Bars can only get in trouble for knowingly serving alcohol to someone who is visibly impaired (called overserving). You can't sue a bar because someone had five drinks and then left and killed someone as a drunk driver. Parents are allowed to give alcohol to their children. Other non-guardian adults are not because they are knowingly breaking the legal drinking age. Bars and liquor stores can only be held liable for selling alcohol to minors if they know or should have known they were underage. You can't have a 20 year old decoy come in with an unrecognizably fake ID that says they are 21 and convict a bar for serving an underage patron.
Yes, it is a very difficult situation. People have freedom and autonomy in the USA until they break the law. Often times we will get people on their medication, and they will stay on it for some time until they decide that they no longer need it. It seems counter intuitive to most people, but it is common for someone to repeatedly stop taking their medication. We are getting a lot better about this, in part because we were terrible. Mental health professionals are becoming common all the way down to the elementary school levels and we are transferring information from schools when children chance districts or states. It has only been over the last 7-8 years though. One of the only positives of school shootings is that it keeps pressure on the importance of mental health screening in schools. We won't see the real full benefit for another decade. There are a lot of things that we can and need to improve. I just read and hear a lot of criticism of the USA on social issues, etc. It isn't that the USA doesn't deserve criticism, it certainly does. The issue is that the rest of the world isn't a utopia. Even in areas of the world that are portrayed as ideal, there are major failings that are either covered up or not discussed for the reasons or pride or shame. I have a strong issue on this topic, and I have traveled a lot and have yet to find any place that really has gotten it right.
This is a question for a jury, who can decide that they do not believe a server did not find the drinker to not be drunk. If a server gives someone 5-6 drinks, they are very very likely to be libel in a civil suit. Again that is a decision for a jury or judge to decide.
Good luck with that. The reality is that gun rights activists will not agree to any of these, because they believe it is a slippery slope. 1. Domestic Abusers should not be allowed to have guns. - Anyone got a problem with this one? Well who decides what is a domestic abuser? What if someone is wrongly accused? What if they plea bargain down to a lesser count? 2. Substance Abusers should not be allowed to have guns. - Anyone got a problem with this one? What is a substance abuser? Someone caught with mar1juana at 19 can never own a gun? Is simple possession enough? 3. Convicted Criminals should not be allowed to have guns - Anyone got a problem with this one? What about non violent crimes? What do you define as a crime? 4. People with Diagnoses Mental Disease should not be allowed to have guns. - Anyone got a problem with this one? Does this mean anyone that has ever been diagnosed as having depression? What if a person is misdiagnosed? 5. Children should not be allowed to have "Certain Types of Guns" (i.e. AR-15s) - Children defined as under 21 - Anyone got a problem with this one? People can go to war at 18, and cannot own a gun? There are 18 year old people with families, can they have a gun. So the beat goes on...... the pro-guns crowd will just wait until the outrage goes away and know nothing will change. At some point all of these kids will vote, and we will see some degree of change.... but not now.
Unless the GOP House and Senate members are the ones that are being targeted and shot, nothing will change......they will protect their own skin over anyone's child. DD
I will answer more indepth later Bur How do you answer your own questions? Or are you just poking holes Rocket River
I agree with you that we SHOULD have some common ground and I agree with you that there should be certain things that a majority of rationale people would agree with you on. The problem is that I don't think there will be common ground because people are not coming to this topic in good faith. I am not even talking about this board, but in a broader sense. I know a lot of Second Amendment fanatics, and they will tell you that they will never ever give an inch because they believe that it is a slippery slope, and that the restrictions will not ever end. There are a fair number of Second Amendment advocates that believe the ONLY restriction on gun ownership should be US citizenship. Right now there are a number of Second Amendment advocates that claim that the right to gun ownership in the USA isn't because of the Constitution but that it is a GOD given right, and there for cannot be limited. On the other side, there ARE some that do want a complete and total ban of handguns. This isn't everyone, but it is enough to make pro Second Amendment advocates feel strongly about not giving an inch. All of these issues we are addressing now should have been addressed 60-70 years ago before we had a half billion guns in the USA. Any effort to severely restrict gun ownership will result in domestic terrorism and that is why nothing is really going to change.
All questions of fact have determinations made at various levels. In a criminal context, the complaining witness will decide whether or not they are going to call the police, the police will determine if they have enough to make an arrest, the prosecutor will decide if there is enough evidence to charge, the judge or grand jury will decide if there is enough evidence to proceed to trial, and the petit jury or judge will decide if the charge has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil context, the plaintiff will decide whether or not they are going to file suit, the court will determine if there is enough evidence to proceed to trial and the jury or judge will decide if each cause of action is proved to the appropriate standard (generally preponderance of the evidence). If I said that you cannot be convicted of murder unless you killed someone, yes it would be up to the jury to decide whether or not they believe you killed someone. Every fact in controversy is for the factfinder to decide. There is nothing special about the case of providing alcohol to a driver or a minor that changes that. The standard of care though is that you knowingly served someone who was underage/too intoxicated. Also, you mean liable in a civil suit. Libel is a form of defamation.
