Las Vegas shooting

[richard_daily]

Ah, the familiar comparison of cars to guns. Totally on point.

"So if I choke to death on a piece of steak, can my family sue the butcher??" I can rattle off a whole bunch more irrelevancies and save you all the time.

Can you think of a single case where you're liable for something after the sale and subsequent misuse of said item?

No?

Didn't think so.

It's a horrible idea, come up with by people who are grasping at straws due to overly emotional irritability.

 

[lickitandstickit]

Can you think of a single case where you're liable for something after the sale and subsequent misuse of said item?

Drugs,..

 

[richard_daily]

Drugs,..

Really? I can't think of a single drug dealer who has ever gotten charged for their client going out and murdering someone while high on the PCP they were sold.

Got any links to back up that claim?

Not to mention that you're talking about already restricted schedule 1 narcotics, which is far different from something enshrined in constitutional right.

 

[lickitandstickit]

Really? I can't think of a single drug dealer who has ever gotten charged for their client going out and murdering someone while high on the PCP they were sold.

Got any links to back up that claim?

People selling heroin that another OD'd on it.. I know people that were in prison and knew people that were in for that. They are also trying to pass laws to make that mandatory now.. For that particular drug.

While it was somewhat of a joke, i was sorta being serious as well.. Of course, its really totally off topic..

 

[phrodeau]

Can you think of a single case where you're liable for something after the sale and subsequent misuse of said item?

No?

Didn't think so.

It's a horrible idea, come up with by people who are grasping at straws due to overly emotional irritability.

Let me Google that for you.

 

[Que]

Let me Google that for you.

An over-served patron is not misusing the alcohol he was over-served. He is using the alcohol as it is intended by the person who has a responsibility to cut him off before he becomes overserved.

You are truly awful at analogies and drawing parallels.

 

[Lancecastor]

Can you think of a single case where you're liable for something after the sale and subsequent misuse of said item?

See: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

 

[JasonBourneAgain]

Can you think of a single case where you're liable for something after the sale and subsequent misuse of said item?

No?

Didn't think so.

It's a horrible idea, come up with by people who are grasping at straws due to overly emotional irritability.

No, that's what people resort to when trying to make the car + gun comparison.

 

[BigBeeB]

Can you think of a single case where you're liable for something after the sale and subsequent misuse of said item?

No?

Didn't think so.

It's a horrible idea, come up with by people who are grasping at straws due to overly emotional irritability.

a BARTENDER

who serves one 2 many

 

[Emerson40]

Guns and cars....

Toasters don't toast bread, people toast bread...

Most analogies are silly, because guns are purchased primarily to kill, while automobiles, toasters, matches, knives, etc, are tools that have a primary use other than killing living things.

But for those that want to cling to the car analogy, there is no need to ban cars.
Just introduce similar regulations and controls for guns and gun ownership, like you see for vehicles.

Hold gun owners and users to the same standards that drivers and automobile owners are held. Be licensed, have all guns registered and the owners have title to the gun, and make it mandatory that gun owners purchase and have insurance against the risks of accidents, theft, injury, and even death.

Like all insurance, rates can be determined by age and sex of the insured, zip code, qualifications and additional training / screening done, type of firearm, and how the guns are stored and secured.


People do kill people. And guns kill people. That's what they were designed to do. Guns were invented by people to kill people. That's what they're for. Killing. It's kind of the point of guns. Cars were never manufactured to kill or destroy.

Make it so guns are not so easily accessible, and people will still kill people, sure, but it won't be because they had and instrument of death (or 30+ of them) readily available.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Guns and cars....

Toasters don't toast bread, people toast bread...

Most analogies are silly, because guns are purchased primarily to kill, while automobiles, toasters, matches, knives, etc, are tools that have a primary use other than killing living things.

LOL what a crock of shit.

 

[phrodeau]

An over-served patron is not misusing the alcohol he was over-served. He is using the alcohol as it is intended by the person who has a responsibility to cut him off before he becomes overserved.

You are truly awful at analogies and drawing parallels.

Of course he is. Drinking more than you can handle is misusing alcohol. There's something called alcohol abuse. Have you heard that phrase before?

 

[Que]

Of course he is. Drinking more than you can handle is misusing alcohol. There's something called alcohol abuse. Have you heard that phrase before?

Ok, Mr. Lawyer, go ahead and explain to me the legal theory as to how it is that the bartender in the bar accrued liability.

Which they did.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Ok, Mr. Lawyer, go ahead and explain to me the legal theory as to how it is that the bartender in the bar accrued liability.

Which they did.

Google Dram Shop Law and feel the hot sting of embarassment usually reserved for your children when they are asked what their father does for a living.

 

[Que]

Guns and cars....

Toasters don't toast bread, people toast bread...

Most analogies are silly, because guns are purchased primarily to kill, while automobiles, toasters, matches, knives, etc, are tools that have a primary use other than killing living things.

But for those that want to cling to the car analogy, there is no need to ban cars.
Just introduce similar regulations and controls for guns and gun ownership, like you see for vehicles.

Hold gun owners and users to the same standards that drivers and automobile owners are held. Be licensed, have all guns registered and the owners have title to the gun, and make it mandatory that gun owners purchase and have insurance against the risks of accidents, theft, injury, and even death.

