Father of Michigan school shooter found guilty of manslaughter weeks after mother’s conviction

[jaeger19]

You have gotten confused again. Allowable unsafe storage habits means that gun owners are not expected to protect others from access.
Parents are presumed to NOT be criminally accountable in law for acts by adult children unless they are in a unique situation like the Michigan shooter.
It all is consistent with the NRA attitude toward guns-- reduce accountability for firearm violence.
Even in this thread, many gun nuts have asserted that parents should never be held accountable for acts by relatives.
The idea of vicarious liability is severely restricted for firearms-- i.e. no accountability.

Blah blah blah.
You posted an example of gun owners being held accountable..then claim gun owners aren't accountable.

Multiple gun owners on this forum pointed out that tge parents SHOULD be held accountable while you claim gun owners dont believe in accountability.

It's like you just can't help lying.
"It all is consistent with the NRA attitude toward guns-- reduce accountability for firearm violence. ".

The nra has a long history of pushing for longer sentences got criminals that commit cri.es with firearms...more prosecutions and longer sentences for violent felons who try to get guns illegally.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Parents are presumed to NOT be criminally accountable in law for acts by adult children unless they are in a unique situation like the Michigan shooter.

No such uniqueness. This is a general precedent that will allow parents to be prosecuted for anything their kids do.

Even in this thread, many gun nuts have asserted that parents should never be held accountable for acts by relatives.

Childish namecalling is a poor substitute for a good argument.

 

[Spock]

Blah blah blah.
You posted an example of gun owners being held accountable..then claim gun owners aren't accountable.

Multiple gun owners on this forum pointed out that tge parents SHOULD be held accountable while you claim gun owners dont believe in accountability.

It's like you just can't help lying.
"It all is consistent with the NRA attitude toward guns-- reduce accountability for firearm violence. ".

The nra has a long history of pushing for longer sentences got criminals that commit cri.es with firearms...more prosecutions and longer sentences for violent felons who try to get guns illegally.

So you must agree that holding firearm owners criminally and civilly liable for all lost firearms and subsequent unlawful use, accidental deaths or injuries, intentional injuries or deaths, unlocked storage practices and misuse of firearms would represent ideal accountability.
Presumably you also agree with liability for firearm manufacturers for deaths or injuries from their firearms.

 

[Spock]

No such uniqueness. This is a general precedent that will allow parents to be prosecuted for anything their kids do.



Childish namecalling is a poor substitute for a good argument.

Still no cogent argument. Keep trying.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Still no cogent argument. Keep trying.

That is incorrect. All of my arguments, being fact-based, are cogent.

 

[jaeger19]

So you must agree that holding firearm owners criminally and civilly liable for all lost firearms and subsequent unlawful use, accidental deaths or injuries, intentional injuries or deaths, unlocked storage practices and misuse of firearms would represent ideal accountability.
Presumably you also agree with liability for firearm manufacturers for deaths or injuries from their firearms.

And this is why no one will listen to you.

So I thief breaks into my locked home. Into my gun safe..and takes an unloaded handgun.
That handgun is then brandished at a store clerk and the fellow is arrested.
According to you..its my fault the their brandished the firearm.

Your child takes a kitchen knife to school and kills three classmates with it and you bear no liability..
Explain.

 

[Spock]

And this is why no one will listen to you.

So I thief breaks into my locked home. Into my gun safe..and takes an unloaded handgun.
That handgun is then brandished at a store clerk and the fellow is arrested.
According to you..its my fault the their brandished the firearm.

Your child takes a kitchen knife to school and kills three classmates with it and you bear no liability..
Explain.

Once again, you are tangential. You advocate for accountability. Fine.
Address this:
"So you must agree that holding firearm owners criminally and civilly liable for all lost firearms and subsequent unlawful use, accidental deaths or injuries, intentional injuries or deaths, unlocked storage practices and misuse of firearms would represent ideal accountability.
Presumably you also agree with liability for firearm manufacturers for deaths or injuries from their firearms..."

 

[jaeger19]

Once again, you are tangential. You advocate for accountability. Fine.
Address this:
"So you must agree that holding firearm owners criminally and civilly liable for all lost firearms and subsequent unlawful use, accidental deaths or injuries, intentional injuries or deaths, unlocked storage practices and misuse of firearms would represent ideal accountability.
Presumably you also agree with liability for firearm manufacturers for deaths or injuries from their firearms..."

