On 7 Feb 2024 10:19:50 GMT
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I have always been an advocate for parents being held responsible for
their children's behaviour while the child is under the age of
criminal responsibility.
A mother in America has just been found guilty of involuntary
manslaughter after her son was involved in a school shooting and
faces a 60 year jail sentence.
Could that happen here? Should it happen here?
I am not qualified to answer that question, merely to conjecture about
it, but I think it noteworthy that the parents seem to have actually
bought the gun and given it to the child as a present.
I have always been an advocate for parents being held responsible for
their children's behaviour while the child is under the age of
criminal responsibility.
A mother in America has just been found guilty of involuntary
manslaughter after her son was involved in a school shooting and
faces a 60 year jail sentence.
Could that happen here? Should it happen here?
On 7 Feb 2024 10:19:50 GMT
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I have always been an advocate for parents being held responsible for
their children's behaviour while the child is under the age of
criminal responsibility.
A mother in America has just been found guilty of involuntary
manslaughter after her son was involved in a school shooting and
faces a 60 year jail sentence.
Could that happen here? Should it happen here?
I am not qualified to answer that question, merely to conjecture about
it, but I think it noteworthy that the parents seem to have actually
bought the gun and given it to the child as a present.
I have always been an advocate for parents being held responsible for
their children's behaviour while the child is under the age of criminal responsibility.
A mother in America has just been found guilty of involuntary
manslaughter after her son was involved in a school shooting and faces a
60 year jail sentence.
Could that happen here? Should it happen here?
The BBC article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68223118
suggests that the mother didn't endorse the purchase of the gun and the >father purchased it as a present for their son.
On 07/02/2024 in message <upvrha$1do89$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
The BBC article:
 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68223118
suggests that the mother didn't endorse the purchase of the gun and
the father purchased it as a present for their son.
"Here's the Colt 45 I promised you for your birthday. If you're good,
and help you mom with the dishes, I'll get you the AK 47 for Christmas".
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I have always been an advocate for parents being held responsible for
their children's behaviour while the child is under the age of
criminal responsibility.
A mother in America has just been found guilty of involuntary
manslaughter after her son was involved in a school shooting and
faces a 60 year jail sentence.
Could that happen here? Should it happen here?
I am not qualified to answer that question, merely to conjecture about
it, but I think it noteworthy that the parents seem to have actually
bought the gun and given it to the child as a present. I have met
American people who are proud of their offspring's gun prowess. Not intrinsically wrong, but their reasons are most suspect, the training is
only focussed on the shooting side of it, not the safety aspect, and
their sense of their own responsibility is totally lacking.
A surreal evening was spent at an indoor shooting range, where my hosts
had some high-powered, recoil-less rifle that could probably stop a
Grizzly Bear, gave a loud 'Whoomph' sound, and was usually used to shoot gophers, as they are more common than bears in Ohio. There cannot have
been much gopher left after one of those shots.
I have always been an advocate for parents being held responsible for
their children's behaviour while the child is under the age of criminal responsibility.
A mother in America has just been found guilty of involuntary
manslaughter after her son was involved in a school shooting and faces a
60 year jail sentence.
Could that happen here? Should it happen here?
On 07/02/2024 11:40 am, Davey wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I have always been an advocate for parents being held responsible for
their children's behaviour while the child is under the age of
criminal responsibility.
A mother in America has just been found guilty of involuntary
manslaughter after her son was involved in a school shooting and
faces a 60 year jail sentence.
Could that happen here? Should it happen here?
I am not qualified to answer that question, merely to conjecture about
it, but I think it noteworthy that the parents seem to have actually
bought the gun and given it to the child as a present. I have met
American people who are proud of their offspring's gun prowess. Not
intrinsically wrong, but their reasons are most suspect, the training is
only focussed on the shooting side of it, not the safety aspect, and
their sense of their own responsibility is totally lacking.
A surreal evening was spent at an indoor shooting range, where my hosts
had some high-powered, recoil-less rifle that could probably stop a
Grizzly Bear, gave a loud 'Whoomph' sound, and was usually used to shoot
gophers, as they are more common than bears in Ohio. There cannot have
been much gopher left after one of those shots.
Having had some limited shooting tuition in the USA, I think I am qualified to answer
part of what you said.
Firearm training in the USA - even if only the hiring of a weapon for an hour at a
range - always starts with safety instruction. That is both in general...
..."Don't ever point the gun at anyone; don't suddenly turn around whilst aiming it;
keep your fingers well away from the trigger unless you gave decided to shoot" (and
more than that)...
...and weapon specific, dealing with the safety catch, the correct manner of handling
the weapon and the correct stance...
I cannot believe that a child was taught weapon-handling and accuracy of target hitting
and not the general safety procedures which are, in many states, mandated by law before
a permit can be issued.
On 2024-02-07, Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
On 7 Feb 2024 10:19:50 GMT
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I have always been an advocate for parents being held responsible for
their children's behaviour while the child is under the age of
criminal responsibility.
A mother in America has just been found guilty of involuntary
manslaughter after her son was involved in a school shooting and
faces a 60 year jail sentence.
Could that happen here? Should it happen here?
I am not qualified to answer that question, merely to conjecture about
it, but I think it noteworthy that the parents seem to have actually
bought the gun and given it to the child as a present.
Indeed. I don't get the impression the case Jeff mentions has much to do
with "parental responsibility" really. If you supply a deadly weapon to someone you know (or should have known) to be mentally unwell then it's
not much of a stretch to say you may be legally liable for the easily forseeable consequences, regardless of whether or not that person is
your child.
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote in message news:l2hkmiF9vocU1@mid.individual.net...
On 07/02/2024 11:40 am, Davey wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I have always been an advocate for parents being held responsible for
their children's behaviour while the child is under the age of
criminal responsibility.
A mother in America has just been found guilty of involuntary
manslaughter after her son was involved in a school shooting and
faces a 60 year jail sentence.
Could that happen here? Should it happen here?
I am not qualified to answer that question, merely to conjecture about
it, but I think it noteworthy that the parents seem to have actually
bought the gun and given it to the child as a present. I have met
American people who are proud of their offspring's gun prowess. Not
intrinsically wrong, but their reasons are most suspect, the training is >>> only focussed on the shooting side of it, not the safety aspect, and
their sense of their own responsibility is totally lacking.
A surreal evening was spent at an indoor shooting range, where my hosts
had some high-powered, recoil-less rifle that could probably stop a
Grizzly Bear, gave a loud 'Whoomph' sound, and was usually used to shoot >>> gophers, as they are more common than bears in Ohio. There cannot have
been much gopher left after one of those shots.
Having had some limited shooting tuition in the USA, I think I am qualified to answer
part of what you said.
Firearm training in the USA - even if only the hiring of a weapon for an hour at a
range - always starts with safety instruction. That is both in general...
..."Don't ever point the gun at anyone; don't suddenly turn around whilst aiming it;
keep your fingers well away from the trigger unless you gave decided to shoot" (and
more than that)...
...and weapon specific, dealing with the safety catch, the correct manner of handling
the weapon and the correct stance...
I cannot believe that a child was taught weapon-handling and accuracy of target hitting
and not the general safety procedures which are, in many states, mandated by law before
a permit can be issued.
No rellies in good ol' Mississippi then, I take it ?
To repeat *in many States*. Which effectively invalidates all your previous points in respect of "the USA" in general
Such that were you to Google "Most lenient gun laws US" quite possibly the top ranking link would be provided for you by
https://sightmark.eu/
The 10 States With the Most Lenient Gun Laws
a.. Mississippi.
b.. Wyoming.
c.. Montana.
d.. Idaho.
e.. Georgia.
f.. Arkansas.
g.. South Dakota.
h.. Oklahoma.
With no guesses as to what business they're actually in.
But always handy nevertheless if you're in the market for say a
"Wraith Mini Thermal Riflescope".
While as to any actual State restrictions or lack of them these
are listed alphabetically on Wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state
So that for the top-ranking states as listed above, its just a long list
of "no's" except for the odd "yes", for local exemptions
On Wednesday 7 February 2024 at 10:19:57 UTC, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I have always been an advocate for parents being held responsible for
their children's behaviour while the child is under the age of criminal >>responsibility.
Though note the child in this case is not only of the age of criminal >responsibility but already convicted in their own right.
On 07/02/2024 07:07 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l2hkmiF9vocU1@mid.individual.net...
On 07/02/2024 11:40 am, Davey wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I have always been an advocate for parents being held responsible for >>>>> their children's behaviour while the child is under the age of
criminal responsibility.
A mother in America has just been found guilty of involuntary
manslaughter after her son was involved in a school shooting and
faces a 60 year jail sentence.
Could that happen here? Should it happen here?
I am not qualified to answer that question, merely to conjecture about >>>> it, but I think it noteworthy that the parents seem to have actually
bought the gun and given it to the child as a present. I have met
American people who are proud of their offspring's gun prowess. Not
intrinsically wrong, but their reasons are most suspect, the training is >>>> only focussed on the shooting side of it, not the safety aspect, and
their sense of their own responsibility is totally lacking.
