Parental Responsible

[Jeff Gaines]

I have always been an advocate for parents being held responsible for
their children's behaviour while the child is under the age of criminal
responsibility.

A mother in America has just been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter
after her son was involved in a school shooting and faces a 60 year jail
sentence.

Could that happen here? Should it happen here?

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists
or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.

[Davey]

On 7 Feb 2024 10:19:50 GMT

"Jeff Gaines" <jgne...@outlook.com> wrote:

> I have always been an advocate for parents being held responsible for
> their children's behaviour while the child is under the age of
> criminal responsibility.
>
> A mother in America has just been found guilty of involuntary
> manslaughter after her son was involved in a school shooting and
> faces a 60 year jail sentence.
>
> Could that happen here? Should it happen here?
>

I am not qualified to answer that question, merely to conjecture about
it, but I think it noteworthy that the parents seem to have actually
bought the gun and given it to the child as a present. I have met
American people who are proud of their offspring's gun prowess. Not
intrinsically wrong, but their reasons are most suspect, the training is
only focussed on the shooting side of it, not the safety aspect, and
their sense of their own responsibility is totally lacking.
A surreal evening was spent at an indoor shooting range, where my hosts
had some high-powered, recoil-less rifle that could probably stop a
Grizzly Bear, gave a loud 'Whoomph' sound, and was usually used to shoot
gophers, as they are more common than bears in Ohio. There cannot have
been much gopher left after one of those shots.

--
Davey

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2024-02-07, Davey <da...@example.invalid> wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2024 10:19:50 GMT
> "Jeff Gaines" <jgne...@outlook.com> wrote:
>> I have always been an advocate for parents being held responsible for
>> their children's behaviour while the child is under the age of
>> criminal responsibility.
>>
>> A mother in America has just been found guilty of involuntary
>> manslaughter after her son was involved in a school shooting and
>> faces a 60 year jail sentence.
>>
>> Could that happen here? Should it happen here?
>
> I am not qualified to answer that question, merely to conjecture about
> it, but I think it noteworthy that the parents seem to have actually
> bought the gun and given it to the child as a present.

Indeed. I don't get the impression the case Jeff mentions has much to do
with "parental responsibility" really. If you supply a deadly weapon to
someone you know (or should have known) to be mentally unwell then it's
not much of a stretch to say you may be legally liable for the easily
forseeable consequences, regardless of whether or not that person is
your child.

[Fredxx]

On 07/02/2024 11:40, Davey wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2024 10:19:50 GMT
> "Jeff Gaines" <jgne...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> I have always been an advocate for parents being held responsible for
>> their children's behaviour while the child is under the age of
>> criminal responsibility.
>>
>> A mother in America has just been found guilty of involuntary
>> manslaughter after her son was involved in a school shooting and
>> faces a 60 year jail sentence.
>>
>> Could that happen here? Should it happen here?
>>
>
> I am not qualified to answer that question, merely to conjecture about
> it, but I think it noteworthy that the parents seem to have actually
> bought the gun and given it to the child as a present.

The BBC article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68223118

suggests that the mother didn't endorse the purchase of the gun and the
father purchased it as a present for their son. The father has still to
stand trial as they elected to be tried separately. Not sure how that
works after the guilty finding is published for the mother, or how the
final sentences will compare.

It's notable they've already spent two years in gaol waiting for trial.

From another article their son didn't get much parenting!

Articles like that make me thankful we have strong gun laws.

[Colin Bignell]

On 07/02/2024 10:19, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
>
> I have always been an advocate for parents being held responsible for
> their children's behaviour while the child is under the age of criminal
> responsibility.
>
> A mother in America has just been found guilty of involuntary
> manslaughter after her son was involved in a school shooting and faces a
> 60 year jail sentence.
>
> Could that happen here? Should it happen here?
>

I don't think it meets the criteria for gross negligence manslaughter,
unless the prosecution could somehow demonstrate that the parents owed a
duty of care to the victims. I'm not sure how that would be possible though.

While supplying the child with a gun, or indeed a large bladed weapon,
would be an illegal act in the UK, the Lords have ruled that somebody
who supplies drugs to a person who subsequently dies from using those
drugs has not committed unlawful act manslaughter. Hence, I don't think
that unlawful act manslaughter applies either.


--
Colin Bignell

[Jeff Gaines]

On 07/02/2024 in message <upvrha$1do89$1...@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:

>The BBC article:
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68223118
>
>suggests that the mother didn't endorse the purchase of the gun and the
>father purchased it as a present for their son.

"Here's the Colt 45 I promised you for your birthday. If you're good, and
help you mom with the dishes, I'll get you the AK 47 for Christmas".

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant

[Colin Bignell]

On 07/02/2024 16:55, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 07/02/2024 in message <upvrha$1do89$1...@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
>
>> The BBC article:
>>  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68223118
>>
>> suggests that the mother didn't endorse the purchase of the gun and
>> the father purchased it as a present for their son.
>
> "Here's the Colt 45 I promised you for your birthday. If you're good,
> and help you mom with the dishes, I'll get you the AK 47 for Christmas".
>

AK-47? Very un-American. The AR-15 is the favourite assault rifle for
Americans.


--
Colin Bignell

[JNugent]

On 07/02/2024 10:19 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
>
> I have always been an advocate for parents being held responsible for
> their children's behaviour while the child is under the age of criminal
> responsibility.
>
> A mother in America has just been found guilty of involuntary
> manslaughter after her son was involved in a school shooting and faces a
> 60 year jail sentence.
>
> Could that happen here? Should it happen here?

Who gave or sold him the gun?

[JNugent]

Having had some limited shooting tuition in the USA, I think I am
qualified to answer part of what you said.

Firearm training in the USA - even if only the hiring of a weapon for an
hour at a range - always starts with safety instruction. That is both in
general...

..."Don't ever point the gun at anyone; don't suddenly turn around
whilst aiming it; keep your fingers well away from the trigger unless
you gave decided to shoot" (and more than that)...

...and weapon specific, dealing with the safety catch, the correct
manner of handling the weapon and the correct stance...

I cannot believe that a child was taught weapon-handling and accuracy of
target hitting and not the general safety procedures which are, in many
states, mandated by law before a permit can be issued.

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <jnug...@mail.com> wrote in message news:l2hkmi...@mid.individual.net...

No rellies in good ol' Mississippi then, I take it ?

To repeat *in many States*. Which effectively invalidates all your previous
points in respect of "the USA" in general

Such that were you to Google "Most lenient gun laws US" quite possibly the
top ranking link would be provided for you by

https://sightmark.eu/

The 10 States With the Most Lenient Gun Laws

a.. Mississippi.
b.. Wyoming.
c.. Montana.
d.. Idaho.
e.. Georgia.
f.. Arkansas.
g.. South Dakota.
h.. Oklahoma.

With no guesses as to what business they're actually in.

But always handy nevertheless if you're in the market for say a
"Wraith Mini Thermal Riflescope".

While as to any actual State restrictions or lack of them these
are listed alphabetically on Wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

So that for the top-ranking states as listed above, its just a long list
of "no's" except for the odd "yes", for local exemptions


bb

[Sam Plusnet]

I understand the point you are making, but conflating 'mental illness'
with 'the will to commit wholesale murder' is not going to help the many
sufferers who offer no risk to anyone other than themselves.

--
Sam Plusnet

[David McNeish]

On Wednesday 7 February 2024 at 10:19:57 UTC, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> I have always been an advocate for parents being held responsible for
> their children's behaviour while the child is under the age of criminal
> responsibility.

Though note the child in this case is not only of the age of criminal
responsibility but already convicted in their own right.

[JNugent]

Whatever that might mean, I have an idea that the answer is "No".

>
> To repeat *in many States*. Which effectively invalidates all your previous
> points in respect of "the USA" in general

There is a difference between (a) getting shooting tuition / training /
instruction from a professional and (b) applying for or getting a permit
(whether to have a weapon at all or for "concealed carry").