Oh..I am sorry..did you not understand?.

This?
So you must agree that holding firearm owners criminally and civilly liable for all lost firearms and subsequent unlawful use, accidental deaths or injuries, intentional injuries or deaths, unlocked storage practices and misuse of firearms would represent ideal accountability.
Presumably you also agree with liability for firearm manufacturers for deaths or injuries from their firearms..."

Is absurd..hypocritical,. Illogical..and well just plain stupid..

As my previous posts point out..
You would hold a gun owner more accountable even though the thief broke through a locked house and a gun safe..and then only brandished a firearm..

Than a parent who let a kid take a kitchen knife to school and kill three people.

 

[Spock]

Oh..I am sorry..did you not understand?.

This?
So you must agree that holding firearm owners criminally and civilly liable for all lost firearms and subsequent unlawful use, accidental deaths or injuries, intentional injuries or deaths, unlocked storage practices and misuse of firearms would represent ideal accountability.
Presumably you also agree with liability for firearm manufacturers for deaths or injuries from their firearms..."

Is absurd..hypocritical,. Illogical..and well just plain stupid..

As my previous posts point out..
You would hold a gun owner more accountable even though the thief broke through a locked house and a gun safe..and then only brandished a firearm..

Than a parent who let a kid take a kitchen knife to school and kill three people.

So a firearm owner has no accountability for theft or loss of a device capable of killing others? Really?
Presumably you would think that mining companies, oil companies, chemical manufacturers, or explosives producers have similarly no accountability for loss or theft of dangerous substances.

 

[jaeger19]

So a firearm owner has no accountability for theft or loss of a device capable of killing others? Really?
Presumably you would think that mining companies, oil companies, chemical manufacturers, or explosives producers have similarly no accountability for loss or theft of dangerous substances.

Don't hurt yourself running with that strawman...
Lmao.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

So a firearm owner has no accountability for theft or loss of a device capable of killing others? Really?

No new gun regulations until the gun control movement stops violating our civil liberties, stops trying to violate our civil liberties, and pays compensation for all their past violations of our civil liberties.

Adequate compensation should be 100% of all of their wealth and possessions.

 

[Spock]

No new gun regulations until the gun control movement stops violating our civil liberties, stops trying to violate our civil liberties, and pays compensation for all their past violations of our civil liberties.

Adequate compensation should be 100% of all of their wealth and possessions.

Wild and meaningless, but consistent, rant from someone who thinks that millions of dead or injured American civilians from firearm violence would not be sufficient to restrict firearm ownership.

 

[Spock]

Don't hurt yourself running with that strawman...
Lmao.

Accountable liability is a fundament legal principle of fairness and justice.. but we know that those principles are not well-respected by gun nuts who want to be exempt from any responsibility for owning a lethal weapon.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Wild and meaningless, but consistent, rant from someone who thinks that millions of dead or injured American civilians from firearm violence would not be sufficient to restrict firearm ownership.

That is incorrect. The fact that your call for additional regulations is rejected is neither wild nor meaningless.

Accountable liability is a fundament legal principle of fairness and justice..

Too bad. The answer is no.

but we know that those principles are not well-respected by gun nuts who want to be exempt from any responsibility for owning a lethal weapon.

This name-calling is a poor substitute for a persuasive argument.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Presumably you also agree with liability for firearm manufacturers for deaths or injuries from their firearms.

Only if a defect of the firearm is the cause.

Otherwise, it is completely ludicrous to hold any firearms manufacturer responsible for the wrongful use of their product.

 

[Spock]

Only if a defect of the firearm is the cause.

Otherwise, it is completely ludicrous to hold any firearms manufacturer responsible for the wrongful use of their product.

Explain your thinking here? In your answer, be sure to consider that tobacco and opioid manufacturers have been held liable.

 

[Spock]

That is incorrect. The fact that your call for additional regulations is rejected is neither wild nor meaningless.

Explain. You have changed your mind about millions of deaths from firearm violence?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Explain your thinking here? In your answer, be sure to consider that tobacco and opioid manufacturers have been held liable.

Poor comparisons.

Used as intended by the manufacturer, tobacco is inherently unhealthy.

Firearms, when properly handled, do not present a hazard to the user or others.

Opioid manufacturers were successfully sued because they lied about the high risk of addiction/abuse of their product.

Remington was successfully sued by Sandy Hook parents/families because the firearms manufacturer violated Connecticut commercial advertising laws.

