One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Gun owners should be strictly liable for damages caused by their guns
Page 1 of 16 next> last>>
May 24, 2017 12:45:56   #
Chocura750
 
A boy was shot at school by a gun brought to school by another boy. This is a reason that there should be strict liability for whatever damage is caused by a gun owner's gun. It is based on the legal principle that if you keep something inherently dangerous and it escapes, you as owner are strictly liable for any damage which results from the escape of the dangerous item. Foe example, if you keep a lion for a pet in your back yard under this principle you would be liable for any damage the lion causes if it escapes even though you have done everything you thought possible to prevent it from escaping. And likewise if someone steals your gun you will be liable for any damage done with it. I expect the number of stolen guns will dramatically decrease if this principle is in force.

http://crooksandliars.com/2017/05/kid-shot-gut-pro-gun-sheriff-charges-gun?utm_source=Crooks+and+Liars+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3458ca0751-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d4904be7bc-3458ca0751-330139729

Reply
May 24, 2017 13:09:00   #
Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere
 
Chocura750 wrote:
A boy was shot at school by a gun brought to school by another boy. This is a reason that there should be strict liability for whatever damage is caused by a gun owner's gun. It is based on the legal principle that if you keep something inherently dangerous and it escapes, you as owner are strictly liable for any damage which results from the escape of the dangerous item. Foe example, if you keep a lion for a pet in your back yard under this principle you would be liable for any damage the lion causes if it escapes even though you have done everything you thought possible to prevent it from escaping. And likewise if someone steals your gun you will be liable for any damage done with it. I expect the number of stolen guns will dramatically decrease if this principle is in force.

http://crooksandliars.com/2017/05/kid-shot-gut-pro-gun-sheriff-charges-gun?utm_source=Crooks+and+Liars+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3458ca0751-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d4904be7bc-3458ca0751-330139729
A boy was shot at school by a gun brought to schoo... (show quote)


Nope, not always. If you lend something and it is used to injure, or if you do it yourself, you are liable. If.your child does damage you are liable.

But if your.possession is taken without your permission or knowledge and used to damage, the perp is liable, not you. This is why the law is structured in its current manner.

Your "should" would be penalizing gun owners for damage caused outside their scope of ownership. The law requires the owner to exercise reasonable safety control. Nothing more.

Same as your car. If someone uses it without your permission, you are off the hook.

If you want this type of.law I suggest your first action should be to go after the people responsible for Fast and Furious.

Reply
May 24, 2017 13:13:25   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
Chocura750 wrote:
A boy was shot at school by a gun brought to school by another boy. This is a reason that there should be strict liability for whatever damage is caused by a gun owner's gun. It is based on the legal principle that if you keep something inherently dangerous and it escapes, you as owner are strictly liable for any damage which results from the escape of the dangerous item. Foe example, if you keep a lion for a pet in your back yard under this principle you would be liable for any damage the lion causes if it escapes even though you have done everything you thought possible to prevent it from escaping. And likewise if someone steals your gun you will be liable for any damage done with it. I expect the number of stolen guns will dramatically decrease if this principle is in force.

http://crooksandliars.com/2017/05/kid-shot-gut-pro-gun-sheriff-charges-gun?utm_source=Crooks+and+Liars+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3458ca0751-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d4904be7bc-3458ca0751-330139729
A boy was shot at school by a gun brought to schoo... (show quote)


I think not.

Reply
 
 
May 24, 2017 13:28:38   #
missinglink Loc: Tralfamadore
 
With many stipulations I would agree .

Chocura750 wrote:
A boy was shot at school by a gun brought to school by another boy. This is a reason that there should be strict liability for whatever damage is caused by a gun owner's gun. It is based on the legal principle that if you keep something inherently dangerous and it escapes, you as owner are strictly liable for any damage which results from the escape of the dangerous item. Foe example, if you keep a lion for a pet in your back yard under this principle you would be liable for any damage the lion causes if it escapes even though you have done everything you thought possible to prevent it from escaping. And likewise if someone steals your gun you will be liable for any damage done with it. I expect the number of stolen guns will dramatically decrease if this principle is in force.

http://crooksandliars.com/2017/05/kid-shot-gut-pro-gun-sheriff-charges-gun?utm_source=Crooks+and+Liars+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3458ca0751-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d4904be7bc-3458ca0751-330139729
A boy was shot at school by a gun brought to schoo... (show quote)

