"An act from which an injury results as a natural, direct, uninterrupted consequence and without which the injury would not have occurred."A gun is not an act, Shifty Dancer. Pointing it at someone and pulling the trigger is. The Counselor is being outlawyered by anonymous people on the internet.
oh, . . . lol . . that is a negligence definition and by definition (pun intended) negligence is phrased in terms of an act (obviously) but that is still saying the same thing, so as I said its not that ACT of pulling a trigger and pointing that is the proximate cause of the death because the pointing and trigger pulling could have been on a water gun, it is the ACT of having the gun (i.e. firearm) there, or stated differently, bringing the gun. The 71 year old could have pointed a knife too and pulled the trigger, so to speak., by trying to strike the guy . . but its that the 71 year old had a real FIREARM and because firearms are deadly . . a guy died over nothing.but for the gun . . . no one dies.(by the way . . on the comment in bold . . . I will just skip by the obvious egg and refer you to my prior comments. You wouldn't feel the need to post stuff like that if you were confident in your position)
The Counselor is being outlawyered by anonymous people on the internet.
This isn't Stetson Law.
^^^ the first point I have seen you deliver successfully, I think we can all agree that fact is undisputed, but even the janitor at Stetson law can understand the simple concept that but for the gun there is no death.(see my earlier comment on why Buggsy has not actual substantive response beyond the game playing . . . thanks for being the predictable you Buggsy)
Buggsy, this was on page 15 I think . . . what page are we on now? Look at the responses from all the pro-gun types . . and . . . well . . you
Escobar, engaging the good counselor is a fool's errand.The appropriate response, I have learned, is to sit back and laugh.
lol ^^^^^^^ #confidencebuilderActually Buggsy if you go find a reasonable adult to help you what he or she will explain to you is that the overwhelming majority of the pro-gun posts in this thread are focused on me and not the issue because there is no response to this:the gun was the proximate cause of the deathIf that ^^^ statement by me was not true, this thread ends pages ago with a simple honest counter, but instead because that statement is the simple undeniable truth ... and the truth hurts ... the only thing a bunch of the pro-gun types have as a response is to deflect the attention from that truth. Any honest and reasonable adult will tell you that is what we are witnessing here Buggsy. The funny thing is your insecurity, in general and on this issue specifically, leads you to post that you are the one sitting back laughing without even realizing the bitter irony. ;)
By the way Buggsy, if you find that adult to help you, he or she will probably tell you that an HONEST response to my post above and the statement that the GUN was the proximate cause of death would be to say:"yes, that is true . . but . . ."However, the same adult would probably tell you that what will likely follow AFTER my comment above will be more of the same . . . more of the previous 16 pages, more comment about me rather than the fact that the GUN was the proximate cause of death . . . . . . .which really only proves my point further
man, you guys are funny.
The Counselor is being outlawyered by anonymous people on the internet.
This isn't Stetson Law.
/threadlol
funny to watch humans deny logic. Here's a logical explanation that more guns= more gun violence, using arguments made by some in these threads and touching on the precise facts at issue in the movie theater shooting. Note the author's last two sentences in bold
The total prevalence of violent crime in America in 2010, according to the National Crime Victimisation Survey, was 10.8 per 1,000 people; that is, you had about a 1.1% chance of being a victim of a violent crime. In England and Wales, according to the British Crime Survey, it was 3.1%. This makes England's violent crime rate three times as high as America's, not five times. That's still a striking difference. But counterintuitively, "violent crime", in both America and Britain does not include homicide. (Violent-crime stats are usually based on survey data rather than police reports, since many crimes are never reported to the police; but homicide victims tend not to respond to surveys.) Homicide is a separate category, and here the difference is startling: as we reported this summer, the homicide rate in America is four times as high as that in England and Wales. There were 622 homicides in England and Wales in 2011. In America, with a population 5.5 times as large, there were 14,022.How much of that difference should be chalked up to the presence of guns? Well, gun-rights advocates often argue that there's no point taking away people's guns, because you can kill someone with a knife. This is true, but in practice people are nowhere near as likely to get killed with a knife. In America, of those 14,022 homicides in 2011, 11,101 were committed with firearms. In England and Wales, where guns are far harder to come by, criminals didn't simply go out and equip themselves with other tools and commit just as many murders; there were 32,714 offences involving a knife or other sharp instrument (whether used or just threatened), but they led to only 214 homicides, a rate of 1 homicide per 150 incidents. Meanwhile, in America, there were 478,400 incidents of firearm-related violence (whether used or just threatened) and 11,101 homicides, for a rate of 1 homicide per 43 incidents. That nearly four-times-higher rate of fatality when the criminal uses a gun rather than a knife closely matches the overall difference in homicide rates between America and England.Then there's the related argument that people have a right to defend themselves against aggressors carrying firearms, and that if you criminalise gun ownership, only criminals will have guns (which is perhaps what Ice-T was getting at). That may be valid in the abstract. In practice, 0.8% of victims of gun violence say they responded to their attackers by either using or threatening to use a gun. Not much of a risk for the criminal, it seems. Perhaps that was because too few Americans own guns or carry them on their persons to have a substantial effect, but it's hard to imagine driving those numbers up much higher; Americans already own twice as many guns per person as any other nation. How many more Americans would need to carry weapons in public in order to create a serious criminal deterrent? Five times as many? Ten? Is this even possible, let alone desirable?None of this should be particularly surprising. We know that overall, firearm deaths are lower in states with stricter gun-control laws. More recently, we've learned that the expiration of America's assault-weapons ban was responsible for a substantial portion of the subsequent increase in gun deaths in northern Mexico. It's really not terribly shocking that making it harder to get your hands on machines designed to kill people results in fewer people being killed. But we've worked very hard over the past few decades to convince ourselves otherwise.
As regards the movie theater shooting -- If the 71 year old man has a knife, its less likely the father of a 2 year old is killed. It could still happen, but it is far less likely because of the hopefully UNDISPUTED FACT that guns are more deadly (shocking, I know)It should also be undisputed that the 71 year old CWP holder carried a gun for SELF-DEFENSE. There is an incredibly low demonstrated need for a gun as a means of self-defense in the US anyway, but it should be an UNDISPUTED FACT that a daytime suburban movie theater is not generally a place one would expect to need to defend oneself with a gun. The 71 year old man WAS NOT a criminal . . ie., he did not carry the gun for the purposes of carrying on criminal acts . . . he carried it for self-defense and yet it was turned into an offensive weapon in the heat of passion.Put the two together and you have the simple undeniable logic that the gun was the proximate cause of the death. If the 71 year old doesn't have a gun on him, there is likely no death. if he had a knife, there could be a death, but even then death is far less likely. Simply put . . ."but for" there being a gun present, no one dies. That is because -- as the author above explains:"It's really not terribly shocking that making it harder to get your hands on machines designed to kill people results in fewer people being killed" even if we have "worked very hard over the past few decades to convince ourselves otherwise.a lot of people in this thread have bought into the "convincing" to the point that they deny simple logic. . . some do so for fear
Murder rate in the UK since 1950. Guns banned n 1997, as you can see, the murder rate barely wavered:
