Johnny DangerFace

Why do any of us do any of this? Buffalo sports has brought me more misery than joy.....I'm a lifer though haha

I'm accepting of that for everyone but pysyk. That guy needs to be in the nhl imo

I get the hate on every player we have, but I agree, freakin benoit. That guy needs to go, there cannot be anyone in the organization that doesn't think pysyk would be a huge upgrade. And the way Nolan and TM talked about Pysyk, it seemed they thought he was nhl ready...

heh, I think gun owners would call it extreme :P But yea, maybe not the right word, but definitely liable

It would also be a way around the 2nd amendment. It doesn't infringe on gun rights, but holds them extremely liable.

(I don't want to derail the thread, but I thought what you were saying was very interesting and pretty smart thinking). Well the cases above are all civil cases under negligence where the gun was stolen and then used in a crime (the victim's family then sued the gun owner). So even though though they involved criminal acts (there would be criminal cases against the shooter), those are civil cases. But looking at the accidental side of things, courts seem to stay away from holding gun owners liable. For example, I just read a case where a household had a gun in the closet that was loaded and not locked up. That families' daughter was babysitting a 5 year old, and the babysitter (15 year old) went upstairs and got the gun out to show it to the kids that she was babysitting. One of them ended up getting shot and killed. The gun owners, babysitter, and shooter were all found not negligent and won the case. The court seems to take the stance of the only way a gun owner would be held negligent, would be if the gun owner had reason to know that the leaving the gun wherever they left it would be likely to lead to the accident. After skimming about 20-25 cases, I didn't see one case where the owner of the gun is found liable. I'm sure there is one out there, but it would be the exception, not the rule. Basically, gun owners are not being held liable for having there guns taken (and used in a crime or involved in an accident. Even if it is left loaded in a house with children) As for attractive nuisance, that is applied in trespassing cases but is interesting with what you are suggesting. Normally, property owners owe a relatively low duty of care to trespassers (it is hard for trespassers to sue property owners). However, the exception comes with the attractive nuisance doctrine. That states that if the property is or has an attractive nuisance (think a pool or a trampoline), a child who trespasses is owed a higher duty of care. Meaning, they aren't looked at like trespassers. So if someone has a nice pool and knows their are children in the area, then they need to have a fence or something along those lines. What you are suggesting is pretty good idea, but I think it would have to come from a statute (this is something we might eventually see and you could be on to something) A law would have to state that if a gun is involved in an accident or crime, then the gun owner owes a duty of care to the harmed party. Without that law, and as it is now, it is rarely going to even make it into a civil courtroom because of causation issues. If a 16/17 year old shoots someone with a gun, after their parents give them the gun, then the 16/17 would be found liable, and therefore the parents would be responsible. Or if someone leaves a loaded gun in their hallway, and their child uses it inside the house. Circumstances like that seem to be where we currently find the gun owners liable, sometimes. Sorry for boring you haha also the case that I mentioned about the babysitter, here is the fact set (to give you an idea of how even with an unloaded gun in the house that the daughter knew about, parents aren't held liable)

ah so you mean like a civil case where someone accidentally gets shot (by the non-owner), and then the owner of the gun gets sued?

Games not over yet boys!!!!

what was benoit doing? Dude just skates back and gets out of the shooting lane

Interesting stuff. I think Larsson is paying his AHL dues and should make his way to the team this year, or next year out of camp. He can fill a bottom six role so he makes sense as a callup (as does schaller). But yea, if larsson is assigned to rochester next year, we may see some drama

anyone else listening to the penguin announcers? They are in love with ristolainen

I don't know how much you care GCoE, but i thought it was interesting and looked into it more and found a few cases Both cases didn't even make it to trial, and both talked about the intervening criminal act breaking the chain of causation like I assumed it would. The only time a court will get past that intervening criminal act, is if the criminal act is extremely foreseeable.