Reply
May 24, 2017 13:39:52   #
Mr Bombastic
 
Chocura750 wrote:
A boy was shot at school by a gun brought to school by another boy. This is a reason that there should be strict liability for whatever damage is caused by a gun owner's gun. It is based on the legal principle that if you keep something inherently dangerous and it escapes, you as owner are strictly liable for any damage which results from the escape of the dangerous item. Foe example, if you keep a lion for a pet in your back yard under this principle you would be liable for any damage the lion causes if it escapes even though you have done everything you thought possible to prevent it from escaping. And likewise if someone steals your gun you will be liable for any damage done with it. I expect the number of stolen guns will dramatically decrease if this principle is in force.

http://crooksandliars.com/2017/05/kid-shot-gut-pro-gun-sheriff-charges-gun?utm_source=Crooks+and+Liars+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3458ca0751-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d4904be7bc-3458ca0751-330139729
A boy was shot at school by a gun brought to schoo... (show quote)


Do you own a gun? If so, how would you feel if someone broke into your house, stole it and used it to kill someone? Should you be held responsible?

Reply
May 24, 2017 13:45:48   #
missinglink Loc: Tralfamadore
 
That is one stipulation .

Mr Bombastic wrote:
Do you own a gun? If so, how would you feel if someone broke into your house, stole it and used it to kill someone? Should you be held responsible?

Reply
May 24, 2017 14:11:24   #
Noraa Loc: Kansas
 
Chocura750 wrote:
A boy was shot at school by a gun brought to school by another boy. This is a reason that there should be strict liability for whatever damage is caused by a gun owner's gun. It is based on the legal principle that if you keep something inherently dangerous and it escapes, you as owner are strictly liable for any damage which results from the escape of the dangerous item. Foe example, if you keep a lion for a pet in your back yard under this principle you would be liable for any damage the lion causes if it escapes even though you have done everything you thought possible to prevent it from escaping. And likewise if someone steals your gun you will be liable for any damage done with it. I expect the number of stolen guns will dramatically decrease if this principle is in force.

http://crooksandliars.com/2017/05/kid-shot-gut-pro-gun-sheriff-charges-gun?utm_source=Crooks+and+Liars+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3458ca0751-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d4904be7bc-3458ca0751-330139729
A boy was shot at school by a gun brought to schoo... (show quote)


I am a gun owner and I agree with everything except if the gun is stolen. I raised 2 kids and they were taught proper respect. If your kid takes your gun and is under 18 I feel the parent is responsible. You should know your kids well enough to know if the gun should be under lock and key. If you don't that shows you didn't teach them right and should probably not have guns or kids.

Reply
 
 
May 24, 2017 14:14:59   #
bylm1-Bernie
 
Chocura750 wrote:
A boy was shot at school by a gun brought to school by another boy. This is a reason that there should be strict liability for whatever damage is caused by a gun owner's gun. It is based on the legal principle that if you keep something inherently dangerous and it escapes, you as owner are strictly liable for any damage which results from the escape of the dangerous item. Foe example, if you keep a lion for a pet in your back yard under this principle you would be liable for any damage the lion causes if it escapes even though you have done everything you thought possible to prevent it from escaping. And likewise if someone steals your gun you will be liable for any damage done with it. I expect the number of stolen guns will dramatically decrease if this principle is in force.

http://crooksandliars.com/2017/05/kid-shot-gut-pro-gun-sheriff-charges-gun?utm_source=Crooks+and+Liars+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3458ca0751-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d4904be7bc-3458ca0751-330139729
A boy was shot at school by a gun brought to schoo... (show quote)



Better brush up on the law a bit.

Reply
May 24, 2017 14:39:58   #
Chocura750
 
If someone breaks into your house and steals it and does damage with it, yes you should be liable. You should have had it secured better.

Reply
May 24, 2017 14:52:26   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
Chocura750 wrote:
If someone breaks into your house and steals it and does damage with it, yes you should be liable. You should have had it secured better.


There are probably places that require gun safes. What if you secure your weapon and your house and your stuff gets stolen anyway? I think you just want to hurt law abiding Americans who don't share your point of view.