A surreal evening was spent at an indoor shooting range, where my hosts >>>> had some high-powered, recoil-less rifle that could probably stop a
Grizzly Bear, gave a loud 'Whoomph' sound, and was usually used to shoot >>>> gophers, as they are more common than bears in Ohio. There cannot have >>>> been much gopher left after one of those shots.
Having had some limited shooting tuition in the USA, I think I am qualified to answer
part of what you said.
Firearm training in the USA - even if only the hiring of a weapon for an hour at a
range - always starts with safety instruction. That is both in general... >>>
..."Don't ever point the gun at anyone; don't suddenly turn around whilst aiming it;
keep your fingers well away from the trigger unless you gave decided to shoot" (and
more than that)...
...and weapon specific, dealing with the safety catch, the correct manner of handling
the weapon and the correct stance...
I cannot believe that a child was taught weapon-handling and accuracy of target
hitting
and not the general safety procedures which are, in many states, mandated by law
before
a permit can be issued.
No rellies in good ol' Mississippi then, I take it ?
Whatever that might mean, I have an idea that the answer is "No".
To repeat *in many States*. Which effectively invalidates all your previous >> points in respect of "the USA" in general
There is a difference between (a) getting shooting tuition / training / instruction
from a professional and (b) applying for or getting a permit (whether to have a weapon
at all or for "concealed carry").
Such that were you to Google "Most lenient gun laws US" quite possibly the >> top ranking link would be provided for you by
https://sightmark.eu/
The 10 States With the Most Lenient Gun Laws
a.. Mississippi.
b.. Wyoming.
c.. Montana.
d.. Idaho.
e.. Georgia.
f.. Arkansas.
g.. South Dakota.
h.. Oklahoma.
Not relevant.
I was referring to professional tuition at a range.
Instructors don't want to be accidentally shot (or see anyone else accidentally shot)
any more than I assume you do.
They therefore give the safety part of the instruction / tuition / training* first.
[* Pick any one or even substitute your own term if you prefer.]
With no guesses as to what business they're actually in.
But always handy nevertheless if you're in the market for say a
"Wraith Mini Thermal Riflescope".
While as to any actual State restrictions or lack of them these
are listed alphabetically on Wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state
So that for the top-ranking states as listed above, its just a long list
of "no's" except for the odd "yes", for local exemptions
Not relevant.
See above for why, but it was obvious within the post to which you were responding.
With no guesses as to what business they're actually in.
But always handy nevertheless if you're in the market for say a
"Wraith Mini Thermal Riflescope".
While as to any actual State restrictions or lack of them these
are listed alphabetically on Wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state
So that for the top-ranking states as listed above, its just a
long list of "no's" except for the odd "yes", for local
exemptions
Not relevant.
See above for why, but it was obvious within the post to which you
were responding.
The implication was that firearms training and the accompanying
safety procedures were necessarily widespread in the US; that
irrresponsible gun use was rare (despite statistics suggesting
otherwise) and thus that there was no need for Federal Gun
legislation to be strengthened.
snip for brevity
With no guesses as to what business they're actually in.
But always handy nevertheless if you're in the market for say a
"Wraith Mini Thermal Riflescope".
While as to any actual State restrictions or lack of them these
are listed alphabetically on Wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state
So that for the top-ranking states as listed above, its just a
long list of "no's" except for the odd "yes", for local
exemptions
Not relevant.
See above for why, but it was obvious within the post to which you
were responding.
The implication was that firearms training and the accompanying
safety procedures were necessarily widespread in the US; that
irrresponsible gun use was rare (despite statistics suggesting
otherwise) and thus that there was no need for Federal Gun
legislation to be strengthened.
I once met a work colleague, whom I did not know beforehand, in Kansas
City, Missouri, as we were doing a job at the Ford Assembly Plant there.
He was from Tennessee, a very 'Freedom-Loving' State. We sat in his car
for a while, talking, and got to the subject of guns. He showed me the
one in the glovebox, the one in the centre console, the ones under each
front seat, and explained that there were some more in the boot. He
carried in his car a total of eight guns. While I have no idea
whether he was licensed or not, it illustrates the unhealthy obsession
with guns of many Americans.
Michigan deer-hunting season is known for the number of human deaths
that occur.
This from 1919: https://www.bridgemi.com/quality-life/you-just-react-hunter-deaths-shadow-opening-michigan-firearms-season
We used to know the season had started by seeing big pick-Up trucks
driving down the road, with deer tied to the bonnet, and
beer-drinking yahoos, including the driver, celebrating their kill.
"Davey" <davey@example.invalid> wrote in message news:uq2b9b$1u1sk$1@dont-email.me...
snip for brevity
With no guesses as to what business they're actually in.
But always handy nevertheless if you're in the market for say a
"Wraith Mini Thermal Riflescope".
While as to any actual State restrictions or lack of them these
are listed alphabetically on Wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state
So that for the top-ranking states as listed above, its just a
long list of "no's" except for the odd "yes", for local
exemptions
Not relevant.
See above for why, but it was obvious within the post to which
you were responding.
The implication was that firearms training and the accompanying
safety procedures were necessarily widespread in the US; that
irrresponsible gun use was rare (despite statistics suggesting
otherwise) and thus that there was no need for Federal Gun
legislation to be strengthened.
I once met a work colleague, whom I did not know beforehand, in
Kansas City, Missouri, as we were doing a job at the Ford Assembly
Plant there. He was from Tennessee, a very 'Freedom-Loving' State.
We sat in his car for a while, talking, and got to the subject of
guns. He showed me the one in the glovebox, the one in the centre
console, the ones under each front seat, and explained that there
were some more in the boot. He carried in his car a total of eight
guns. While I have no idea whether he was licensed or not, it
illustrates the unhealthy obsession with guns of many Americans.
Michigan deer-hunting season is known for the number of human deaths
that occur.
This from 1919: https://www.bridgemi.com/quality-life/you-just-react-hunter-deaths-shadow-opening-michigan-firearms-season
We used to know the season had started by seeing big pick-Up trucks
driving down the road, with deer tied to the bonnet, and
beer-drinking yahoos, including the driver, celebrating their
kill.
Coincidence corner !
Having just finished watching* the very stylish** "Bullitt" where
Bullitt (Steve McQueen) describes two mafia hitmen failing
to kill their target ( a supposed mafia snitch ) from six
feet away (the foot of the bed) with a pump-action shotgun,
- as " obviously a professional(sic)job "
I'm now watching the "Deer Hunter". The beginning in the
steelmill and the photography of the run-down town where
they live is very impressive.
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 12:32:33 -0000
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Davey" <davey@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:uq2b9b$1u1sk$1@dont-email.me...
snip for brevity
With no guesses as to what business they're actually in.
But always handy nevertheless if you're in the market for say a
"Wraith Mini Thermal Riflescope".
While as to any actual State restrictions or lack of them these
are listed alphabetically on Wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state >>>>>>
So that for the top-ranking states as listed above, its just a
long list of "no's" except for the odd "yes", for local
exemptions
Not relevant.
See above for why, but it was obvious within the post to which
you were responding.
The implication was that firearms training and the accompanying
safety procedures were necessarily widespread in the US; that
irrresponsible gun use was rare (despite statistics suggesting
otherwise) and thus that there was no need for Federal Gun
legislation to be strengthened.
I once met a work colleague, whom I did not know beforehand, in
Kansas City, Missouri, as we were doing a job at the Ford Assembly
Plant there. He was from Tennessee, a very 'Freedom-Loving' State.
We sat in his car for a while, talking, and got to the subject of
guns. He showed me the one in the glovebox, the one in the centre
console, the ones under each front seat, and explained that there
were some more in the boot. He carried in his car a total of eight
guns. While I have no idea whether he was licensed or not, it
illustrates the unhealthy obsession with guns of many Americans.
Michigan deer-hunting season is known for the number of human deaths
that occur.
This from 1919:
https://www.bridgemi.com/quality-life/you-just-react-hunter-deaths-shadow-opening-michigan-firearms-season
We used to know the season had started by seeing big pick-Up trucks
driving down the road, with deer tied to the bonnet, and
beer-drinking yahoos, including the driver, celebrating their
kill.
Coincidence corner !
Having just finished watching* the very stylish** "Bullitt" where
Bullitt (Steve McQueen) describes two mafia hitmen failing
to kill their target ( a supposed mafia snitch ) from six
feet away (the foot of the bed) with a pump-action shotgun,
- as " obviously a professional(sic)job "
I'm now watching the "Deer Hunter". The beginning in the
steelmill and the photography of the run-down town where
they live is very impressive.
snip
If it's still available online, look for Anthony Bourdain's 'Parts
Unknown', Detroit episode. I lived near there for 30 years, and it
gives a good description of the city in 2013. It was still much the
same as when I left in 2010.