attractive nuisance isn't quite the right term (unless it has different meaning in other areas which is always possible), but the issue with what is being suggested would end up being the issue of causation. Typically a causation chain is broken if a crime is one of the events. So even if a person is negligent in leaving their gun on their doorstep, if someone steals it and then shoots someone, the causation chain is broken by the theft and the negligent gun owner isn't liable. But that's in theory, I did a quick look and couldn't find any cases that have dealt with this. I remember reading a case that actually was filed against Buffalo, where someone stored chemicals negligently, someone stole the chemicals, and then someone was injured. The criminal act of stealing the chemicals didn't remove liability from the chemical owners because the crime of them being stolen was foreseeable. So I think if someone has their gun stolen if it wasn't stored properly, like left on their desk or their doorstep, maybe someone could have a case? I'm speaking out of my ass though, edit: I see what you are saying about the attractive nuisance doctrine, it wasn't clicking with me before. The idea that guns are such a target that the gun owners should have a higher duty of care to people because they know their guns are going to be targets of theft. Interesting, but the issue would still be the causation (I'v only seen the attractive nuisance doctrine applied to trespassing and children, so I dont think it has been applied outside of that, but who knows)

uhhh crosby

No, there is nothing reasonable about that analogy, I'm sorry. You usually make great points, but guns and vehicles are not even comparable. And you asking what the benefits of vehicles are is whatever.

You just asked what the benefits of vehicles are. There's no point in discussing something with someone with such a stubborn point. If you don't get why your analogy is ridiculous, then tacos

A pretty simple cost-benefit model would explain that for you. It's not a good analogy in any sense. If you compared the positives/benefits of cars to guns, and didn't come up with a wildly unbalanced result, then idk what to say

I think both McDavid and Eichel have stepped up their games a ton this year. Both look to be incredible players. I think McDavid is still in a bit higher class, but I wouldn't be shocked if Eichel ended up being better. I have always thought the Crosby comparisons to McDavid were unfair, as I thought crosby was a different class, but McDavid is proving me wrong this year.

Haha that is one great letter

Hey leduc dropped his other last name!

Kaleta can fill the kaleta role better than reinhart can fill the kaleta role

One doesn't simply understand what the Stafford is. And they certainly can't just get rid of it

Islanders getting crushed, was that fast start against bad teams....an illusion :) And the blues lost backes and oshie to injuries

Okay so next year we will have some of the AHL guys ready for full time roles (hopefully), Reinhart ready for a full time role (hopefully, and our 1st round forward ready for a full time role (hopefully). Let's see how competitive this team will be Ennis - Grigorenko - Armia Moulson - Reinhart - (2015 Draftee) Hodgson - Girgensons - Gionta Foligno - Larsson - Deslauriers Gorges - Myers McCabe - Ristolainen Zadorov - Pysyk Extra Forwards - Schaller, McCormick 7th D = Mike Weber If McCabe, Pysyk, and Zadorov are read, this group of defenders is looking way to young. Myers and Gorges may have to be split up to give a veteran presence on multiple lines. Something like Gorges/Ristolainen, McCabe/Myers, Zadorov/Pysyk. Our forwards are starting to look a little soft again and not being able to hold their own defensively. Hodgson, it may be time for you to go. Not to mention the team is looking way to young, too many rookies is not a great thing. Also, I would really like for Armia and Grigorenko to stay on a line together, and both next year will be old men compared to our other nhl ready prospects. Gone Flynn (RFA) Mitchell (UFA) Benoit (UFA) Meszaros (UFA) Stafford (UFA) Stewart (UFA) Kaleta (UFA) Also what can they do to improve? I think there isn't much doubt Grigorenko and Pysyk should make the team. Armia, Larsson, Schaller, and McCabe have to be close too. And who knows what to do with Zadorov. So with all those young players, what do you do? Keep some in the AHL to over-ripe and keep a staffor or Stewart for a few years?

Next year being up grigs and Armia for the second line :)