Like all insurance, rates can be determined by age and sex of the insured, zip code, qualifications and additional training / screening done, type of firearm, and how the guns are stored and secured.


People do kill people. And guns kill people. That's what they were designed to do. Guns were invented by people to kill people. That's what they're for. Killing. It's kind of the point of guns. Cars were never manufactured to kill or destroy.

Make it so guns are not so easily accessible, and people will still kill people, sure, but it won't be because they had and instrument of death (or 30+ of them) readily available.

That's not even a barely passable legal theory. It doesn't matter why you bought something, or what its intended use is. All that matters is how you used it.

Cars are a very good analogy because they can easily be used to intentionally kill, or to do so negligently. Just like guns. Guns are designed and sold to kill things that one has a legal right to kill. Rat poison is sold to poison things that you have a legal right to poison.

A gun owner using it as intended for example a security guard using his gun which was purchased with the express intent of defending life and property uses it to kill somebody that needs killing he assumes absolutely no liability. Nor would the gun seller or the manufacturer.

There's nothing that is inherently a legal liability if the only facts we have are that someone died of a gunshot wound. Perhaps he needed to be killed.

 

[Que]

Google Dram Shop Law and feel the hot sting of embarassment usually reserved for your children when they are asked what their father does for a living.

"WHICH THEY DID"

Is me pointing out there IS the liability.

Under Frodo's theory that the person has the capacity to determine whether he is or is not able to take that next drink there would be no liability.

 

[richard_daily]

Let me Google that for you.

That's not about the sale and subsequent misuse of an item, that's the failure of the bartender to cut off liquor when someone is clearly too intoxicated to function.

If the person who was served too much liquor was tried for murder committed by the drunk person, then you might have an argument... however, that's not what happens, is it?

 

[richard_daily]

Guns and cars....

Toasters don't toast bread, people toast bread...

Most analogies are silly, because guns are purchased primarily to kill, while automobiles, toasters, matches, knives, etc, are tools that have a primary use other than killing living things.

But for those that want to cling to the car analogy, there is no need to ban cars.
Just introduce similar regulations and controls for guns and gun ownership, like you see for vehicles.

Hold gun owners and users to the same standards that drivers and automobile owners are held. Be licensed, have all guns registered and the owners have title to the gun, and make it mandatory that gun owners purchase and have insurance against the risks of accidents, theft, injury, and even death.

Like all insurance, rates can be determined by age and sex of the insured, zip code, qualifications and additional training / screening done, type of firearm, and how the guns are stored and secured.


People do kill people. And guns kill people. That's what they were designed to do. Guns were invented by people to kill people. That's what they're for. Killing. It's kind of the point of guns. Cars were never manufactured to kill or destroy.

Make it so guns are not so easily accessible, and people will still kill people, sure, but it won't be because they had and instrument of death (or 30+ of them) readily available.

Guns are not purchased "primarily to kill". Any assertion that they are is a emotional plea to the uniformed. Guns are not "designed to kill people". You have no authority to claim that they are.

It's a false equivalence, and holds no water in a rational argument. If that's the point where we are in the discussion, then I'll let you try to make your tired talking points.

Gun manufacturers are not culpable for a product misused by someone down the road, nor should they be.

None of your "solutions" would stop any massacre or any murder... not a single one.

 

[contrifan32]

Guns and cars....

Toasters don't toast bread, people toast bread...

Most analogies are silly, because guns are purchased primarily to kill, while automobiles, toasters, matches, knives, etc, are tools that have a primary use other than killing living things.

People do kill people. And guns kill people. That's what they were designed to do. Guns were invented by people to kill people. That's what they're for. Killing. It's kind of the point of guns. Cars were never manufactured to kill or destroy.

Make it so guns are not so easily accessible, and people will still kill people, sure, but it won't be because they had and instrument of death (or 30+ of them) readily available.

I am really starting to feel sorry for people who think the way you do and believe what you believe to be true.

 

[JasonBourneAgain]

Guns are made to kill living things. There's no other intent for the weapon. And don't give me your bullshit about target practice.

 

[JasonBourneAgain]

I am really starting to feel sorry for people who think the way you do and believe what you believe to be true.

I get it. It's a reciprocal thing for you

 

[richard_daily]

Guns are made to kill living things. There's no other intent for the weapon. And don't give me your bullshit about target practice.

So how come not a single one of my guns has ever served that alleged "intended purpose"? I didn't realize that you could prove the intent of an intimate object. That's something I'd like to see in court!

 

[JasonBourneAgain]

So how come not a single one of my guns has ever served that alleged "intended purpose"? I didn't realize that you could prove the intent of an intimate object. That's something I'd like to see in court!

I assume it's because you're not a murderer or haven't had to protect your family from other people with guns. Care to try again?

 

[contrifan32]

I get it. It's a reciprocal thing for you

Based on your other comment above this one... its more an obvious thing.

 

[richard_daily]

I assume it's because you're not a murderer or haven't had to protect your family from other people with guns. Care to try again?

I don't need to try again. You're the one claiming to know the intent of an inanimate object.