The idea that everyone in the US who shoots a gun has undergone
professional weapons training is for the birds.
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote in message news:l2ihrlFesouU1@mid.individual.net...
On 07/02/2024 07:07 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l2hkmiF9vocU1@mid.individual.net...
On 07/02/2024 11:40 am, Davey wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I have always been an advocate for parents being held responsible for >>>>>> their children's behaviour while the child is under the age of
criminal responsibility.
A mother in America has just been found guilty of involuntary
manslaughter after her son was involved in a school shooting and
faces a 60 year jail sentence.
Could that happen here? Should it happen here?
I am not qualified to answer that question, merely to conjecture about >>>>> it, but I think it noteworthy that the parents seem to have actually >>>>> bought the gun and given it to the child as a present. I have met
American people who are proud of their offspring's gun prowess. Not
intrinsically wrong, but their reasons are most suspect, the training is >>>>> only focussed on the shooting side of it, not the safety aspect, and >>>>> their sense of their own responsibility is totally lacking.
A surreal evening was spent at an indoor shooting range, where my hosts >>>>> had some high-powered, recoil-less rifle that could probably stop a
Grizzly Bear, gave a loud 'Whoomph' sound, and was usually used to shoot >>>>> gophers, as they are more common than bears in Ohio. There cannot have >>>>> been much gopher left after one of those shots.
Having had some limited shooting tuition in the USA, I think I am qualified to answer
part of what you said.
Firearm training in the USA - even if only the hiring of a weapon for an hour at a
range - always starts with safety instruction. That is both in general... >>>>
..."Don't ever point the gun at anyone; don't suddenly turn around whilst aiming it;
keep your fingers well away from the trigger unless you gave decided to shoot" (and
more than that)...
...and weapon specific, dealing with the safety catch, the correct manner of handling
the weapon and the correct stance...
I cannot believe that a child was taught weapon-handling and accuracy of target
hitting
and not the general safety procedures which are, in many states, mandated by law
before
a permit can be issued.
No rellies in good ol' Mississippi then, I take it ?
Whatever that might mean, I have an idea that the answer is "No".
quote:
1. A relative
:unquote
https://www.scousedictionary.co.uk/rellie/
HTH
To repeat *in many States*. Which effectively invalidates all your previous >>> points in respect of "the USA" in general
There is a difference between (a) getting shooting tuition / training / instruction
from a professional and (b) applying for or getting a permit (whether to have a weapon
at all or for "concealed carry").
I was referring to professional tuition at a range.
Instructors don't want to be accidentally shot (or see anyone else accidentally shot)
any more than I assume you do.
They therefore give the safety part of the instruction / tuition / training* first.
[* Pick any one or even substitute your own term if you prefer.]
The implication was that firearms training and the accompanying safety procedures
were necessarily widespread in the US; that irrresponsible gun use was rare (despite statistics suggesting otherwise) and thus that there was no need for
Federal Gun legislation to be strengthened.
On 08/02/2024 02:30 pm, Davey wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 12:32:33 -0000
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Davey" <davey@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:uq2b9b$1u1sk$1@dont-email.me...
snip for brevity
With no guesses as to what business they're actually in.
But always handy nevertheless if you're in the market for say a
"Wraith Mini Thermal Riflescope".
While as to any actual State restrictions or lack of them these
are listed alphabetically on Wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state >>>>>>
So that for the top-ranking states as listed above, its just a
long list of "no's" except for the odd "yes", for local
exemptions
Not relevant.
See above for why, but it was obvious within the post to which
you were responding.
The implication was that firearms training and the accompanying
safety procedures were necessarily widespread in the US; that
irrresponsible gun use was rare (despite statistics suggesting
otherwise) and thus that there was no need for Federal Gun
legislation to be strengthened.
I once met a work colleague, whom I did not know beforehand, in
Kansas City, Missouri, as we were doing a job at the Ford Assembly
Plant there. He was from Tennessee, a very 'Freedom-Loving' State.
We sat in his car for a while, talking, and got to the subject of
guns. He showed me the one in the glovebox, the one in the centre
console, the ones under each front seat, and explained that there
were some more in the boot. He carried in his car a total of eight
guns. While I have no idea whether he was licensed or not, it
illustrates the unhealthy obsession with guns of many Americans.
Michigan deer-hunting season is known for the number of human
deaths that occur.
This from 1919:
https://www.bridgemi.com/quality-life/you-just-react-hunter-deaths-shadow-opening-michigan-firearms-season
We used to know the season had started by seeing big pick-Up
trucks driving down the road, with deer tied to the bonnet, and
beer-drinking yahoos, including the driver, celebrating their
kill.
Coincidence corner !
Having just finished watching* the very stylish** "Bullitt" where
Bullitt (Steve McQueen) describes two mafia hitmen failing
to kill their target ( a supposed mafia snitch ) from six
feet away (the foot of the bed) with a pump-action shotgun,
- as " obviously a professional(sic)job "
I'm now watching the "Deer Hunter". The beginning in the
steelmill and the photography of the run-down town where
they live is very impressive.
snip
If it's still available online, look for Anthony Bourdain's 'Parts Unknown', Detroit episode. I lived near there for 30 years, and it
gives a good description of the city in 2013. It was still much the
same as when I left in 2010.
The idea that everyone in the US who shoots a gun has undergone professional weapons training is for the birds.
That is almost certainly true.
But those who HAVE undergone such training got the safety procedures
part of it first.
Anything else would be like teaching driving without explaining -
before moving off - how to find and operate the brakes.
On 07-Feb-24 12:09, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-02-07, Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
On 7 Feb 2024 10:19:50 GMT
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I have always been an advocate for parents being held responsible for
their children's behaviour while the child is under the age of
criminal responsibility.
A mother in America has just been found guilty of involuntary
manslaughter after her son was involved in a school shooting and
faces a 60 year jail sentence.
Could that happen here? Should it happen here?
I am not qualified to answer that question, merely to conjecture about
it, but I think it noteworthy that the parents seem to have actually
bought the gun and given it to the child as a present.
Indeed. I don't get the impression the case Jeff mentions has much to do
with "parental responsibility" really. If you supply a deadly weapon to
someone you know (or should have known) to be mentally unwell then it's
not much of a stretch to say you may be legally liable for the easily
forseeable consequences, regardless of whether or not that person is
your child.
I understand the point you are making, but conflating 'mental illness' with 'the will
to commit wholesale murder' is not going to help the many sufferers who offer no risk
to anyone other than themselves.
On 08/02/2024 10:01 am, billy bookcase wrote:
[SNIP]
I have never heard that in Liverpool or elsewhere.
Perhaps our social circles are different.
The implication in my post was nothing of that sort at all.
It had been stated (by another poster) that a child in the USA, given a
gun as a gift, had been trained on how to shoot it (presumably
accurately) but had not been given safety instruction.
I pointed out that to my knowledge (and direct experience), that simply
does not happen.
I cannot see why you have, or anyone else has, a problem with the fact
that the safety side of the instruction comes first.
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 19:56:50 +0000
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 08/02/2024 02:30 pm, Davey wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 12:32:33 -0000
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Davey" <davey@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:uq2b9b$1u1sk$1@dont-email.me...
snip for brevity
With no guesses as to what business they're actually in.
But always handy nevertheless if you're in the market for say a >>>>>>>> "Wraith Mini Thermal Riflescope".
While as to any actual State restrictions or lack of them these >>>>>>>> are listed alphabetically on Wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state >>>>>>>>
So that for the top-ranking states as listed above, its just a >>>>>>>> long list of "no's" except for the odd "yes", for local
exemptions
Not relevant.
See above for why, but it was obvious within the post to which
you were responding.
The implication was that firearms training and the accompanying
safety procedures were necessarily widespread in the US; that
irrresponsible gun use was rare (despite statistics suggesting
otherwise) and thus that there was no need for Federal Gun
legislation to be strengthened.
I once met a work colleague, whom I did not know beforehand, in
Kansas City, Missouri, as we were doing a job at the Ford Assembly
Plant there. He was from Tennessee, a very 'Freedom-Loving' State.
We sat in his car for a while, talking, and got to the subject of
guns. He showed me the one in the glovebox, the one in the centre
console, the ones under each front seat, and explained that there
were some more in the boot. He carried in his car a total of eight
guns. While I have no idea whether he was licensed or not, it
illustrates the unhealthy obsession with guns of many Americans.
Michigan deer-hunting season is known for the number of human
deaths that occur.
This from 1919:
https://www.bridgemi.com/quality-life/you-just-react-hunter-deaths-shadow-opening-michigan-firearms-season
We used to know the season had started by seeing big pick-Up
trucks driving down the road, with deer tied to the bonnet, and
beer-drinking yahoos, including the driver, celebrating their
kill.
Coincidence corner !
Having just finished watching* the very stylish** "Bullitt" where
Bullitt (Steve McQueen) describes two mafia hitmen failing
to kill their target ( a supposed mafia snitch ) from six
feet away (the foot of the bed) with a pump-action shotgun,
- as " obviously a professional(sic)job "
I'm now watching the "Deer Hunter". The beginning in the
steelmill and the photography of the run-down town where
they live is very impressive.
snip
If it's still available online, look for Anthony Bourdain's 'Parts
Unknown', Detroit episode. I lived near there for 30 years, and it
gives a good description of the city in 2013. It was still much the
same as when I left in 2010.
The idea that everyone in the US who shoots a gun has undergone
professional weapons training is for the birds.
That is almost certainly true.
But those who HAVE undergone such training got the safety procedures
part of it first.
Anything else would be like teaching driving without explaining -
before moving off - how to find and operate the brakes.
I have no disagreement with that. But there is little to say that the
trained ones are the majority.
I lived there for years, and
in my personal experience, the majority of those that I met had had
little or no professional training. "Go practice out in the woods
with one of our guns" was more likely.
And while deer hunting, a large amount of alcohol was regularly
consumed, with the expected results.
On 19:53 8 Feb 2024, JNugent said:
On 08/02/2024 10:01 am, billy bookcase wrote:
[SNIP]
I have never heard that in Liverpool or elsewhere.
Perhaps our social circles are different.
The implication in my post was nothing of that sort at all.
It had been stated (by another poster) that a child in the USA, given a
gun as a gift, had been trained on how to shoot it (presumably
accurately) but had not been given safety instruction.
I pointed out that to my knowledge (and direct experience), that simply
does not happen.
I cannot see why you have, or anyone else has, a problem with the fact
that the safety side of the instruction comes first.
There is a required "notice" under the US Youth Handgun Safety Act, and
this may cover the mandatory safety information you mentioned. As a
Federal Law, I understand it applies to all States. There is a leaflet
about this in a link on the ATF page below.
<https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/guide/atf-i-53002-%E2%80%94-youth- handgun-safety-act-notice>
https://shorturl.at/ckvzK
"Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote in message news:APQwN.407568$p%Mb.356898@fx15.iad...
On 07-Feb-24 12:09, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-02-07, Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
On 7 Feb 2024 10:19:50 GMT
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I have always been an advocate for parents being held responsible for >>>>> their children's behaviour while the child is under the age of
criminal responsibility.
A mother in America has just been found guilty of involuntary
manslaughter after her son was involved in a school shooting and
faces a 60 year jail sentence.
Could that happen here? Should it happen here?
I am not qualified to answer that question, merely to conjecture about >>>> it, but I think it noteworthy that the parents seem to have actually
bought the gun and given it to the child as a present.
Indeed. I don't get the impression the case Jeff mentions has much to do >>> with "parental responsibility" really. If you supply a deadly weapon to
someone you know (or should have known) to be mentally unwell then it's
not much of a stretch to say you may be legally liable for the easily
forseeable consequences, regardless of whether or not that person is
your child.
I understand the point you are making, but conflating 'mental illness' with 'the will
to commit wholesale murder' is not going to help the many sufferers who offer no risk
to anyone other than themselves.
Nevertheless surely it would be highly irresponsible to provide many such people with guns; if only to remove the possibility that they might use
the weapon to harm themselves, if not other people
In any case whatever the state of the person's mental health what
possible *legitmate* use would a 17 year old have for a hand gun
in the first place ?
No rellies in good ol' Mississippi then, I take it ?
Whatever that might mean, I have an idea that the answer is "No".
quote:
1. A relative
:unquote
https://www.scousedictionary.co.uk/rellie/
HTH
I have never heard that in Liverpool or elsewhere.
On 09/02/2024 10:24 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:APQwN.407568$p%Mb.356898@fx15.iad...
On 07-Feb-24 12:09, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-02-07, Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
On 7 Feb 2024 10:19:50 GMT
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I have always been an advocate for parents being held responsible for >>>>>> their children's behaviour while the child is under the age of
criminal responsibility.
A mother in America has just been found guilty of involuntary
manslaughter after her son was involved in a school shooting and
faces a 60 year jail sentence.
Could that happen here? Should it happen here?
I am not qualified to answer that question, merely to conjecture about >>>>> it, but I think it noteworthy that the parents seem to have actually >>>>> bought the gun and given it to the child as a present.
Indeed. I don't get the impression the case Jeff mentions has much to do >>>> with "parental responsibility" really. If you supply a deadly weapon to >>>> someone you know (or should have known) to be mentally unwell then it's >>>> not much of a stretch to say you may be legally liable for the easily
forseeable consequences, regardless of whether or not that person is
your child.
I understand the point you are making, but conflating 'mental illness' with 'the will
to commit wholesale murder' is not going to help the many sufferers who offer no risk
to anyone other than themselves.
Nevertheless surely it would be highly irresponsible to provide many such
people with guns; if only to remove the possibility that they might use
the weapon to harm themselves, if not other people
In any case whatever the state of the person's mental health what
possible *legitmate* use would a 17 year old have for a hand gun
in the first place ?
In the USA?
Target shooting.
Self-defence/defense.
Home defence/defense.
Being prepared for a planned career in law enforcement.
There must be others.
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote in message news:l2mu1kF7fqpU5@mid.individual.net...
On 09/02/2024 10:24 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:APQwN.407568$p%Mb.356898@fx15.iad...
On 07-Feb-24 12:09, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-02-07, Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
On 7 Feb 2024 10:19:50 GMT
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I have always been an advocate for parents being held responsible for >>>>>>> their children's behaviour while the child is under the age of
criminal responsibility.
A mother in America has just been found guilty of involuntary
manslaughter after her son was involved in a school shooting and >>>>>>> faces a 60 year jail sentence.
Could that happen here? Should it happen here?
I am not qualified to answer that question, merely to conjecture about >>>>>> it, but I think it noteworthy that the parents seem to have actually >>>>>> bought the gun and given it to the child as a present.
Indeed. I don't get the impression the case Jeff mentions has much to do >>>>> with "parental responsibility" really. If you supply a deadly weapon to >>>>> someone you know (or should have known) to be mentally unwell then it's >>>>> not much of a stretch to say you may be legally liable for the easily >>>>> forseeable consequences, regardless of whether or not that person is >>>>> your child.
I understand the point you are making, but conflating 'mental illness' with 'the will
to commit wholesale murder' is not going to help the many sufferers who offer no risk
to anyone other than themselves.
Nevertheless surely it would be highly irresponsible to provide many such >>> people with guns; if only to remove the possibility that they might use
the weapon to harm themselves, if not other people
In any case whatever the state of the person's mental health what
possible *legitmate* use would a 17 year old have for a hand gun
in the first place ?
In the USA?
Target shooting.
What's wrong with borrowing Mom or Pops ?
Self-defence/defense.
Ah right. Shootouts in the street with innocent members of the public
being caught in the crossfire
Home defence/defense.
Ah right. A shootout at home alongside Mom and Pop blasting away as
well. A bullet riddled burglar and $1000's worth of damage to furniture
and bullet holes in the walls.
Being prepared for a planned career in law enforcement.
One might reasonably assume they provide weapons training.
There must be others.
Apparently some of the aggrieved parents are considering suing the school
as the boy wasn't checked over with a metal detector before entering the school, as he should have been.
On 09/02/2024 07:45 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l2mu1kF7fqpU5@mid.individual.net...
On 09/02/2024 10:24 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:APQwN.407568$p%Mb.356898@fx15.iad...
On 07-Feb-24 12:09, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-02-07, Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
On 7 Feb 2024 10:19:50 GMT
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I have always been an advocate for parents being held responsible for >>>>>>>> their children's behaviour while the child is under the age of >>>>>>>> criminal responsibility.
A mother in America has just been found guilty of involuntary
manslaughter after her son was involved in a school shooting and >>>>>>>> faces a 60 year jail sentence.
Could that happen here? Should it happen here?
I am not qualified to answer that question, merely to conjecture about >>>>>>> it, but I think it noteworthy that the parents seem to have actually >>>>>>> bought the gun and given it to the child as a present.
Indeed. I don't get the impression the case Jeff mentions has much to do >>>>>> with "parental responsibility" really. If you supply a deadly weapon to >>>>>> someone you know (or should have known) to be mentally unwell then it's >>>>>> not much of a stretch to say you may be legally liable for the easily >>>>>> forseeable consequences, regardless of whether or not that person is >>>>>> your child.
I understand the point you are making, but conflating 'mental illness' with 'the
will
to commit wholesale murder' is not going to help the many sufferers who offer no
risk
to anyone other than themselves.
Nevertheless surely it would be highly irresponsible to provide many such >>>> people with guns; if only to remove the possibility that they might use >>>> the weapon to harm themselves, if not other people
In any case whatever the state of the person's mental health what
possible *legitmate* use would a 17 year old have for a hand gun
in the first place ?
In the USA?
Target shooting.
What's wrong with borrowing Mom or Pops ?
