another elementary school shooting
- Thread starter kurt cloverdales
- Start date
That’s ammo. Not a gun for christs sake. Totally different. You don’t have to pass a check to buy ammo. Stay on topic.
Exactly why we need to eliminate immunity. A gun shop owner should not feel protected when he fails to exercise reasonable care.
Whatever the US is doing it’s not working.
Kids are kids all over the world. Humans are the same everywhere for the most part.
Not recognizing that access to weapons is the sole differentiator in this discussion is illogical and displays poor problem solving ability.
Correct. And according to the 21st amendment we have the constitutional right to purchase alcohol. Yet we still managed to add pretty hefty liability laws after the fact. Constitutional amendments are not untouchable and unchangeable.
Don't be a smart ass. You can't live up to the challenge.
Dumb question. Yes good grief. I can’t take a question like that serious. The ffl doesn’t have telepathy. Hell people live lies for years without anyone knowing. You guys are going about gun control the wrong way.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I don’t know that’s true. The media likes to throw out the guns per capita number and show us as an outlier but I don’t think that’s the right statistic. The right statistic, which I can’t find, is the ownership rate by country. Meaning a Boolean variable of Yes/No per household or per adult. I suspect we’d find that we are on par with many other developed nations including Canada.
Because at the end of the day it doesn’t matter how many guns the average citizen owns, it’s access to them for the mentally unfit.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
We’re not. Essentially the semi auto long guns need to be off the streets. If an FLL wants to sell those then he’s liable. Period.
I’m not being a smart ass. It’s not the same under current laws. They don’t check ids for ammo.
I don’t follow that. If it’s a banned gun he’s not selling it anyway. Being taken off the streets is another topic.
It’s very unlikely and rare an ffl takes risks like that. I think people don’t understand the full process. It’s a broken process but to put the liability mostly on the ffl is not good.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
It’s a way to get them off the street. Removing immunity for those that sell them. It either means nobody will sell them or some will at great risk to their business and therefore they’ll do significantly more diligence on their customer.
Maybe. But I work in the alcohol industry. Have worked in the industry for 20 years and am fairly high up the rung in the industry.
It is absolutely hammered into the brains of everyone, from store clerks to CEOs, that you never serve someone who is visibly intoxicated. Its not to say that people don't skirt this. It happens a lot. However it may surprise you that most bartenders and clerks take this very seriously. Every state has some different approaches to this but every state ATC takes it very seriously. In Indiana, everyone who sells alcohol to the end consumers must take classes to spot drunks. Its required to get a license to serve. Yes you have to be licensed to serve a constitutionally protected good. You must have a state or federal issued ID to purchase this constitutionally protected good.
High levels of regulation. Permits. Licenses. High level of training. All added to a constitutionally protected items after the amendment was written.
Why don’t we hire federal resource officers for schools and hire young veterans. Good paying, important job. I’m sure that would be better than floating aid to half the world. Takes the responsibility off local tax payers. Those are the types of things a federal government should collect taxes for.
And if everyone knows every school is guarded by a federal agent, they stop being a target.
And if everyone knows every school is guarded by a federal agent, they stop being a target.
Different discussions. It won’t get them off the streets by holding an ffl accountable. You still have the ones already sold. So even if you ban the sales it still leaves a huge inventory. Still accessible. Those are two different topics. How would you go about getting them off the street? That’s why it’s not effective.
100%. There's so many ways to prove that a server knowingly served a visibly intoxicated person even by clear and convincing evidence. Witnesses. If there's receipts showing the number of drinks bought. Experts for how fast alcohol is metabolized given weight etc. I don't really see how it relates to a gun shop. He "looked" crazy? Go to walmart. Half the people there look crazy
I’m not arguing any of that. How many places have actually been procecuted or has this really been enforced? The laws we have are rarely utilized correctly in these instances I’m betting.
It’s easy to spot a drunk. Psychology of a seemingly normal looking person is different. Like my wife. She looks completely healthy but is battling brain cancer. Looks normal but she has deficits that to the untrained seem perfectly normal.
Dram is still a viable civil suit. They are filed all the time and are usually riders on commercial policies. It helps
Where do the designated driver or reference to one play a part? I mean I would guess at least 50% of people leaving a bar are legally intoxicated.
