Mass shooting of the week, high school in parkland, FL.

#1,152
#1,152
ClearwaterVol said:
Even owning guns, I cannot hold a candle to your knowledge on the subject of guns in general. Your knowledge on the case law regarding gun control is also pretty impressive though we do not always agree on interpretation.

Overall on the topic in this thread... There isn't a one size fits all fix to it. There are so many factors to consider, but people advocating for banning all guns are just as misguided as those saying the solution is to arm the teachers. Both arguments are inherently flawed and fail to acknowledge the complexities of this issue.

Factors that both sides need to consider...

1. Availability of guns to the mentally ill.
2. Mental Health in general
3. Possible over medication of American children.
4. Commonalities of shooters.
5. Security of the schools.
6. System to report potential threats. It might be simply reporting to local authorities, but some publicity might be needed to teach people warning signs.

It's not a problem that we can completely solve, but it is one worthy of an attempt to minimize the number of tragedies.
Click to expand...

Run on this ticket and stick to it and I will vote for you and put a sign in my yard.
 
#1,153
#1,153
lawgator1 said:
So far, that has been the ultimate loophole by which the NRA and their wholly owned subsidiaries in both parties have blocked consideration of anything.
Click to expand...

Well, here's the problem...

On one hand you have the gun control side that wants to make it ultra strict and put all sorts of people on there with temporary (read that as correctable) conditions without a good path to come off the "prohibited" list.

Feinstein came up with that one, if I recall.

Then you have the pro-2A crowd that believes it should be as strict and recognizes some issues, depression for example, can be temporary and shouldn't affect a person for the rest of their life when it comes to a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

Neither side will budge.
 
#1,154
#1,154
luthervol said:
Great point.
I do. One, not 12 or 18 or 50. If someone was riding around with 20 spare tires of all different sizes that would be a pretty obvious indication that there was more than just personal security in case of an emergency intended. Maybe they intended to resell, maybe they are stolen, maybe they have some bizarre and unhealthy affection for spare tires. But obviously they have more than what is reasonably needed for personal security.
Click to expand...

All reasonable assumptions but still none of your business.
 
#1,155
#1,155
hog88 said:
I think bio-metrics would be great, but would be 1000% against it being a requirement.
Click to expand...

I could see bio's used as a criteria for teacher carry. That might assuage some of the fears in that particular context.

In general use the litmus test is when the tech is sufficiently reliable it becomes standard issue for all the .gov participants. Until that time even suggesting any kind of required civilian usage isn't even worth considering IMO.
 
#1,156
#1,156
luthervol said:
Great point.
I do. One, not 12 or 18 or 50. If someone was riding around with 20 spare tires of all different sizes that would be a pretty obvious indication that there was more than just personal security in case of an emergency intended. Maybe they intended to resell, maybe they are stolen, maybe they have some bizarre and unhealthy affection for spare tires. But obviously they have more than what is reasonably needed for personal security.
Click to expand...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W50G9gk9r00[/youtube]

Ah, now you are racist too? :)
 
#1,157
#1,157
ClearwaterVol said:
Not an easy answer, but...

1. Unethical attorneys
2. Unrealistic clients
3. People feeling they got screwed by the system.

In my experience, when a case is lost the client always feels the attorney is to blame. In my experience, the case is usually won or lost based upon the client's performance on the stand. There are very few gotcha moments in a trial and juries try very hard to reach the correct conclusion and that conclusion is usually based upon the client testimony and written evidence. If the client is unlikable or comes across as evasive then the jury will often deliver an adverse verdict.

The lawyer, if he has a strong case, is to present it in an easy to digest manner to stay out of the way of his witnesses. There is a perception out there that there is a huge difference between attorneys. If they are properly prepared... the difference is quite small.
Click to expand...

Find a lawyer you can trust, do your homework, practice, and stick to your guns. I am willing to bet this happens 1 in 5 times or less.
 
#1,158
#1,158
ClearwaterVol said:
Not an easy answer, but...

1. Unethical attorneys
2. Unrealistic clients
3. People feeling they got screwed by the system.

In my experience, when a case is lost the client always feels the attorney is to blame. In my experience, the case is usually won or lost based upon the client's performance on the stand. There are very few gotcha moments in a trial and juries try very hard to reach the correct conclusion and that conclusion is usually based upon the client testimony and written evidence. If the client is unlikable or comes across as evasive then the jury will often deliver an adverse verdict.

