LastPommerFan

We're talking about a very narrow sliver of gun deaths, but it's interesting. A follow on might be if a parent knows that they have a mentally unstable teenager in their home, but maintains weapons in the house and grants that teenager access to the weapons, would that parent be civilly negligent if that mentally unstable teenager killer a couple dozen 7 year olds at her school? Criminally even? I'm not sure I know the answer off hand, and I certainly don't know what the status quo is in the legal realm, but it's an interesting question. Wow, this has been a great thought experiment. Would only be improved if we were all sitting face to face and there were several glass containers of fermented, distilled, and properly aged corn mash around us.

It appears you would have liked to see the babysitter case above resolved differently, is that a fair statement? I'm honestly curious, I left my shepherd's staff and border collie at home.

You see, you're looking backward to see what has previously happened to you and how tired it has made you, rather than looking ahead to the wonderfully extended rest you will receive tonight. This may be why you're having such a hard time with the tank. And it appears Numark had a hard time finding cases where the resolution was not in favor of the lax gun owner. Perhaps tomorrow when you are refreshed, you could give it a shot? hehehe...puns.

I think the question more closely pertains to people who leave loaded guns unlocked. There are many in the "Personal Self Defense as Justification for the Second Amendment" camp who swear that there is no point in owning guns if you keep them unloaded and locked up. and realistically, its only 11:30

It appears Numark has access to Lexis or a similar case database, perhaps he can assist. It is an interesting comparison.

For this discussion, I'm removing examples where an intervening crime is involved in the chain of events. That is a discussion, but not this one.

But then you'll miss the parade! Look at it this way, the Sabres being terrible while you focus on school is actually pretty good timing. Jeez, you may even find some time for your lady.

I'm willing to bet that of Numark looked up similar cases regarding accidental death from a child using a car. The results would skew more toward the courts finding significant civil liability. Yes, lock and key requirements with associated penalties would accomplish the same. But the penalties are key. Key...hehehe...puns.

Strike him down with all of your hatred, and your journey towards the Dark Side will be complete.

And you'll have lightning from your fingers in 20

Darcy/Quinn watched 7/1/07 redux: defense edition happen.

Yes. Yes. let the hate flow through you.

GMTM gives zero ###### about your anger.

I'm certain that GMTM is aware that there are a handful of guys in Rochester that would be a huge upgrade. GMTM is a genius.

Won't his bosses put a stop to it eventually?

I'm not sure I would use the word extreme in that particular case, the crime related cases might be a little more "extreme", but it would hardly be the only exercise of a right that comes with responsibilities and the associated liabilities.

Thanks Numark. This is exactly what is was looking for. I'd like to see it change. I think it would do a lot for both Justice (holding people accountable for their actions or lack thereof) and for safety as gun owners began to understand that they are responsible for damage caused by their weapons.

Yeah. Not exclusively that, I'm interested in the criminal side as well, but with the attractive nuisance-ish thing, I was looking more at it from that perspective.

These are more to the criminal liability. Which I need to think more about. On the civil front, has the gun owner ever been held civilly liable when one kid shoots another accidentally with their gun? What was the penalty?

I'd like to see it spelled out in law like attractive nuisances for all gun deaths, even accidental ones, to start. And I'd like people to take criminal responsibility for crimes committed with the weapons they own, but I honestly have not fleshed that idea out as much. Essentially I want the rochester woman who's gun was used to kill those fireman to be held criminally liable for their murder. (I understand she was convicted on a gun charge, but it had nothing to do with the murder.)

Technically he landed in Canada.

Absolutely. But I'm not certain I could achieve prohibition with the line I was going down. I would love to see people who choose to be gun owners held liable for that purchase.

Philosophically? sure, absolutely. Politically? That's not how representative government works. That is how representative government fails to work. We're seeing all the boneheaded results of that for the last 4 years. On both sides. That said, sometimes I'm not certain which debate is happening here (philosophical or political), and that's a credit to the depth of discussion. We could use a little more philosophical debate in this country, where the word values is used as something other than code for the GOP's wink to those who would create a Christian Theocracy.

I was 16 years old, and I was 12 rows up in the corner closest to Hulls foot. I have night terrors about it still.

I *think* i accepted it?