How would that be different?
Self-defence/defense.
Ah right. Shootouts in the street with innocent members of the public
being caught in the crossfire
It's the reason why many people carry guns (especially "concealed carry").
It's a legal right.
Home defence/defense.
Ah right. A shootout at home alongside Mom and Pop blasting away as
well. A bullet riddled burglar and $1000's worth of damage to furniture
and bullet holes in the walls.
Another legal right.
Killing a burglar is not necessarily seen as a blatant breach of the burglar's yooman
rites to take possession of the householder's possessions.
Being prepared for a planned career in law enforcement.
One might reasonably assume they provide weapons training.
You HAVE heard of cadet training, yes? Even in the UK?
There must be others.
Apparently some of the aggrieved parents are considering suing the school
as the boy wasn't checked over with a metal detector before entering the
school, as he should have been.
That's a failing - if at all - on the part of someone other than the boy's parents.
Isn't it?
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/02/2024 07:45 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
Nevertheless surely it would be highly irresponsible to provide many such >>>>> people with guns; if only to remove the possibility that they might use >>>>> the weapon to harm themselves, if not other people
In any case whatever the state of the person's mental health what
possible *legitmate* use would a 17 year old have for a hand gun
in the first place ?
In the USA?
Target shooting.
What's wrong with borrowing Mom or Pops ?
How would that be different?
The 17 year old might have less opportunuty to take the gun to school
with him.
Self-defence/defense.
Ah right. Shootouts in the street with innocent members of the public
being caught in the crossfire
It's the reason why many people carry guns (especially "concealed carry"). >> It's a legal right.
Indeed. Shootouts in the street endangering innocent bystanders are a possible consequence of people exercising their legal right...
Home defence/defense.
Ah right. A shootout at home alongside Mom and Pop blasting away as
well. A bullet riddled burglar and $1000's worth of damage to furniture
and bullet holes in the walls.
Another legal right.
Killing a burglar is not necessarily seen as a blatant breach of the burglar's yooman
rites to take possession of the householder's possessions.
Indeed. So that as I said a shootout in the home with the 17 year old blasting away
alongside Mom and as Pop leaving a bullet riddled burglar and $1000's worth of damage
to furniture and bullet holes in the walls is in many States the householder legal right.
And regardless of what affect it might have on their home insurance premiums..
Being prepared for a planned career in law enforcement.
One might reasonably assume they provide weapons training.
You HAVE heard of cadet training, yes? Even in the UK?
Where they take the guns home with them, and to school during the week ?
There must be others.
Apparently some of the aggrieved parents are considering suing the school >>> as the boy wasn't checked over with a metal detector before entering the >>> school, as he should have been.
That's a failing - if at all - on the part of someone other than the boy's parents.
Isn't it?
Er no. If it wasn't for *some* parents allowing their children to take guns with
them to school, then there wouldn't be calls by other parents for schools to waste tax dollars on metal detectors; rather than on teachers salaries, books and teaching equipment .
On 10/02/2024 10:42 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/02/2024 07:45 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
That's a matter of empirical circumstance.
Nevertheless surely it would be highly irresponsible to provide many such
people with guns; if only to remove the possibility that they might use >>>>>> the weapon to harm themselves, if not other people
In any case whatever the state of the person's mental health what
possible *legitmate* use would a 17 year old have for a hand gun
in the first place ?
In the USA?
Target shooting.
What's wrong with borrowing Mom or Pops ?
How would that be different?
The 17 year old might have less opportunuty to take the gun to school
with him.
Self-defence/defense.
Ah right. Shootouts in the street with innocent members of the public
being caught in the crossfire
It's the reason why many people carry guns (especially "concealed carry"). >>> It's a legal right.
Indeed. Shootouts in the street endangering innocent bystanders are a
possible consequence of people exercising their legal right...
...as are undefended murders, sometimes multiple murders. You can't and won't stop
gun-carrying criminals, whether of the armed robber or mass-shooter variety, by making
sure that all of their potential victims are defenceless against firearms. If there
were a way of ensuring that criminals could not gain access to weapons, that'd be a
potentially fruitful policy line to follow. But you can't, so it isn't. Not in the USA
as things stand, anyway.
Home defence/defense.
Ah right. A shootout at home alongside Mom and Pop blasting away as
well. A bullet riddled burglar and $1000's worth of damage to furniture >>>> and bullet holes in the walls.
Another legal right.
Killing a burglar is not necessarily seen as a blatant breach of the burglar's yooman
rites to take possession of the householder's possessions.
Indeed. So that as I said a shootout in the home with the 17 year old blasting away
alongside Mom and as Pop leaving a bullet riddled burglar and $1000's worth of damage
to furniture and bullet holes in the walls is in many States the householder legal
right.
And regardless of what affect it might have on their home insurance premiums..
Let them worry about that?
After all, they might prefer bullet holes in the doors walls and woodwork to being
dead. Some people are funny that way.
Being prepared for a planned career in law enforcement.
One might reasonably assume they provide weapons training.
You HAVE heard of cadet training, yes? Even in the UK?
Where they take the guns home with them, and to school during the week ?
Marksmanship is a good preparation for various service careers.
There must be others.
Apparently some of the aggrieved parents are considering suing the school >>>> as the boy wasn't checked over with a metal detector before entering the >>>> school, as he should have been.
That's a failing - if at all - on the part of someone other than the boy's parents.
Isn't it?
Er no. If it wasn't for *some* parents allowing their children to take guns with
them to school, then there wouldn't be calls by other parents for schools to >> waste tax dollars on metal detectors; rather than on teachers salaries, books
and teaching equipment .
You said that aggrieved parents are considering taking legal action against the school.
That can only be because the school failed in an *extant* duty to screen pupils
arriving at the premises for firearms.
If the school had that duty and failed in it, the lawsuit has a chance of success.
If the school didn't have that duty, the action is much less assured of success.
In any case, arguing that if A was not the case, then individuals X, Y and Z might not
have felt the need to do, or not to so, something else is a dubious chain of events, as
I am sure you recognise.
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote in message news:l2pfdaFlsa3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/02/2024 10:42 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/02/2024 07:45 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
That's a matter of empirical circumstance.
Nevertheless surely it would be highly irresponsible to provide many such
people with guns; if only to remove the possibility that they might use >>>>>>> the weapon to harm themselves, if not other people
In any case whatever the state of the person's mental health what >>>>>>> possible *legitmate* use would a 17 year old have for a hand gun >>>>>>> in the first place ?
In the USA?
Target shooting.
What's wrong with borrowing Mom or Pops ?
How would that be different?
The 17 year old might have less opportunuty to take the gun to school
with him.
Self-defence/defense.
Ah right. Shootouts in the street with innocent members of the public >>>>> being caught in the crossfire
It's the reason why many people carry guns (especially "concealed carry"). >>>> It's a legal right.
Indeed. Shootouts in the street endangering innocent bystanders are a
possible consequence of people exercising their legal right...
...as are undefended murders, sometimes multiple murders. You can't and won't stop
gun-carrying criminals, whether of the armed robber or mass-shooter variety, by making
sure that all of their potential victims are defenceless against firearms. If there
were a way of ensuring that criminals could not gain access to weapons, that'd be a
potentially fruitful policy line to follow. But you can't, so it isn't. Not in the USA
as things stand, anyway.
Just to show how effective gun ownership is in preventing murders....
but surely you must know this already ?
quote:
Intentional homicide victims per 100,000 inhabitants
Table last fully updated from data retrieved August 10, 2023 from UNODC.
US 6.4
UK 1.0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
:unquote
Home defence/defense.
Ah right. A shootout at home alongside Mom and Pop blasting away as
well. A bullet riddled burglar and $1000's worth of damage to furniture >>>>> and bullet holes in the walls.
Another legal right.
Killing a burglar is not necessarily seen as a blatant breach of the burglar's yooman
rites to take possession of the householder's possessions.
Indeed. So that as I said a shootout in the home with the 17 year old blasting away
alongside Mom and as Pop leaving a bullet riddled burglar and $1000's worth of damage
to furniture and bullet holes in the walls is in many States the householder legal
right.
And regardless of what affect it might have on their home insurance premiums..
Let them worry about that?
After all, they might prefer bullet holes in the doors walls and woodwork to being
dead. Some people are funny that way.
Being prepared for a planned career in law enforcement.
One might reasonably assume they provide weapons training.
You HAVE heard of cadet training, yes? Even in the UK?
Where they take the guns home with them, and to school during the week ?
Marksmanship is a good preparation for various service careers.
There must be others.
Apparently some of the aggrieved parents are considering suing the school >>>>> as the boy wasn't checked over with a metal detector before entering the >>>>> school, as he should have been.
That's a failing - if at all - on the part of someone other than the boy's parents.
Isn't it?
Er no. If it wasn't for *some* parents allowing their children to take guns with
them to school, then there wouldn't be calls by other parents for schools to
waste tax dollars on metal detectors; rather than on teachers salaries, books
and teaching equipment .