The lawyer, if he has a strong case, is to present it in an easy to digest manner to stay out of the way of his witnesses. There is a perception out there that there is a huge difference between attorneys. If they are properly prepared... the difference is quite small.
Click to expand...

In my experience coming from 1 lawsuit involving our company, it was the relationship the attorney had with the judge that made the difference. It was a bench trial and the county's attorney was big buds with the judge so even with signed agreements and change orders he ruled against us within 1 minute after closing.
 
#1,159
#1,159
hog88 said:
In my experience coming from 1 lawsuit involving our company, it was the relationship the attorney had with the judge that made the difference. It was a bench trial and the county's attorney was big buds with the judge so even with signed agreements and change orders he ruled against us within 1 minute after closing.
Click to expand...

FWIW - I have done one contested bench trial in my career. I lost it for political reasons (debtor friendly judge). If I have my way, I will never do one again. It is ultimately the client's decision, but I will put my faith in a jury. They might not always get it right, but they generally try very hard to reach the right decision.

And yes, county attorneys are given a ton of deference by judges. It is very frustrating at times.
 
#1,160
#1,160
hog88 said:
All reasonable assumptions but still none of your business.
Click to expand...

He was the one making the personal security argument. At least admit that is BS as far as the debate goes.

And it is certainly my business if the tires are not properly restrained and therefore pose a danger to others using the road.
 
#1,162
#1,162
ClearwaterVol said:
FWIW - I have done one contested bench trial in my career. I lost it for political reasons (debtor friendly judge). If I have my way, I will never do one again. It is ultimately the client's decision, but I will put my faith in a jury. They might not always get it right, but they generally try very hard to reach the right decision.

And yes, county attorneys are given a ton of deference by judges. It is very frustrating at times.
Click to expand...

We won on appeal but this drug out for over 2 years damn near ruined us but I wasn't going to let it go. So you at least know where some of my bitterness towards your profession comes from.
 
#1,163
#1,163
luthervol said:
He was the one making the personal security argument. At least admit that is BS as far as the debate goes.

And it is certainly my business if the tires are not properly restrained and therefore pose a danger to others using the road.
Click to expand...

Nope, how many tires the guy has is still none of your business. Being neighborly and pointing out his mistake in securing his tires is OK, but why he has so many tires isn't your concern.
 
#1,167
#1,167
ClearwaterVol said:
Even owning guns, I cannot hold a candle to your knowledge on the subject of guns in general. Your knowledge on the case law regarding gun control is also pretty impressive though we do not always agree on interpretation.

Overall on the topic in this thread... There isn't a one size fits all fix to it. There are so many factors to consider, but people advocating for banning all guns are just as misguided as those saying the solution is to arm the teachers. Both arguments are inherently flawed and fail to acknowledge the complexities of this issue.

Factors that both sides need to consider...

1. Availability of guns to the mentally ill.
2. Mental Health in general
3. Possible over medication of American children.
4. Commonalities of shooters.
5. Security of the schools.
6. System to report potential threats. It might be simply reporting to local authorities, but some publicity might be needed to teach people warning signs.

It's not a problem that we can completely solve, but it is one worthy of an attempt to minimize the number of tragedies.
Click to expand...

I am absolutely on board with all of the content in this post. CWV I know of no responsible gun owner that would take issue with your list of concerns. And all gun owners I know want this violence to stop just as much as the gun ban advocates.
 
#1,171
#1,171
hog88 said:
Nope, how many tires the guy has is still none of your business. Being neighborly and pointing out his mistake in securing his tires is OK, but why he has so many tires isn't your concern.
Click to expand...

Yep. If he is driving down the interstate and it is obvious that one of his 500 lbs tires is not secured and about to fall off, he will be pulled over and cited (hopefully). If it's determined that the failure to secure the tires properly was willful negligence on his part, he should have his right to transport tires revoked.

Also, he will not be able to store those tires in a residential area in view. There are restrictions on how and where the tires can be stored.
 
Last edited:
#1,174
#1,174
Hope that bank account is healthy, luther. You're about to get a whole hoop of people taking you up on your offer.
 
#1,175
#1,175
luthervol said:
Yep. If he is driving down the interstate and it is obvious that one of his 500 lbs tires is not secured and about to fall off, he will be pulled over and cited (hopefully). If it's determined that the failure to secure the tires properly was willful negligence on his part, he should have his right to transport tires revoked.
Click to expand...

And there it is. The liberal way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top