PH Gunfight thread

[Koda]

I think in the case of the OP topic, $88K is pretty reasonable for 40 acres of fire destruction

I agree, $88k is a fine punishment for what happened

What is that? leniency extended to other gun-rights advocates? $88k does not cover the cost of the damage caused by the fire. It merely recovers the costs to stop the fire.

Talk about going full circle... I'd have to revisit the article to continue commenting on that. FWIW in forum discussion when we post links to sources or news article we often take said source for what it says on its surface, I dont know if I can take the time to research further details in that case, I suppose on the surface it might be appropriate to add the cost of damage as well. I wouldn’t go so far as to say anyone was giving leniency to fellow constituents for demanding paying restitution on something that we know they didn't do on purpose.

[Lumpy]

What is that? leniency extended to other gun-rights advocates?

$88k does not cover the cost of the damage caused by the fire. It merely recovers the costs to stop the fire.[/quote]
I hate it when ideas are put in my mind by others that never occurred to me first. It's a ridiculous practice, especially ridiculous when the idea was a good one and I could have profited from it.

$88K. This is the criminal fine. Other costs and losses can be pursued by civil suit, and should be.

[mcds]

I think in the case of the OP topic, $88K is pretty reasonable for 40 acres of fire destruction

I agree, $88k is a fine punishment for what happened

What is that? leniency extended to other gun-rights advocates? $88k does not cover the cost of the damage caused by the fire. It merely recovers the costs to stop the fire.

FWIW in forum discussion when we post links to sources or news article we often take said source for what it says on its surface, I dont know if I can take the time to research further details in that case, I suppose on the surface it might be appropriate to add the cost of damage as well.

The article was explicit that $88k was the firefighting cost. Maybe you didn't read the article and instead knee-jerked into turning the thread into a discussion of your Cause?

[mcds]

I think in the case of the OP topic, $88K is pretty reasonable for 40 acres of fire destruction

I agree, $88k is a fine punishment for what happened

What is that? leniency extended to other gun-rights advocates? $88k does not cover the cost of the damage caused by the fire. It merely recovers the costs to stop the fire.

Talk about going full circle... I'd have to revisit the article to continue commenting on that. FWIW in forum discussion when we post links to sources or news article we often take said source for what it says on its surface, I dont know if I can take the time to research further details in that case, I suppose on the surface it might be appropriate to add the cost of damage as well. I wouldn’t go so far as to say anyone was giving leniency to fellow constituents for demanding paying restitution on something that we know they didn't do on purpose.

Do car crashes, in general, occur on purpose? Are drivers only accountable for the cost of getting the cars off the road?

[kaltbluter]

Guniosity, in its broadest sense, is a comprehensive sociological term used to refer to the numerous aspects of gun activity, dedication, and belief (gun-rights doctrine).

<snip>

Interesting quote. Source?

I thought about responding with "Huh...I don't get it."

Instead, here is the "Source".

[kaltbluter]

Interesting quote. Source?

Maybe this is a better source, it has a graph!

[mcds]

Mandatory insurance to exercise a constitutional right?

If guns are as safe as advocates maintain, then the cost of insurance would be small. Wouldn't the purported benefits of private ownership (as argued by gun advocates) outweigh the cost of insurance? Regardless, is it morally right to not be financially responsible? Why would one feel justified in both owning a gun and not being financially responsible for associated accidents?

[mcds]

Guniosity, in its broadest sense, is a comprehensive sociological term used to refer to the numerous aspects of gun activity, dedication, and belief (gun-rights doctrine).

The Relation Between Intelligence and Guniosity A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations"
<snip>

I thought about responding with "Huh...I don't get it."

I'm thinking not, but ought to ask anyway, Did you get it?

[kepPNW]

The owner must ultimately be held responsible. If it's a responsibility one is unwilling to accept, there's an easy way to opt-out.

Good point, now lets expand this thought. The owner of a car, knife, hammer, computer, etc., also, for any crime committed with these objects? Why or why not?

Only one thing in your various lists is designed specifically to kill. Strawman.

[kepPNW]

Reckless Endangerment is a misdemeanor.

In that case, we need new laws that cover this specific crime. That's clearly insufficient.