> Such that were you to Google "Most lenient gun laws US" quite possibly the
> top ranking link would be provided for you by
>
> https://sightmark.eu/
>
> The 10 States With the Most Lenient Gun Laws
>
> a.. Mississippi.
> b.. Wyoming.
> c.. Montana.
> d.. Idaho.
> e.. Georgia.
> f.. Arkansas.
> g.. South Dakota.
> h.. Oklahoma.

Not relevant.

I was referring to professional tuition at a range.

Instructors don't want to be accidentally shot (or see anyone else
accidentally shot) any more than I assume you do.

They therefore give the safety part of the instruction / tuition /
training* first.

[* Pick any one or even substitute your own term if you prefer.]

>
> With no guesses as to what business they're actually in.
> But always handy nevertheless if you're in the market for say a
> "Wraith Mini Thermal Riflescope".
> While as to any actual State restrictions or lack of them these
> are listed alphabetically on Wiki.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state
>
> So that for the top-ranking states as listed above, its just a long list
> of "no's" except for the odd "yes", for local exemptions

Not relevant.

See above for why, but it was obvious within the post to which you were
responding.

[Jeff Gaines]

On 07/02/2024 in message
<ee0075f9-46e7-4093...@googlegroups.com> David McNeish
wrote:

I'd be interested to hear views on a child in the UK causing, say,
criminal damage.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

All things being equal, fat people use more soap

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <jnug...@mail.com> wrote in message news:l2ihrl...@mid.individual.net...

quote:

1. A relative

:unquote

https://www.scousedictionary.co.uk/rellie/

HTH

The implication was that firearms training and the accompanying safety procedures
were necessarily widespread in the US; that irrresponsible gun use was rare
(despite statistics suggesting otherwise) and thus that there was no need for
Federal Gun legislation to be strengthened.


bb


>

[Davey]

snip for brevity

> >> With no guesses as to what business they're actually in.
> >> But always handy nevertheless if you're in the market for say a
> >> "Wraith Mini Thermal Riflescope".
> >> While as to any actual State restrictions or lack of them these
> >> are listed alphabetically on Wiki.
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state
> >>
> >> So that for the top-ranking states as listed above, its just a
> >> long list of "no's" except for the odd "yes", for local
> >> exemptions
> >
> > Not relevant.
> >
> > See above for why, but it was obvious within the post to which you
> > were responding.
>
> The implication was that firearms training and the accompanying
> safety procedures were necessarily widespread in the US; that
> irrresponsible gun use was rare (despite statistics suggesting
> otherwise) and thus that there was no need for Federal Gun
> legislation to be strengthened.
>
>

I once met a work colleague, whom I did not know beforehand, in Kansas
City, Missouri, as we were doing a job at the Ford Assembly Plant there.
He was from Tennessee, a very 'Freedom-Loving' State. We sat in his car
for a while, talking, and got to the subject of guns. He showed me the
one in the glovebox, the one in the centre console, the ones under each
front seat, and explained that there were some more in the boot. He
carried in his car a total of eight guns. While I have no idea
whether he was licensed or not, it illustrates the unhealthy obsession
with guns of many Americans.
Michigan deer-hunting season is known for the number of human deaths
that occur.
This from 1919:
https://www.bridgemi.com/quality-life/you-just-react-hunter-deaths-shadow-opening-michigan-firearms-season

We used to know the season had started by seeing big pick-Up trucks
driving down the road, with deer tied to the bonnet, and
beer-drinking yahoos, including the driver, celebrating their kill.

--
Davey.

[billy bookcase]

"Davey" <da...@example.invalid> wrote in message news:uq2b9b$1u1sk$1...@dont-email.me...

Coincidence corner !