A win that I wholeheartedly applauded.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”), signed into law in ‘05, protects firearms manufacturers from lawsuits related to the unlawful use of their products, but allows for product liability lawsuits related to malfunctioning/defective products, like most other industries.

 

[jaeger19]

Accountable liability is a fundament legal principle of fairness and justice.. but we know that those principles are not well-respected by gun nuts who want to be exempt from any responsibility for owning a lethal weapon.

I agree. If fair and just the liability should be the same with a kitchen knife..as a firearm or a stolen car.. or a stolen hammer..stolen axe..stolen baseball bat.

All of the above can and have been used as a lethal weapon.

Don't you agree?

 

[jaeger19]

Explain your thinking here? In your answer, be sure to consider that tobacco and opioid manufacturers have been held liable.

Please explain what the opoid and tobacco manufacturers were held liable for.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Explain.

In #261 I informed you that your call for gun liability has been rejected.

In #262 you falsely characterized my post as wild and meaningless.

In #264 I informed you that your characterizations of my post are incorrect.

You have changed your mind about millions of deaths from firearm violence?

No. I still think your irrelevant trivia is pointless.

Explain your thinking here? In your answer, be sure to consider that tobacco and opioid manufacturers have been held liable.

No one is going to allow you to bury the gun industry under a wave of frivolous lawsuits.

 

[Spock]

Poor comparisons.

Used as intended by the manufacturer, tobacco is inherently unhealthy.

I would say a weapon designed to kill from a distance is inherently unhealthy.

Firearms, when properly handled, do not present a hazard to the user or others.

Firearms are intended to hurt others.

Opioid manufacturers were successfully sued because they lied about the high risk of addiction/abuse of their product.


Remington was successfully sued by Sandy Hook parents/families because the firearms manufacturer violated Connecticut commercial advertising laws.

A win that I wholeheartedly applauded.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”), signed into law in ‘05, protects firearms manufacturers from lawsuits related to the unlawful use of their products, but allows for product liability lawsuits related to malfunctioning/defective products, like most other industries.

Why should firearms receive special protection in regard to liability/

 

[Spock]

In #261 I informed you that your call for gun liability has been rejected.

In #262 you falsely characterized my post as wild and meaningless.

In #264 I informed you that your characterizations of my post are incorrect.



No. I still think your irrelevant trivia is pointless.



No one is going to allow you to bury the gun industry under a wave of frivolous lawsuits.

Maybe. Tobacco manufacturers attempted the same protection.
Firearms are intended to cause harm and their use involves inherently dangerous activity (a projectile that cannot be controlled once fired, for example).
Perfect for liability actions.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Maybe. Tobacco manufacturers attempted the same protection.

Not maybe. The answer is no.

Firearms are intended to cause harm

That is incorrect. The purpose of a self defense gun is to stop threats.

Target shooting guns are not even intended to be fired at living objects.

Hunting guns are not intended to harm people.

their use involves inherently dangerous activity (a projectile that cannot be controlled once fired, for example).

Bathtubs and stairways are inherently dangerous too.

Perfect for liability actions.

Request denied. No liability shall be allowed.

I would say a weapon designed to kill from a distance is inherently unhealthy.

Neither self defense guns nor target shooting guns are designed to kill.

Hunting guns are not designed to kill people.

Firearms are intended to hurt others.

No they aren't.

Why should firearms receive special protection in regard to liability/

Because the answer to any request for any gun regulation is no until the gun control movement stops violating our civil liberties, stops trying to violate our civil liberties, and pays compensation for all their past violations of our civil liberties.

Additionally, because people have a fundamental right to have guns.

 

[Spock]

Not maybe. The answer is no.



That is incorrect. The purpose of a self defense gun is to stop threats.

The purpose of a firearm is to effect death and injury.

Target shooting guns are not even intended to be fired at living objects.

Hunting guns are not intended to harm people.

According to your thinking, firearms do not harm people... just animals!!

Bathtubs and stairways are inherently dangerous too.

No. Look up inherently dangerous.

Request denied. No liability shall be allowed.



Neither self defense guns nor target shooting guns are designed to kill.

Hunting guns are not designed to kill people.



No they aren't.



Because the answer to any request for any gun regulation is no until the gun control movement stops violating our civil liberties, stops trying to violate our civil liberties, and pays compensation for all their past violations of our civil liberties.

Additionally, because people have a fundamental right to have guns.

Why?