Reply
May 24, 2017 14:57:59   #
lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas
 
Chocura750 wrote:
A boy was shot at school by a gun brought to school by another boy. This is a reason that there should be strict liability for whatever damage is caused by a gun owner's gun. It is based on the legal principle that if you keep something inherently dangerous and it escapes, you as owner are strictly liable for any damage which results from the escape of the dangerous item. Foe example, if you keep a lion for a pet in your back yard under this principle you would be liable for any damage the lion causes if it escapes even though you have done everything you thought possible to prevent it from escaping. And likewise if someone steals your gun you will be liable for any damage done with it. I expect the number of stolen guns will dramatically decrease if this principle is in force.

http://crooksandliars.com/2017/05/kid-shot-gut-pro-gun-sheriff-charges-gun?utm_source=Crooks+and+Liars+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3458ca0751-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d4904be7bc-3458ca0751-330139729
A boy was shot at school by a gun brought to schoo... (show quote)


That's why we have laws prohibiting keeping dangerous items, like Lions, in private homes. There has to be some common sense applied every time. For example: One is more likely to die in a vehicle accident, than by any other means, but we can't ban automobiles - so we try to make them as safe as possible, enforce safe driving rules, etc.

We have had the technology to produce safe firearms for many years, but the NRA ( through Congress ) has blocked ALL attempts to make it the law of the land. There are "add on" devices that render a firearm inactive, if the owner is not the one handling it, the same is true for newly manufactured weapons. Any child ( or criminal ) gaining access to a weapon not belonging to them, cannot make it fire. Let's call this the "seat belt for firearms".

Now, if we can agree that traffic rules, seat belts, brake lights, turn signals and airbags are necessary for safety - why do we argue against such rules and devices for the #2 killer in the US, firearms?

Reply
 
 
May 24, 2017 15:02:01   #
Mr Bombastic
 
lpnmajor wrote:
That's why we have laws prohibiting keeping dangerous items, like Lions, in private homes. There has to be some common sense applied every time. For example: One is more likely to die in a vehicle accident, than by any other means, but we can't ban automobiles - so we try to make them as safe as possible, enforce safe driving rules, etc.

We have had the technology to produce safe firearms for many years, but the NRA ( through Congress ) has blocked ALL attempts to make it the law of the land. There are "add on" devices that render a firearm inactive, if the owner is not the one handling it, the same is true for newly manufactured weapons. Any child ( or criminal ) gaining access to a weapon not belonging to them, cannot make it fire. Let's call this the "seat belt for firearms".

Now, if we can agree that traffic rules, seat belts, brake lights, turn signals and airbags are necessary for safety - why do we argue against such rules and devices for the #2 killer in the US, firearms?
That's why we have laws prohibiting keeping danger... (show quote)

Some people want to have every firearm have a device in the grip that scans your fingerprints before it fires. This is a bad idea since the scan takes time. When you are in a life and death situation, microseconds count. It is possible that you may be dead before the gun allows you to fire it.

Reply
May 24, 2017 15:04:51   #
Noraa Loc: Kansas
 
Chocura750 wrote:
If someone breaks into your house and steals it and does damage with it, yes you should be liable. You should have had it secured better.


If someone broke into my house while I was there I wouldn't want to try to "unsecure" my gun to protect myself. What if they broke in stole my butcher knife? Should I have secured that better?

Reply
May 24, 2017 15:15:48   #
Noraa Loc: Kansas
 
lpnmajor wrote:
That's why we have laws prohibiting keeping dangerous items, like Lions, in private homes. There has to be some common sense applied every time. For example: One is more likely to die in a vehicle accident, than by any other means, but we can't ban automobiles - so we try to make them as safe as possible, enforce safe driving rules, etc.

We have had the technology to produce safe firearms for many years, but the NRA ( through Congress ) has blocked ALL attempts to make it the law of the land. There are "add on" devices that render a firearm inactive, if the owner is not the one handling it, the same is true for newly manufactured weapons. Any child ( or criminal ) gaining access to a weapon not belonging to them, cannot make it fire. Let's call this the "seat belt for firearms".

Now, if we can agree that traffic rules, seat belts, brake lights, turn signals and airbags are necessary for safety - why do we argue against such rules and devices for the #2 killer in the US, firearms?
That's why we have laws prohibiting keeping danger... (show quote)


How safe were the people in Europe that have been run over by terrorists?

Reply
May 24, 2017 15:17:18   #
Noraa Loc: Kansas
 
Mr Bombastic wrote:
Some people want to have every firearm have a device in the grip that scans your fingerprints before it fires. This is a bad idea since the scan takes time. When you are in a life and death situation, microseconds count. It is possible that you may be dead before the gun allows you to fire it.


Have a question. Does it read just one owner or can it read multiple owners? Husband and wife for example.

Reply
Page 1 of 16 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.