You said that aggrieved parents are considering taking legal action against the school.
That can only be because the school failed in an *extant* duty to screen pupils
arriving at the premises for firearms.
If the school had that duty and failed in it, the lawsuit has a chance of success.
If the school didn't have that duty, the action is much less assured of success.
In any case, arguing that if A was not the case, then individuals X, Y and Z might not
have felt the need to do, or not to so, something else is a dubious chain of events, as
I am sure you recognise.
One of your first contributions to thread was as follows
" Firearm training in the USA - even if only the hiring of a weapon for an hour at a range - always starts with safety instruction. "
With the emphasis on safety instruction
Now clearly when learning to drive a car, safety instructions are important. As
the sole purpose of cars is to carry people around; rather than killing and maiming people.
Now clearly when being shown how to use a chainsaw safety instructions are important; as the sole purpose of chainsaws is to cut down trees and cut up logs rather than killing and maiming people
So that when being shown how to use a gun, safety instructions are important because the primary purpose of guns is to.....**
Oh hang on a minute
I can only assume that at some stage the batteries in your irony meter have run
out For the money conscious, Kodak Alkalines as are available in Poundland
( but no longer a pound ) appear to perform quite well.
Even an hour's rent of a gun or pistol at a range in the States will
start with ten minutes of instruction as to the operation of the
weapon, the correct way to hold it (in particular, not placing a
finger on the trigger until ready to shoot), the correct stance (in
order to deal with the recoil) and the importance of never pointing
the weapon at anyone (even accidentally if reacting to a sound or a
call from behind).
IOW, the safety aspects come first (like teaching where the brakes
are on a first driving lesson). Accuracy, range-finding, etc, come
later.
Do you doubt that this is the case?
If so, why?
From my limited experience, it sounds as though you have arose-tinted view of the way in which personal gun ownership is carried
On 11/02/2024 08:33 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l2pfdaFlsa3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/02/2024 10:42 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/02/2024 07:45 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
That's a matter of empirical circumstance.
Nevertheless surely it would be highly irresponsible to provide many such
people with guns; if only to remove the possibility that they might use
the weapon to harm themselves, if not other people
In any case whatever the state of the person's mental health what >>>>>>>> possible *legitmate* use would a 17 year old have for a hand gun >>>>>>>> in the first place ?
In the USA?
Target shooting.
What's wrong with borrowing Mom or Pops ?
How would that be different?
The 17 year old might have less opportunuty to take the gun to school
with him.
Self-defence/defense.
Ah right. Shootouts in the street with innocent members of the public >>>>>> being caught in the crossfire
It's the reason why many people carry guns (especially "concealed carry").
It's a legal right.
Indeed. Shootouts in the street endangering innocent bystanders are a
possible consequence of people exercising their legal right...
...as are undefended murders, sometimes multiple murders. You can't and won't stop
gun-carrying criminals, whether of the armed robber or mass-shooter variety, by
making
sure that all of their potential victims are defenceless against firearms. If there
were a way of ensuring that criminals could not gain access to weapons, that'd be a
potentially fruitful policy line to follow. But you can't, so it isn't. Not in the
USA
as things stand, anyway.
Just to show how effective gun ownership is in preventing murders....
but surely you must know this already ?
quote:
Intentional homicide victims per 100,000 inhabitants
Table last fully updated from data retrieved August 10, 2023 from UNODC.
US 6.4
UK 1.0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate >>
:unquote
Home defence/defense.
Ah right. A shootout at home alongside Mom and Pop blasting away as >>>>>> well. A bullet riddled burglar and $1000's worth of damage to furniture >>>>>> and bullet holes in the walls.
Another legal right.
Killing a burglar is not necessarily seen as a blatant breach of the burglar's
yooman
rites to take possession of the householder's possessions.
Indeed. So that as I said a shootout in the home with the 17 year old blasting
away
alongside Mom and as Pop leaving a bullet riddled burglar and $1000's worth of
damage
to furniture and bullet holes in the walls is in many States the householder legal
right.
And regardless of what affect it might have on their home insurance premiums..
Let them worry about that?
After all, they might prefer bullet holes in the doors walls and woodwork to being
dead. Some people are funny that way.
Marksmanship is a good preparation for various service careers.
Being prepared for a planned career in law enforcement.
One might reasonably assume they provide weapons training.
You HAVE heard of cadet training, yes? Even in the UK?
Where they take the guns home with them, and to school during the week ? >>>
There must be others.
Apparently some of the aggrieved parents are considering suing the school
as the boy wasn't checked over with a metal detector before entering the >>>>>> school, as he should have been.
That's a failing - if at all - on the part of someone other than the boy's parents.
Isn't it?
Er no. If it wasn't for *some* parents allowing their children to take guns with
them to school, then there wouldn't be calls by other parents for schools to
waste tax dollars on metal detectors; rather than on teachers salaries, books
and teaching equipment .
You said that aggrieved parents are considering taking legal action against the
school.
That can only be because the school failed in an *extant* duty to screen pupils
arriving at the premises for firearms.
If the school had that duty and failed in it, the lawsuit has a chance of success.
If the school didn't have that duty, the action is much less assured of success.
In any case, arguing that if A was not the case, then individuals X, Y and Z might
not
have felt the need to do, or not to so, something else is a dubious chain of events,
as
I am sure you recognise.
One of your first contributions to thread was as follows
" Firearm training in the USA - even if only the hiring of a weapon for an >> hour at a range - always starts with safety instruction. "
With the emphasis on safety instruction
Now clearly when learning to drive a car, safety instructions are important. As
the sole purpose of cars is to carry people around; rather than killing and >> maiming people.
Now clearly when being shown how to use a chainsaw safety instructions are >> important; as the sole purpose of chainsaws is to cut down trees and cut up >> logs rather than killing and maiming people
So that when being shown how to use a gun, safety instructions are important >> because the primary purpose of guns is to.....**
Oh hang on a minute
I can only assume that at some stage the batteries in your irony meter have run
out For the money conscious, Kodak Alkalines as are available in Poundland >> ( but no longer a pound ) appear to perform quite well.
At whom is your sarcasm directed?
I am merely describing the facts as I have experienced them but already knew them to
be.
Even an hour's rent of a gun or pistol at a range in the States will start with ten
minutes of instruction as to the operation of the weapon, the correct way to hold it
(in particular, not placing a finger on the trigger until ready to shoot), the correct
stance (in order to deal with the recoil) and the importance of never pointing the
weapon at anyone (even accidentally if reacting to a sound or a call from behind).
IOW, the safety aspects come first (like teaching where the brakes are on a first
driving lesson). Accuracy, range-finding, etc, come later.
Do you doubt that this is the case?
If so, why?
There is no point in trying to have a go at me, sitting here in the Home Counties, for
the general constitutional attitude to firearms in the USA. Believe it or not, it's way
outside my control.
As it happens, I once - a long time ago - had a temporary job helping to fell trees in
Cheshire in he projected line of the M56 eastward extension at Lymm. I can tell you
that safety instruction came first when becoming familiar with the use of a chainsaw.
On 07/02/2024 11:40 am, Davey wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I have always been an advocate for parents being held responsible
for their children's behaviour while the child is under the age of
criminal responsibility.
A mother in America has just been found guilty of involuntary
manslaughter after her son was involved in a school shooting and
faces a 60 year jail sentence.
Could that happen here? Should it happen here?
I am not qualified to answer that question, merely to conjecture
about it, but I think it noteworthy that the parents seem to have
actually bought the gun and given it to the child as a present. I
have met American people who are proud of their offspring's gun
prowess. Not intrinsically wrong, but their reasons are most suspect,
the training is only focussed on the shooting side of it, not the
safety aspect, and their sense of their own responsibility is totally
lacking. A surreal evening was spent at an indoor shooting range,
where my hosts had some high-powered, recoil-less rifle that could
probably stop a Grizzly Bear, gave a loud 'Whoomph' sound, and was
usually used to shoot gophers, as they are more common than bears in
Ohio. There cannot have been much gopher left after one of those
shots.
Having had some limited shooting tuition in the USA, I think I am
qualified to answer part of what you said.
Firearm training in the USA - even if only the hiring of a weapon for
an hour at a range - always starts with safety instruction. That is
both in general...
..."Don't ever point the gun at anyone; don't suddenly turn around
whilst aiming it; keep your fingers well away from the trigger unless
you gave decided to shoot" (and more than that)...
...and weapon specific, dealing with the safety catch, the correct
manner of handling the weapon and the correct stance...
I cannot believe that a child was taught weapon-handling and accuracy
of target hitting and not the general safety procedures which are, in
many states, mandated by law before a permit can be issued.
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote in message news:l2pfdaFlsa3U1@mid.individual.net...
[...]