I understand I think that the needling of nuance is a delying/attempt to frustrate type tactic The idea that every American Citizen should have a gun is beyond ridiculous Rocket River
[QUOTE="Nook, Good luck with that. The reality is that gun rights activists will not agree to any of these, because they believe it is a slippery slope. 1. Domestic Abusers should not be allowed to have guns. - Anyone got a problem with this one? Well who decides what is a domestic abuser? What if someone is wrongly accused? What if they plea bargain down to a lesser count? Same Standard we now hold all criminals. We don't give a **** about wrongly accused or lesser charges for pedophiles, robbers, etc. 2. Substance Abusers should not be allowed to have guns. - Anyone got a problem with this one? What is a substance abuser? Someone caught with mar1juana at 19 can never own a gun? Is simple possession enough? How do we treat them now? the 19 yr cannot own a gun for X Amount of years clean and without incident. Like a Repeated DUI guy cannot get a license. ..same here. 3. Convicted Criminals should not be allowed to have guns - Anyone got a problem with this one? What about non violent crimes? What do you define as a crime? What do YOU define as a crime. Your question here seems silly. CRIME . .. LEGAL CRIME . . .. If you go to jail . .. if you get probation . . . CRIME Attempting to redefine CRIME is a bullsh!t tactic . . .. might want to ask the Definition of "IS" 4. People with Diagnoses Mental Disease should not be allowed to have guns. - Anyone got a problem with this one? Does this mean anyone that has ever been diagnosed as having depression? What if a person is misdiagnosed? Again. Until they can show a clean bill of health . .. NO GUN! If they misdiagnosed . . find a second opinion . . . .. 5. Children should not be allowed to have "Certain Types of Guns" (i.e. AR-15s) - Children defined as under 21 - Anyone got a problem with this one? People can go to war at 18, and cannot own a gun? There are 18 year old people with families, can they have a gun. *shrug* Stop drafting 18 yr olds. Oh My Lady Graham is all a Titter!!! So the beat goes on...... the pro-guns crowd will just wait until the outrage goes away and know nothing will change. At some point all of these kids will vote, and we will see some degree of change.... but not now. I Doubt it. . . . These Kids will become their parents Rocket River
That doesn’t counter my point. Further that would go to the reasoning behind Red Flag laws that someone who does appear to be a potential threat to public safety should not have firearms. Laws might very between the states but yes the point still stands that for the most part an adult cannot give alcohol to a minor and is liable. I’m pretty sure a parent that gives alcohol to their 16 year old who then goes on to get into an accident will be held liable. There might be some difference between states but my understanding is that any bar that serves alcohol to a minor without a legal ID is liable and can lose their liquor license. I’ve heard this directly from bar owners and staff.
No place is a utopia but certainly many countries have better access and treatment to mental health. I’ll take your word on it that mental health treatment and access is gotten better in the Us but your would agree that there are far too many who aren’t getting treatment. I think you would also agree that it’s hypocritical to be saying we need to focus on mental health for public safety while also cutting millions in funding to mental health.
I will again point out that even accepting that firearm ownership is a Constitutional right that doesn’t mean there cannot be restrictions including loss of that right. As we’ve seen many states remove the right to vote and are also placing restrictions and qualifications on that right.
All fair points but there is a way to address these things. For one, if you want to own a gun, you should be required to have a license. And that license should require a renewal every 4 or 5 years. And part of getting a license or a renewal should be having a certified psychologist sign off on you being of sound mental health. It should also require you to get three people you know well to say they trust you having a gun. Does something like this stop all gun violence? No. But does it make it harder for someone to buy a gun when they are in a bad place and shoot up a school? A much better chance I think. Meanwhile any legal responsible gun owner can easily sail through that screen. That's what we need, a screening process that sane people who are responsible can get through with minor inconvenience, but that people with sever mental issues will struggle to get through.
As an example, my daughter posted something on Facebook about the gun problems. A woman (who owns a gun shop) said the laws are currently TOO RESTRICTIVE. I asked her to explain and she essentially complained about fees to buy GRENADES and the fact that you can't buy a NEW MACHINE GUN.
This is already a federal crime under the Gun Control Act. Anyone with a conviction for a qualifying domestic violence misdemeanor (essentially any crime where force was used against an intimate partner) who possesses a firearm can face up to 10 years in prison. This is already a crime under the Gun Control Act. Anyone that is an addict or current user of a controlled substance who possesses a firearm can face up to 10 years in prison. This is already a crime under the Gun Control Act. Anyone that is a convicted felon who possesses a firearm can face up to 10 years in prison. This is already a crime under the Gun Control Act. Anyone that had been adjudicated mentally defective or who has been committed to a mental institution who possesses a firearm can face up to 10 years in prison. A lot of people. If you can be issued a machine gun or a rocket launcher or a mortar, you can have a semi-automatic rifle.
Honestly, I think most of them want that NRA money and power more than their family or kids and would keep on voting against stricter gun laws.
