How would this be handled if the defendant in this case is no longer alive (ironically because of the very negligence she may be guilty of)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nezzer Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Solution to what?I suppose it's pretty okay to have a massacre every year when it rarely happens more than once in a decade in *most other countries in the world :cool4:EDIT: I'd be wrong to say "every other country in the world" when the terrorists blow something up all the time in the MIddle East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M'lady Cynthia Rayder Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Dude. What the fuck are you talking about?you didn't want to answer my questions about the Trayvon shooting, cause it's for a jury to decide. I am then suggesting that we shouldn't be talking about gun control either, as this is out of our hands for the immediate future anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Raidne Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 I mostly lurk here but this is something that's been on my mind over the last week:Lanza murdered his mother (the owner of the firearms) and then went to the school. Can we definitively prove that she is liable of negligence without having her stand trial to defend herself? Isn't it a constitutional right that you have the opportunity to face your accuser?If she had lived she could have been found to have been at fault for allowing her son access to weapons and could have likely been sued in civil court, correct? She would have had an opportunity to defend herself.Given that she is deceased can her estate still be sued? How would this be handled if the defendant in this case is no longer alive (ironically because of the very negligence she may be guilty of)?Yeah, in an earlier thread I said that the families of the deceased should absolutely sue her estate for wrongful death. It's not a criminal trial, so no rights to face your accuser or anything are raised, and, in any case, that's the purpose of having the estate. The estate would be in a court, as a party, with a lawyer, etc.As you say, the only significance of her death is that, you know, if you get shot by your mentally unstable son in your own home with your own weapon...res ipsa loquitor. Probably safe to say somebody did something negligent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myrddin Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 This week I've learned that an assault weapon is like pornography.I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.