Just to show how effective gun ownership is in preventing murders....
but surely you must know this already ?
quote:
Intentional homicide victims per 100,000 inhabitants
Table last fully updated from data retrieved August 10, 2023 from
UNODC.
US 6.4
UK 1.0
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
[...]
One of your first contributions to thread was as follows
" Firearm training in the USA - even if only the hiring of a weapon
for an hour at a range - always starts with safety instruction. "
With the emphasis on safety instruction
Now clearly when learning to drive a car, safety instructions are
important. As the sole purpose of cars is to carry people around;
rather than killing and maiming people.
Now clearly when being shown how to use a chainsaw safety instructions
are important; as the sole purpose of chainsaws is to cut down trees
and cut up logs rather than killing and maiming people
So that when being shown how to use a gun, safety instructions are
important because the primary purpose of guns is to.....**
Oh hang on a minute
On 08:33 11 Feb 2024, billy bookcase said:
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l2pfdaFlsa3U1@mid.individual.net...
[...]
Just to show how effective gun ownership is in preventing murders....
but surely you must know this already ?
quote:
Intentional homicide victims per 100,000 inhabitants
Table last fully updated from data retrieved August 10, 2023 from
UNODC.
US 6.4
UK 1.0
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
A average like that fails to identify the usefulness of a gun at dealing
with an individual attack by an armed assailant. This preventative
strategy may shift the risk onto an unarmed person but that has no
bearing on the point made earlier ....
"... you can't and won't stop gun-carrying criminals, whether of the
armed robber or mass-shooter variety, by making sure that all of
their potential victims are defenceless against firearms."
On 12/02/2024 14:22, Pamela wrote:
"... you can't and won't stop gun-carrying criminals, whether of the
armed robber or mass-shooter variety, by making sure that all of
their potential victims are defenceless against firearms."
But you can make it harder for criminals.
I recall an episode of Gangsters (Catching the Kingpins) on Radio 4
where the police were eavesdropping onto EncroChat conversations. It
seemed quite difficult for criminals to get their hands on a gun and >ammunition, and with high prices. This was put largely down to mandatory >sentencing for possession.
In countries where possession is lawful, you have no chance!
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote in message news:l2rtd1F5ejpU1@mid.individual.net...
On 11/02/2024 08:33 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l2pfdaFlsa3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/02/2024 10:42 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/02/2024 07:45 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
That's a matter of empirical circumstance.
Nevertheless surely it would be highly irresponsible to provide many such
people with guns; if only to remove the possibility that they might use
the weapon to harm themselves, if not other people
In any case whatever the state of the person's mental health what >>>>>>>>> possible *legitmate* use would a 17 year old have for a hand gun >>>>>>>>> in the first place ?
In the USA?
Target shooting.
What's wrong with borrowing Mom or Pops ?
How would that be different?
The 17 year old might have less opportunuty to take the gun to school >>>>> with him.
Self-defence/defense.
Ah right. Shootouts in the street with innocent members of the public >>>>>>> being caught in the crossfire
It's the reason why many people carry guns (especially "concealed carry").
It's a legal right.
Indeed. Shootouts in the street endangering innocent bystanders are a >>>>> possible consequence of people exercising their legal right...
...as are undefended murders, sometimes multiple murders. You can't and won't stop
gun-carrying criminals, whether of the armed robber or mass-shooter variety, by
making
sure that all of their potential victims are defenceless against firearms. If there
were a way of ensuring that criminals could not gain access to weapons, that'd be a
potentially fruitful policy line to follow. But you can't, so it isn't. Not in the
USA
as things stand, anyway.
Just to show how effective gun ownership is in preventing murders....
but surely you must know this already ?
quote:
Intentional homicide victims per 100,000 inhabitants
Table last fully updated from data retrieved August 10, 2023 from UNODC. >>>
US 6.4
UK 1.0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
:unquote
Home defence/defense.
Ah right. A shootout at home alongside Mom and Pop blasting away as >>>>>>> well. A bullet riddled burglar and $1000's worth of damage to furniture >>>>>>> and bullet holes in the walls.
Another legal right.
Killing a burglar is not necessarily seen as a blatant breach of the burglar's
yooman
rites to take possession of the householder's possessions.
Indeed. So that as I said a shootout in the home with the 17 year old blasting
away
alongside Mom and as Pop leaving a bullet riddled burglar and $1000's worth of
damage
to furniture and bullet holes in the walls is in many States the householder legal
right.
And regardless of what affect it might have on their home insurance premiums..
Let them worry about that?
After all, they might prefer bullet holes in the doors walls and woodwork to being
dead. Some people are funny that way.
Marksmanship is a good preparation for various service careers.
Being prepared for a planned career in law enforcement.
One might reasonably assume they provide weapons training.
You HAVE heard of cadet training, yes? Even in the UK?
Where they take the guns home with them, and to school during the week ? >>>>
There must be others.
Apparently some of the aggrieved parents are considering suing the school
as the boy wasn't checked over with a metal detector before entering the
school, as he should have been.
That's a failing - if at all - on the part of someone other than the boy's parents.
Isn't it?
Er no. If it wasn't for *some* parents allowing their children to take guns with
them to school, then there wouldn't be calls by other parents for schools to
waste tax dollars on metal detectors; rather than on teachers salaries, books
and teaching equipment .
You said that aggrieved parents are considering taking legal action against the
school.
That can only be because the school failed in an *extant* duty to screen pupils
arriving at the premises for firearms.
If the school had that duty and failed in it, the lawsuit has a chance of success.
If the school didn't have that duty, the action is much less assured of success.
In any case, arguing that if A was not the case, then individuals X, Y and Z might
not
have felt the need to do, or not to so, something else is a dubious chain of events,
as
I am sure you recognise.
One of your first contributions to thread was as follows
" Firearm training in the USA - even if only the hiring of a weapon for an >>> hour at a range - always starts with safety instruction. "
With the emphasis on safety instruction
Now clearly when learning to drive a car, safety instructions are important. As
the sole purpose of cars is to carry people around; rather than killing and >>> maiming people.
Now clearly when being shown how to use a chainsaw safety instructions are >>> important; as the sole purpose of chainsaws is to cut down trees and cut up >>> logs rather than killing and maiming people
So that when being shown how to use a gun, safety instructions are important
because the primary purpose of guns is to.....**
Oh hang on a minute
I can only assume that at some stage the batteries in your irony meter have run
out For the money conscious, Kodak Alkalines as are available in Poundland >>> ( but no longer a pound ) appear to perform quite well.
At whom is your sarcasm directed?
I am merely describing the facts as I have experienced them but already knew them to
be.
Even an hour's rent of a gun or pistol at a range in the States will start with ten
minutes of instruction as to the operation of the weapon, the correct way to hold it
(in particular, not placing a finger on the trigger until ready to shoot), the correct
stance (in order to deal with the recoil) and the importance of never pointing the
weapon at anyone (even accidentally if reacting to a sound or a call from behind).
IOW, the safety aspects come first (like teaching where the brakes are on a first
driving lesson). Accuracy, range-finding, etc, come later.
Do you doubt that this is the case?
If so, why?
Because Jennifer Crumbley, 45, has been of convicted of involuntary manslaughter
in helping buy her 17 year old, apparently mentally disturbed son. a gun; which he
subsequently took to school, and shot four of his classmates dead, ?
The very subject of this thread.
Where quite clearly neither Jennifer Crumbley nor her 17 year old son seemed overly concerned with any "safety aspects"
And so its perfectly reasonable to ask, is it not, what posible relevance "safety aspects" have to to this particular case; except in the fact that they've quite clearly been ignored.
As indeed
quote:
" 14 Dec 2022 · Gun violence recently surpassed car accidents as the leading cause of
death for American children. No group of kids has been spared,"
.https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/14/magazine/gun-violence-children-data-statistics.html
:unquote
would appear to confirm
There is no point in trying to have a go at me, sitting here in the Home Counties, for
the general constitutional attitude to firearms in the USA. Believe it or not, it's way
outside my control.
Well as Charlton Heston is long dead and Donald Trump is otherwise
engaged you appear to be the only representative of the gun lobby who
is currently available
As it happens, I once - a long time ago - had a temporary job helping to fell trees in
Cheshire in he projected line of the M56 eastward extension at Lymm. I can tell you
that safety instruction came first when becoming familiar with the use of a chainsaw.
At a guess, I would imagine you were actually engaged in cutting off the branches of the felled trees.
And always cutting downwards, as instructed.
On 11/02/2024 16:31, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l2rtd1F5ejpU1@mid.individual.net...
On 11/02/2024 08:33 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l2pfdaFlsa3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/02/2024 10:42 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/02/2024 07:45 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
IOW, the safety aspects come first (like teaching where the brakes are on a first
driving lesson). Accuracy, range-finding, etc, come later.
Do you doubt that this is the case?
If so, why?
Because Jennifer Crumbley, 45, has been of convicted of involuntary manslaughter
in helping buy her 17 year old, apparently mentally disturbed son. a gun; which he
subsequently took to school, and shot four of his classmates dead, ?
The very subject of this thread.
What is the connection?
As it happens, I once - a long time ago - had a temporary job helping to fell trees
in
Cheshire in he projected line of the M56 eastward extension at Lymm. I can tell you
that safety instruction came first when becoming familiar with the use of a chainsaw.
At a guess, I would imagine you were actually engaged in cutting off the
branches of the felled trees.
And always cutting downwards, as instructed.
No. We were engaged in felling trees, a job which started with chainsaw cuts (at
various angles) into the trunk of the tree a couple of feet off the ground. None of
them were perpendicular to the ground. That would have been useless.
"JNugent" <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/02/2024 16:31, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/02/2024 08:33 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/02/2024 10:42 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/02/2024 07:45 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
< Gross snippage >
IOW, the safety aspects come first (like teaching where the brakes are on a first
driving lesson). Accuracy, range-finding, etc, come later.
Do you doubt that this is the case?
If so, why?
Because Jennifer Crumbley, 45, has been of convicted of involuntary manslaughter
in helping buy her 17 year old, apparently mentally disturbed son. a gun; which he
subsequently took to school, and shot four of his classmates dead, ?
The very subject of this thread.
What is the connection?
Well in you opinion, could the fact that Mrs Crumbley either had or hadn't had the requisite safety training had any bearing on the possibility of
her being convicted of involuntary manslaughter ?
Or put it this way. If you were the Public Defense Attorney assigned to helping Mrs Crumbley would you recommend that she produce her
signed and dated Gun Safety Certificate as evidence to be shown
before the Court ?
Wouldn't this make her appear even more guilty in their eyes ?
She knew what she was supposed to do but failed to act ?
So best leave the Gun Safety Certificate in the drawer ?
< more snippage>
As it happens, I once - a long time ago - had a temporary job helping to fell trees
in Cheshire in he projected line of the M56 eastward extension at Lymm. I can tell you
that safety instruction came first when becoming familiar with the use of a chainsaw.
At a guess, I would imagine you were actually engaged in cutting off the >>> branches of the felled trees.
And always cutting downwards, as instructed.
No. We were engaged in felling trees, a job which started with chainsaw cuts (at
various angles) into the trunk of the tree a couple of feet off the ground. None of
them were perpendicular to the ground. That would have been useless.
But always cutting with the bottom of the bar I trust. Because while the chain and the teeth are travelling towards the user on the bottom of the
bar, if the chain jams in the cut this will throw the saw "away" from
the operator. Same with sawing with the tip which potentially can send it flying almost anywhere.
On 14/02/2024 15:26, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/02/2024 16:31, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/02/2024 08:33 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/02/2024 10:42 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/02/2024 07:45 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
< Gross snippage >
IOW, the safety aspects come first (like teaching where the brakes are on a first
driving lesson). Accuracy, range-finding, etc, come later.
Do you doubt that this is the case?
If so, why?
Because Jennifer Crumbley, 45, has been of convicted of involuntary manslaughter
in helping buy her 17 year old, apparently mentally disturbed son. a gun; which he
subsequently took to school, and shot four of his classmates dead, ?
Convicted? The last I read she was in the USA equivalent of the remand stage.
The very subject of this thread.
What is the connection?
Well in you opinion, could the fact that Mrs Crumbley either had or hadn't >> had the requisite safety training had any bearing on the possibility of
her being convicted of involuntary manslaughter ?
I express no opinion on what the law in her state provides for. I don't believe though,
that it was the lady's experience with firearms which was in issue. I understood that
it was her son who did the shooting and of whom it was claimed - with whatever or no
justification - that while he had had instruction in shooting accuracy (marksmanship),
he had had none in safety procedures.
There have since been several exchanges on that subject.
Or put it this way. If you were the Public Defense Attorney assigned to
helping Mrs Crumbley would you recommend that she produce her
signed and dated Gun Safety Certificate as evidence to be shown
before the Court ?
See above.
Wouldn't this make her appear even more guilty in their eyes ?
She knew what she was supposed to do but failed to act ?
So best leave the Gun Safety Certificate in the drawer ?
Did she fail to act?
And if she did, on what?
And how, either way, do you know?
< more snippage>
As it happens, I once - a long time ago - had a temporary job helping to fell trees
in Cheshire in he projected line of the M56 eastward extension at Lymm. I can tell
you
that safety instruction came first when becoming familiar with the use of a
chainsaw.
At a guess, I would imagine you were actually engaged in cutting off the >>>> branches of the felled trees.
And always cutting downwards, as instructed.
No. We were engaged in felling trees, a job which started with chainsaw cuts (at
various angles) into the trunk of the tree a couple of feet off the ground. None of
them were perpendicular to the ground. That would have been useless.
But always cutting with the bottom of the bar I trust. Because while the
chain and the teeth are travelling towards the user on the bottom of the
bar, if the chain jams in the cut this will throw the saw "away" from
the operator. Same with sawing with the tip which potentially can send it
flying almost anywhere.
There was a specific safety procedure. It's a long time ago now. I survived without
injury.
"JNugent" <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/02/2024 15:26, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/02/2024 16:31, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/02/2024 08:33 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/02/2024 10:42 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/02/2024 07:45 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
< Gross snippage >[ ... ]
IOW, the safety aspects come first (like teaching where the brakes are on a first
driving lesson). Accuracy, range-finding, etc, come later.
Do you doubt that this is the case?
If so, why?
Because Jennifer Crumbley, 45, has been of convicted of involuntary manslaughter
in helping buy her 17 year old, apparently mentally disturbed son. a gun; which he
subsequently took to school, and shot four of his classmates dead, ?
Convicted? The last I read she was in the USA equivalent of the remand stage.
quote:
" A jury has found a Michigan mother guilty of involuntary manslaughter for failing to stop her son from carrying out a deadly school shooting."
Jennifer Crumbley, 45, is the first US parent convicted of manslaughter over a mass shooting carried out by their child.
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68223118
The very subject of this thread.
What is the connection?
Well in you opinion, could the fact that Mrs Crumbley either had or hadn't >>> had the requisite safety training had any bearing on the possibility of
her being convicted of involuntary manslaughter ?
I express no opinion on what the law in her state provides for. I don't believe though,
that it was the lady's experience with firearms which was in issue. I understood that
it was her son who did the shooting and of whom it was claimed - with whatever or no
justification - that while he had had instruction in shooting accuracy (marksmanship),
he had had none in safety procedures.
There have since been several exchanges on that subject.
Or put it this way. If you were the Public Defense Attorney assigned to
helping Mrs Crumbley would you recommend that she produce her
signed and dated Gun Safety Certificate as evidence to be shown
before the Court ?
See above.
Wouldn't this make her appear even more guilty in their eyes ?
She knew what she was supposed to do but failed to act ?
So best leave the Gun Safety Certificate in the drawer ?
Did she fail to act?
And if she did, on what?
And how, either way, do you know?
The point I'm making is that is any proceedings in Court the fact
as to whether she had or hadn't had safety training would be totally immaterial.
A:
Prosecutor: "Mrs X, have you or your son had safety training ?"
Mrs X : "Yes"
Prosecutor "Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury you heard Mrs X
there admit, yes admit, that she and her son had safety training
and despite this, she did nothing, nothing, to prevent this crime.
B:
Prosecutor: "Mrs X, have you or your son had safety training ?"
Mrs X : "No
Prosecutor: "Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury you heard Mrs X
there admit, yes admit, that neither she nor her son had any
safety training. What kind of mother is this who despite having
had no safety training helps but her son a gun" ?
So given she loses out either way the topic is irrelevant.
Given the above its for the prosecution to raise the topic
if they so chose in order to sway the jury; not for the defence
to do their job for them.
< more snippage>
As it happens, I once - a long time ago - had a temporary job helping to fell trees
in Cheshire in he projected line of the M56 eastward extension at Lymm. I can tell
you
that safety instruction came first when becoming familiar with the use of a
chainsaw.
At a guess, I would imagine you were actually engaged in cutting off the >>>>> branches of the felled trees.
And always cutting downwards, as instructed.
No. We were engaged in felling trees, a job which started with chainsaw cuts (at
various angles) into the trunk of the tree a couple of feet off the ground. None of
them were perpendicular to the ground. That would have been useless.
But always cutting with the bottom of the bar I trust. Because while the >>> chain and the teeth are travelling towards the user on the bottom of the >>> bar, if the chain jams in the cut this will throw the saw "away" from
the operator. Same with sawing with the tip which potentially can send it >>> flying almost anywhere.
There was a specific safety procedure. It's a long time ago now. I survived without
injury.
So you never went on to chop down other trees ? Or even shrubs ?
Or just cutting up logs ?
You were never ever tempted to buy a chainsaw of your own ?
Just so as to be able to display your prowess much to the possible
admiration of both friends and relatives ?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 42:57:10 |
| Calls: | 6,709 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,353,935 |