• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

10 yr old shot two weeks after 2 yr old

jaeger19 said:
Not true.. not true at all.

If the main purpose of guns was "to kill"...American would be the most dangerous country in the world...

Wait.. you think that SYRIA.. is safer than America....

Never mind. :lamo
Click to expand...

It is funny watching those who constantly bait and try to smear lawful gun owners for political reasons, pretending they actually CARE about deaths
 
CaughtInThe said:
10,265‬ is a hell of a number.
Click to expand...

But irrelevant.

unless you think you are better off being murdered when someone uses a handgun.. vs being murdered by a knife.

I wonder if you think that would work.... "don't worry misses Jones about your murdered son...at least he was murdered with a knife and not a handgun".
 
jaeger19 said:
But irrelevant.

unless you think you are better off being murdered when someone uses a handgun.. vs being murdered by a knife.

I wonder if you think that would work.... "don't worry misses Jones about your murdered son...at least he was murdered with a knife and not a handgun".
Click to expand...

Uh, knives are not exactly a problem in the US. But, guns certainly are. Did you miss that part in his chart?
 
jaeger19 said:
But irrelevant.

unless you think you are better off being murdered when someone uses a handgun.. vs being murdered by a knife.

I wonder if you think that would work.... "don't worry misses Jones about your murdered son...at least he was murdered with a knife and not a handgun".
Click to expand...

It's not a relevant at all. Many more people get murdered by guns than they do by knives.

But we are a gun culture so that's understandable in our country. And it will never stop.

The only real question is whose kids will be gunned down tonight. And tomorrow. And every day forever.
 
jet57 said:
The second amendment trumps (operative word) anybody else’s “natural” or other rights.

I thought you knew that.
Click to expand...

I know it; you know it, but so far they refuse to admit it. Instead they say, "B...b...but swimming pools, cars and knives."
 
mrjurrs said:
I couldn't agree more. What is worse to me is the immediate jump to ban vaping because some kids died. What about guns?
Click to expand...

No one banned vaping. But, please show where they did. It would be useful to know.
 
KevinKohler said:
For missuse of their product?

So...if an airline pilot gets smashed, and flies anyway, and crashes, we get to sue Boeing?

You're not worth my time, on this particular subject. You're not changing, and neither am I.
Click to expand...

The gun was used for what it was made for, just like cigarettes. Gun makers should lose their protection against liability. The pilot is obviously liable, just like gun makers wouldn't be held liable for a drunk shooting someone.
 
calamity said:
No one banned vaping. But, please show where they did. It would be useful to know.
Click to expand...

Not banned yet, according to baby orange man it is coming next week.
 
mrjurrs said:
The gun was used for what it was made for, just like cigarettes. Gun makers should lose their protection against liability. The pilot is obviously liable, just like gun makers wouldn't be held liable for a drunk shooting someone.
Click to expand...

The gun was made for killing kids with poorly aimed shots?
 
Chillfolks said:
The gun was made for killing kids with poorly aimed shots?
Click to expand...

The gun was made to fire projectiles at velocities that cause damage to what the projectile hits. The user was performing a task the tool was made for, his inability to use it safely has nothing to do with product liability.
 
mrjurrs said:
The gun was made to fire projectiles at velocities that cause damage to what the projectile hits. The user was performing a task the tool was made for, his inability to use it safely has nothing to do with product liability.
Click to expand...

The person who pulled the trigger is the responsible and they alone are liable for their actions.
 
mrjurrs said:
The gun was used for what it was made for, just like cigarettes. Gun makers should lose their protection against liability. The pilot is obviously liable, just like gun makers wouldn't be held liable for a drunk shooting someone.
Click to expand...

If I build a bridge and somebody jumps off it, should I be held liable?
 
Chillfolks said:
The person who pulled the trigger is the responsible and they alone are liable for their actions.
Click to expand...

and the funny part is that the actions that really upsets gun banners is the action of voting by gun owners. The crocodile tears about deaths are patently bogus because you never see the gun banners actually going after things that cause the most deaths
 
mrjurrs said:
The gun was made to fire projectiles at velocities that cause damage to what the projectile hits. The user was performing a task the tool was made for, his inability to use it safely has nothing to do with product liability.
Click to expand...

you appear confused about product liability. The weapon doesn't harm the user when used as intended. The only damage long term shooters MIGHT have is a deterioration of hearing if they don't wear protection. I am closing in on a million rounds and my hearing is above normal for a 60 year old.
 
mrjurrs said:
The gun was used for what it was made for, just like cigarettes. Gun makers should lose their protection against liability. The pilot is obviously liable, just like gun makers wouldn't be held liable for a drunk shooting someone.
Click to expand...

The airplane was used for what it was made for, too. Should we sue for 9/11? Those planes were made to fly, and fly they did.
 
mrjurrs said:
The gun was made to fire projectiles at velocities that cause damage to what the projectile hits. The user was performing a task the tool was made for, his inability to use it safely has nothing to do with product liability.
Click to expand...

So...we get to sue airline and car manufacturers.

Apply logic.
 
Chillfolks said:
The person who pulled the trigger is the responsible and they alone are liable for their actions.
Click to expand...

If anything, so are the lawmakers who let him have his gun(s) in the same way a bar owners is liable for serving more alcohol to a drunk.
 
Court Jester said:
Are you saying the 2nd Amendment doesn't provide the right to keep and bear arms here in the USA?
Click to expand...

No

...too many people on the far left are confusing their wishes with reality. Amend the constitution and take away the 2nd Amendment head on if people feel it needs to go. But use the correct process available in a democracy in this free society.
Click to expand...


The right of people to own guns V the ability to do anything useful/productive with that ownership.
 
Rich2018 said:
If anything, so are the lawmakers who let him have his gun(s) in the same way a bar owners is liable for serving more alcohol to a drunk.
Click to expand...

Close, but no.

More apt would be holding a bar tender responsible for someone who comes in sober but had a suspended license for DUI/DWI and is served who then drives drunk and kills someone.

The law doesn’t work that way.


Or, if an ammo dealer was standing on the corner selling ammo to folks as they were actively shooting innocent civilians. But that doesn’t happen either

“You” are solely responsible for your actions and only you answer for the consequences.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Rich2018 said:
If anything, so are the lawmakers who let him have his gun(s) in the same way a bar owners is liable for serving more alcohol to a drunk.
Click to expand...

According to the OP the gunman remains on the loose, has the person been caught?

Not sure I'm following how the lawmakers let him have a gun? Was the person prohibited and they made some exception? If the person was prohibited and still had a gun why would you not hold the police responsible for not arresting this person before they had a chance to use the gun? That would seem more in line with a bar owner overlooking someones intoxication and continuing to serve them, police overlooking this person's prohibited status and allowing them to keep the firearm.
 
Wings said:
Close, but no.

More apt would be holding a bar tender responsible for someone who comes in sober but had a suspended license for DUI/DWI and is served who then drives drunk and kills someone.
Click to expand...

The consumer's driver's license status is irrelevant

...the law doesn’t work that way....
Click to expand...


Dram Shop Laws: Bar Owner Liability for Drunk Driving Accidents | AllLaw




...or, if an ammo dealer was standing on the corner selling ammo to folks as they were actively shooting innocent civilians. But that doesn’t happen either...
Click to expand...

Vendor lawsuit against Dick's Sporting Goods over ammunition contract moves forward | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette



...“You” are solely responsible for your actions and only you answer for the consequences...
Click to expand...

Not necessarily in civil law
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom