It is a shame that some have to resort to ad hominem attacks and non-existent arguments. To do so only exposes the weakness of their case.
Quote:
|
First off, if we collectively agree that people should be made whole, but we also agree that it's not reasonable to hold a person liable who was trying to save his life or the lives of his family (assuming he wasn't reckless, etc), then we might want to find another means of making victims whole.
|
I see that you now exclude the reckless shooter from those whom should be entitled to full immunity. WHICH IS THE POINT I MADE when I wrote that,
Quote:
|
The innocent struck by an errant bullet should be allowed to state a case. This is especially true if the person seeking to claim immunity was reckless and not simply negligent.
|
Your ideas for setting up some other means of providing for the care of the innocent victim are not totally lacking in merit, but they smack of more big goverment and creeping socialism. I think you mean to convey that the armed and resaonable neighgor confers a public good on the community and I also see some merit in such.
Still, I am bothered by theallocation of cost away from the responsible party, especially where it results in a windfall profit for an insurer. I find much more acceptable a law limiting civil liability for mere negligence to available insurance proceeds. In reality, most plaintiffs are not about to go after one's personal assets and that goes for most plaintiff atttorneys.
The mechanics of how that works out are for beyond the scope of this thread.
If you wish to talk about responsible homeowners, over on the shotgun forum a common topic is home defense ammunition and selecting the best ammo for your individual circumstances. A principle concern of those in urban environments is over penetration of walls by errant shot. I believe my crude hypo involved shooting a full magazine of armored pearcing 7.65 mm rounds in the direction of your neighbor's back yard.