No. If we are going to keep guns out of the hands of nut job kids, one of the first things I want to know is what those nut job kids say when they buy the guns.
Problem is…if they cut the drunk off, who’s responsible for him after they let him leave the bar? They cut him off, right? It’s still difficult to prosecute. They still operate everyday doing those same things. Happens at every bar every day.
50 years ago people probably said "how was i supposed to know they were drunk".
Its amazing what proper training and fear of criminal and civil liability will do.
Prayers!!! And not to hijack I know three people right now battling brain cancer. What is going on?!
Brandon asks, "why do we keep letting this happen?" By that logic once we figure out who the lunatic got permission from to kill people we should be able to solve the problem. I know he didn't ask me.
Same old tired arguments from the left. Blame the inanimate object and take away everyone's guns. They never answer the question - what law can you implement to prevent criminals from committing crimes? If Chicago and New York have some of the most intense gun laws in the nation how do people still end up getting shot? In Chicago, 20 - 30 shot is an average weekend but you hear nothing from the left. Crickets.
But guns can kill in higher volumes!!! No, people using a gun can kill in high volume. Just as a car driven through a crowd of innocent people in a parade can kill in high volume. But that car had to be driven by someone. Some person made a conscious decision to take the lives of others in both situations. The responsibility is on the person. Not the object used.
If you remove guns completely (100%/all guns) it won't stop the criminals from getting a gun. Remember, drugs are illegal and they pour across our border, including fentanyl, yet the criminals are able to get them in large volumes and sell it on the streets. If they are caught it's likely a liberal DA will put them right back on the street. Fact is, there is no law a criminal won't break if they choose to do it. The outcome to taking guns away from the law abiding citizen is criminals will have guns and the law abiding citizens will now be defenseless. This is the goal of the Marxist left anyway. It opens the door to everything else they want to do to this country.
But thankfully the courts have always upheld the second amendment and most Americans agree with that decision. Finally, the mindset of most law abiding citizens is the same - come and take it.
Same old tired arguments from the left. Blame the inanimate object and take away everyone's guns. They never answer the question - what law can you implement to prevent criminals from committing crimes? If Chicago and New York have some of the most intense gun laws in the nation how do people still end up getting shot? In Chicago, 20 - 30 shot is an average weekend but you hear nothing from the left. Crickets.
But guns can kill in higher volumes!!! No, people using a gun can kill in high volume. Just as a car driven through a crowd of innocent people in a parade can kill in high volume. But that car had to be driven by someone. Some person made a conscious decision to take the lives of others in both situations. The responsibility is on the person. Not the object used.
If you remove guns completely (100%/all guns) it won't stop the criminals from getting a gun. Remember, drugs are illegal and they pour across our border, including fentanyl, yet the criminals are able to get them in large volumes and sell it on the streets. If they are caught it's likely a liberal DA will put them right back on the street. Fact is, there is no law a criminal won't break if they choose to do it. The outcome to taking guns away from the law abiding citizen is criminals will have guns and the law abiding citizens will now be defenseless. This is the goal of the Marxist left anyway. It opens the door to everything else they want to do to this country.
But thankfully the courts have always upheld the second amendment and most Americans agree with that decision. Finally, the mindset of most law abiding citizens is the same - come and take it.
🙄 Most if all don’t act like nut jobs. Remember we can no longer discriminate. I see lots of people that I think are nut jobs. That doesn’t mean they are.
Designated driver isn't part of the facts. Cases are always the same. Drunk gets overserved gets into his car and hits an innocent third party. Passenger with drunk can sue drunk too but it's more difficult and depends on the states' comparative rules etc
Depends when they cut him off. If they cut him off after he was visibly intoxicated they could be toast. Too late
Not sure. She’s good for now. Watch and wait.
And the bar becomes almost uninsurable.
I’ve seen them stumble in, not get served but still allowed to leave. I’ve seen them pick up someone else’s drink too. Is that still prosecutable? You see were I’m going with this.
And something akin to a dram shop law wouldn't, by itself, solve the problem. But, in concert with other regs it might at least change the thought process on the easy availability of guns
In reality how is a bar insurable? They serve alcohol. I suppose in urban areas where walking home is an option but how many people really go to a bar and don't get at least a buzz?
