- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Increased Statutory Responsibilities of Gun Ownership
Posted on 5/18/18 at 2:42 pm to HDAU
Posted on 5/18/18 at 2:42 pm to HDAU
negligently let somebody
Negligent entrustment claims arise when an unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless driver causes damages while driving a motor vehicle owned by someone else. A party injured by such a driver must generally prove five components of this tort: (1) that the owner entrusted the vehicle to the driver; (2) that the driver was unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless; (3) that the owner knew or should have known that the driver was unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless; (4) that the driver was negligent in the operation of the vehicle; and (5) that the driver's Negligence resulted in damages (Amaya v. Potter, 94 S.W.3d 856 [Tex. App. 2002]).
Nowhere in my previous statement did I say let, give permission, entrusted, loaned, or any version thereof.
Negligent entrustment claims arise when an unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless driver causes damages while driving a motor vehicle owned by someone else. A party injured by such a driver must generally prove five components of this tort: (1) that the owner entrusted the vehicle to the driver; (2) that the driver was unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless; (3) that the owner knew or should have known that the driver was unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless; (4) that the driver was negligent in the operation of the vehicle; and (5) that the driver's Negligence resulted in damages (Amaya v. Potter, 94 S.W.3d 856 [Tex. App. 2002]).
Nowhere in my previous statement did I say let, give permission, entrusted, loaned, or any version thereof.
1
Posted on 5/18/18 at 3:04 pm to X123F45
Lmao at least you’re proficient in practical life skills. No need to learn such useless skills such as proper firearm storage amiright
Posted on 5/18/18 at 3:13 pm to HDAU
quote:
I am just afraid if we, as responsible gun owners, do not respond to the outcry from the vocal left with anything more than a loud, "Don't take our guns!" innocent people will continue to die and at some point, we will not have a voice in the conversation.
sorry, but I don't believe you are a responsible gun owner. I don't think you're a gun owner at all. This sounds like the sort of question asked by a pro gun control group in a survey or opinion poll. Now you may not be left wing or anti gun, but you don't sound like a gun owner. JMO.
Why are you focusing on the gun or the "responsible" gun owner? They aren't the problem. Hell, we don't even know at this point if the alleged source of the shotgun (his father supposedly) was a responsible gun owner. So this question is premature at best, unnecessary at most.
you cannot stop this by focusing on the gun or how it is stored. And you certainly cannot stop this by focusing on those who aren't committing any fault.
Posted on 5/18/18 at 3:27 pm to 14ft_flat_matt
My firearms are stored over 5 miles from the nearest person with a criminal record.
Can you say the same?
Can you say the same?
Posted on 5/18/18 at 3:48 pm to td1
Back on topic!
I think the biggest issue is defining what are reasonable measures and who would define them.
I was making light of it with the car analogy. If I didn't lock my car, you could say I did not take reasonable measures to keep someone from stealing my stuff or the car.
The hardest thing for me to accept about such a law, would be a situation like if I left my gun on my counter in my house, locked my house, set my alarm, went to dinner, someone broke in and stole my gun and killed someone with it. I would guess most people would say that I took reasonable measures to secure my gun. I locked it in my house, and had an alarm. But from what I hear from the antigun fanatics is that I should have some kind of special device, safe, armed guard, etc. for the gun.
If I have a four year old, at that age putting a gun in a cabinet far out of his reach / reach with a chair / climbing / etc. would be reasonable. Would it not?
Teaching a kid about gun safety, training, etc., and that you don't play with guns, don't touch one if you find one and if you do immediately find an adult, is that a reasonable measure?
I keep one on the top of a highboy in the bedroom. Unloaded slide forward, loaded mag next to it. No child in my house has the ability to rack the slide (yet) and adjustments will be made when that day comes. Is that reasonable?
From what is sounds like in today's shooting, the kid made pressure cooker bombs too. Maybe mom should be locked up for not securing her instapot. I'm not making light of the current situation, but we already have gun laws, regulations, etc.
As far as these mass shootings are concerned, I don't think the gun is the real root of the problem especially since we have now moved on to IEDs.
These kids now a days are the problem, as may also be the schools. We had some pretty big weirdos when I was in JR and SR high, hell, bullying was not even a crime but none of them shot up the place.
We do not have a gun problem, we have a society problem. Until that problem is dealt with, the gun, the knife, the car, the van, the pressure cooker bomb, and so on a so forth will be the scapegoat.
Go after the nut jobs not the guns. I have never heard of a gun spontaneously going out an killing anyone. I've been keeping a close eye on mine, but still to this day none have moved on their own. I however constantly hear of criminals, crazies, and miscreants using guns to kill people.
Maybe we need more laws to take reasonable measures to protect us from them, not more laws to force me to protect them and everyone else from themselves.
Sorry for the rant! Slow day at work today.
quote:
Would a law requiring gun owners to take reasonable measures to keep their firearms out of the hands of crazies (and placing legal/civil liability on them if they don't) be a good compromise?
I think the biggest issue is defining what are reasonable measures and who would define them.
I was making light of it with the car analogy. If I didn't lock my car, you could say I did not take reasonable measures to keep someone from stealing my stuff or the car.
The hardest thing for me to accept about such a law, would be a situation like if I left my gun on my counter in my house, locked my house, set my alarm, went to dinner, someone broke in and stole my gun and killed someone with it. I would guess most people would say that I took reasonable measures to secure my gun. I locked it in my house, and had an alarm. But from what I hear from the antigun fanatics is that I should have some kind of special device, safe, armed guard, etc. for the gun.
If I have a four year old, at that age putting a gun in a cabinet far out of his reach / reach with a chair / climbing / etc. would be reasonable. Would it not?
Teaching a kid about gun safety, training, etc., and that you don't play with guns, don't touch one if you find one and if you do immediately find an adult, is that a reasonable measure?
I keep one on the top of a highboy in the bedroom. Unloaded slide forward, loaded mag next to it. No child in my house has the ability to rack the slide (yet) and adjustments will be made when that day comes. Is that reasonable?
From what is sounds like in today's shooting, the kid made pressure cooker bombs too. Maybe mom should be locked up for not securing her instapot. I'm not making light of the current situation, but we already have gun laws, regulations, etc.
As far as these mass shootings are concerned, I don't think the gun is the real root of the problem especially since we have now moved on to IEDs.
These kids now a days are the problem, as may also be the schools. We had some pretty big weirdos when I was in JR and SR high, hell, bullying was not even a crime but none of them shot up the place.
We do not have a gun problem, we have a society problem. Until that problem is dealt with, the gun, the knife, the car, the van, the pressure cooker bomb, and so on a so forth will be the scapegoat.
Go after the nut jobs not the guns. I have never heard of a gun spontaneously going out an killing anyone. I've been keeping a close eye on mine, but still to this day none have moved on their own. I however constantly hear of criminals, crazies, and miscreants using guns to kill people.
Maybe we need more laws to take reasonable measures to protect us from them, not more laws to force me to protect them and everyone else from themselves.
Sorry for the rant! Slow day at work today.
Posted on 5/18/18 at 4:37 pm to HDAU
HDAU,
In a perfect world, I could live w/ some of your suggestions. BUT, this is a highly IMPERFECT world. I believe the majority of dems/liberals/progressives hate ALL guns and would ultimately like to reduce gun ownership by civilians to nearly zero. They wouldn't hesitate to use "gun safety", "reduction in gun violence", "school safety", "responsible gun ownership", "safe gun ownership", "gun violence" or any of a number of other laudible phrases to accomplish their goal. Likewise, they'd jump at the opportunity to require "sensible" gun licensing requirements to further their agenda. They'd love to have the cooperation of "reasonable" gun owners, "safety advocates" and other well meaning souls like yourself to pass such licensing requirements. All of this would be nothing but masked means to get rid of guns. But, even if something were passed now that I could actually live w/ (very unlikely), I promise you that it would continually be under attack w/ future recs for even more restrictions. When the restrictions they promised would decrease gun deaths fail to do so, they'd respond by cranking out more restrictions. For the left, it's a never ending battle. Gun violence will never end in our country because of evil in the heart of some. The left will always respond to criminal gun violence w/ calls for even more "sensible" gun safety laws (since they've never seen a gun they like anyways). Eventually you'd no longer recognize the sensible gun licensing requirements you happily agreed to.
As far as mental health and gun ownership, that's a VERY slippery slope. I think everyone would agree that the mentally ill should not own guns, but how (and WHO) will that be defined? Again, do you honestly think you can trust the dems to not use mental health questionaires, prescription drug history use, interviews and such to advance their unquenchable hunger for more gun control? I know a lot of health care providers (MD's, nurse practitioners and physician assistants). Although I generally like all of them, I don't want a system where they are put in control of my 2A rights. We've seen lately how allowing one's personal politics in the FBI has caused a lot of problems.
Creating gun storage laws for gun owners to abide would not decrease violence. OTOH, it'd prob create a new insurance rider for your homeowner's policy. Then we'd see the insurance company inspecting your gun safety program (similar to the hoops pool owners must jump through in order to keep their home owner's policy.
In a perfect world, I could live w/ some of your suggestions. BUT, this is a highly IMPERFECT world. I believe the majority of dems/liberals/progressives hate ALL guns and would ultimately like to reduce gun ownership by civilians to nearly zero. They wouldn't hesitate to use "gun safety", "reduction in gun violence", "school safety", "responsible gun ownership", "safe gun ownership", "gun violence" or any of a number of other laudible phrases to accomplish their goal. Likewise, they'd jump at the opportunity to require "sensible" gun licensing requirements to further their agenda. They'd love to have the cooperation of "reasonable" gun owners, "safety advocates" and other well meaning souls like yourself to pass such licensing requirements. All of this would be nothing but masked means to get rid of guns. But, even if something were passed now that I could actually live w/ (very unlikely), I promise you that it would continually be under attack w/ future recs for even more restrictions. When the restrictions they promised would decrease gun deaths fail to do so, they'd respond by cranking out more restrictions. For the left, it's a never ending battle. Gun violence will never end in our country because of evil in the heart of some. The left will always respond to criminal gun violence w/ calls for even more "sensible" gun safety laws (since they've never seen a gun they like anyways). Eventually you'd no longer recognize the sensible gun licensing requirements you happily agreed to.
As far as mental health and gun ownership, that's a VERY slippery slope. I think everyone would agree that the mentally ill should not own guns, but how (and WHO) will that be defined? Again, do you honestly think you can trust the dems to not use mental health questionaires, prescription drug history use, interviews and such to advance their unquenchable hunger for more gun control? I know a lot of health care providers (MD's, nurse practitioners and physician assistants). Although I generally like all of them, I don't want a system where they are put in control of my 2A rights. We've seen lately how allowing one's personal politics in the FBI has caused a lot of problems.
Creating gun storage laws for gun owners to abide would not decrease violence. OTOH, it'd prob create a new insurance rider for your homeowner's policy. Then we'd see the insurance company inspecting your gun safety program (similar to the hoops pool owners must jump through in order to keep their home owner's policy.
Posted on 5/18/18 at 5:20 pm to tigerinthebueche
quote:
sorry, but I don't believe you are a responsible gun owner.
I am a gun owner. I have multiple. Some I have for different types of hunting, some for personal defense, and some for recreation. My dad started teaching me gun safety as a little guy with rubber band guns and worked our way up to higher caliber rifles/pistols and lower gauge shotguns as he thought I was ready. My wife knows how to hold, carry, and shoot a rifle, shotgun, and pistol, and more importantly, how not to! If I am not using a firearm for personal defense, it stays in a safe. I think I am a responsible gun owner, but you can have your own opinion.
quote:
Why are you focusing on the gun or the "responsible" gun owner? They aren't the problem.
I agree completely that the responsible gun owner is NOT the problem. My question all along has been how can we protect the rights of responsible gun owners to buy, own, sell, and shoot guns while making it more difficult for crazies and kids to get their hands on them. Is there a compromise to be had where gun owners would say "I would be willing to do X if it meant that it would be more difficult for this type of situation to occur"? For me, I would be willing to pay more taxes in order to beef up security at my kids' schools. I was also thinking that I would be willing to agree to lock up my firearms that I am not actively using for self defense, although Keno74 made a great point with the NFA restrictions. I was just asking the question of myself and wanted to hear what others thought without having to sift through the "ban assault rifles" comments.
Posted on 5/18/18 at 5:54 pm to HDAU
A much better option, IMO, is to allow teachers/administrators to be armed under programs like some Texas ISDs use.
I doubt it will happen here (based on the votes cast during the current legislative session), but I'm giving free CCW classes to certified, actively employed teachers & administrators - JIC Louisiana ever establishes a program to allow well trained teachers/admin staff to CCW in schools.
I doubt it will happen here (based on the votes cast during the current legislative session), but I'm giving free CCW classes to certified, actively employed teachers & administrators - JIC Louisiana ever establishes a program to allow well trained teachers/admin staff to CCW in schools.
This post was edited on 5/18/18 at 6:19 pm
Posted on 5/18/18 at 5:57 pm to HDAU
HDAU,
I think the crux of the problem is a lot of people in this country are tired of “them” having to do something, when they follow the laws, bc of “those” that do not.
Those that do not should be the focus of this, not a blanket for everyone. Of all the criminals I have dealt with, I have yet to find one who gives a flip about how many laws they broke, much less, how many new laws there might be out there. Most of them have no clue how many laws they actually break when they break them.
What makes it even harder is that it is a constitutional right. If it’s this easy to mess with one of those, that leaves the door open to messing with all of them. I know we can all agree that there is no easy answer, but I know we can all agree that all our rights should not be infringed upon because a very statistically irrelevant portion of the population can not act in a socially acceptable way. There a tons of other things that take more lives than guns on a yearly basis, but for some reason we allow those because they are socially acceptable and tighter regulations and restrictions would be economically detrimental. The problem seems to be there is no political currency to be gained by going after them, no breaking news value.....
I think the crux of the problem is a lot of people in this country are tired of “them” having to do something, when they follow the laws, bc of “those” that do not.
Those that do not should be the focus of this, not a blanket for everyone. Of all the criminals I have dealt with, I have yet to find one who gives a flip about how many laws they broke, much less, how many new laws there might be out there. Most of them have no clue how many laws they actually break when they break them.
What makes it even harder is that it is a constitutional right. If it’s this easy to mess with one of those, that leaves the door open to messing with all of them. I know we can all agree that there is no easy answer, but I know we can all agree that all our rights should not be infringed upon because a very statistically irrelevant portion of the population can not act in a socially acceptable way. There a tons of other things that take more lives than guns on a yearly basis, but for some reason we allow those because they are socially acceptable and tighter regulations and restrictions would be economically detrimental. The problem seems to be there is no political currency to be gained by going after them, no breaking news value.....
Posted on 5/18/18 at 5:59 pm to HDAU
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/18/18 at 6:00 pm
Posted on 5/18/18 at 6:18 pm to HDAU
Fair enough. But your premise still puts responsibility on the object (guns) and the individuals (gun owners) who bare no responsibility in any of this.
This kid, like all school shooters, would’ve found a way to inflict harm on his classmates regardless of whether he used a gun or not. I disagree that there is anything we can do to prevent this. We can make it more difficult to do, we can lower the number of casualties, but we can’t stop it.
For this reason, I am not in favor of anything you propose. I am not in favor of paying more taxes. We pay enough already. We don’t need more money. We need better allocation of existing funds. Perhaps more armed officers to stop a shooter once he starts.
And no, I’m not going to lock up more of my guns or increase the amount of steps I take to secure them because I’m trying to appease the anti gun crowd. THERE IS NO APPEASEING THEM.
And I absolutely reject the idea that if we don’t capitulate or work with the other side we will lose. Horse shite! Take the fight back to the people who fail to address the real issue and look for scapegoats.
We need to Be talking about the things that lead a kid to do this. Not the tool with which he did it.
This kid, like all school shooters, would’ve found a way to inflict harm on his classmates regardless of whether he used a gun or not. I disagree that there is anything we can do to prevent this. We can make it more difficult to do, we can lower the number of casualties, but we can’t stop it.
For this reason, I am not in favor of anything you propose. I am not in favor of paying more taxes. We pay enough already. We don’t need more money. We need better allocation of existing funds. Perhaps more armed officers to stop a shooter once he starts.
And no, I’m not going to lock up more of my guns or increase the amount of steps I take to secure them because I’m trying to appease the anti gun crowd. THERE IS NO APPEASEING THEM.
And I absolutely reject the idea that if we don’t capitulate or work with the other side we will lose. Horse shite! Take the fight back to the people who fail to address the real issue and look for scapegoats.
We need to Be talking about the things that lead a kid to do this. Not the tool with which he did it.
Posted on 5/18/18 at 6:22 pm to HDAU
Here's a better suggestion
How about lets bring back moral teachings and up bringings to children
How about lets bring back moral teachings and up bringings to children
Posted on 5/18/18 at 6:28 pm to HDAU
quote:
Would a law requiring gun owners to take reasonable measures to keep their firearms out of the hands of crazies (and placing legal/civil liability on them if they don't) be a good compromise?
I've watched this thread for signs you're one of those seminar gun control folks who say, "I'm all for responsible gun ownership, but..." A few red flags, but certainly you've stayed on the reasonable side of things.
Let me ask you this: On top of all the laws broken by the Kleibold/Harris, Cruz, Lanza-types of the world - and there were lots of them, of course, what could possibly come of MORE laws? DIFFERENT laws? Lanza killed his mother for her guns. So, your law would have prosecuted her. There were laws against proxy sales/providing firearms to minors but that didn't stop Kleibold and Harris. Cruz should have been in the criminal justice system long before the shooting, but addle-brained "social justice" policies kept him from getting on the "school-to-prison" pipeline, so those folks would rather have dead kids.
At a certain point - more laws simply aren't any kind of answer. NOTHING these shooters did was legal, except, perhaps, Cruz buying his rifle. And there were almost FOUR DOZEN calls to law enforcement about him. So, what is there to be done if the laws themselves aren't enforced?
Your solution is more laws. I respectfully disagree.
Posted on 5/18/18 at 7:17 pm to Ace Midnight
Thank God this was not over in the OT. Overall its been a good thread, or should I say discussion! Outdoors, I feel safe betting that 100% of us in here are safe and responsible gun owners. OP, if you really want to see something fun go over to the OT and post the same ! Just to be safe, though, I am keeping my eye on that AR locked up in the gun cabinet. Those things a shifty, you never know when they might jump out and start a ruckus.
Posted on 5/18/18 at 9:25 pm to Bow08tie
quote:
Here's a better suggestion
How about lets bring back moral teachings and up bringings to children
With absolutes such as right and wrong!
Thanks for a good discussion guys. I agree with a lot that has been said but continued to ask questions to see where things went. Thanks for a good civil conversation.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News