Having just finished watching* the very stylish** "Bullitt" where
Bullitt (Steve McQueen) describes two mafia hitmen failing
to kill their target ( a supposed mafia snitch ) from six
feet away (the foot of the bed) with a pump-action shotgun,
- as " obviously a professional(sic)job "

I'm now watching the "Deer Hunter". The beginning in the
steelmill and the photography of the run-down town where
they live is very impressive. I only watch this stuff in
15-20 minute sessions as I no longer have patience to sit
through long films in one sitting. I then switched to
"Green Wing".


bb

*The correct term would of course be <vomit> "revisiting"</vomit>

** With lots of Antoniono style framing shots. For us authentic
pseuds, it's a lot more than just simply a car chase

[Davey]

snip


If it's still available online, look for Anthony Bourdain's 'Parts
Unknown', Detroit episode. I lived near there for 30 years, and it
gives a good description of the city in 2013. It was still much the
same as when I left in 2010.

The idea that everyone in the US who shoots a gun has undergone
professional weapons training is for the birds. Most of the
shooting people I met, and there were many, had learned from their Dad
or Uncle out in the back yard. Starting with bottles and cans on fences,
then graduating to squirrels and birds, and later deer and even bears.
We met a father and son team in Wisconsin who specialised in bow-hunting
black bear, and they were big specimens, judging by the photos of their
kills.

Try this article:
https://www.kff.org/mental-health/issue-brief/child-and-teen-firearm-mortality-in-the-u-s-and-peer-countries/
Hint: "In 2020 and 2021, firearms were involved in the deaths of more
children ages 1-17 than any other type of injury or illness."
And: "Even in States with Lower Child and Teen Firearm Mortality, Rates
Are Much Higher Than in Comparable Countries."

And as for deer-hunting, I have a photo of a pick-up truck in Texas,
where a platform has been constructed on a steel tube frame several
feet above the bonnet, for shooting deer from. The whole thing has to
rotate with the bonnet when it is opened to get at the engine. The fact
that the driver has to look through a set of metal tubes appears to be
of no interest, not even to the local cops. Who probably hunt anyway.

Land of the Free, indeed.

--
Davey.

[JNugent]

That is almost certainly true.

But those who HAVE undergone such training got the safety procedures
part of it first.

Anything else would be like teaching driving without explaining - before
moving off - how to find and operate the brakes.

[JNugent]

I have never heard that in Liverpool or elsewhere.

Perhaps our social circles are different.

>
>>> To repeat *in many States*. Which effectively invalidates all your previous
>>> points in respect of "the USA" in general
>>
>> There is a difference between (a) getting shooting tuition / training / instruction
>> from a professional and (b) applying for or getting a permit (whether to have a weapon
>> at all or for "concealed carry").

[ ... ]

>
>> I was referring to professional tuition at a range.
>> Instructors don't want to be accidentally shot (or see anyone else accidentally shot)
>> any more than I assume you do.
>> They therefore give the safety part of the instruction / tuition / training* first.
>> [* Pick any one or even substitute your own term if you prefer.]
>

[ ... ]

>
> The implication was that firearms training and the accompanying safety procedures
> were necessarily widespread in the US; that irrresponsible gun use was rare
> (despite statistics suggesting otherwise) and thus that there was no need for
> Federal Gun legislation to be strengthened.

The implication in my post was nothing of that sort at all.

It had been stated (by another poster) that a child in the USA, given a
gun as a gift, had been trained on how to shoot it (presumably
accurately) but had not been given safety instruction.

I pointed out that to my knowledge (and direct experience), that simply
does not happen.

I cannot see why you have, or anyone else has, a problem with the fact
that the safety side of the instruction comes first.

[Davey]

I have no disagreement with that. But there is little to say that the
trained ones are the majority. I lived there for years, and
in my personal experience, the majority of those that I met had had
little or no professional training. "Go practice out in the woods
with one of our guns" was more likely.
And while deer hunting, a large amount of alcohol was regularly
consumed, with the expected results.

--
Davey.

[billy bookcase]

"Sam Plusnet" <n...@home.com> wrote in message news:APQwN.407568$p%Mb.3...@fx15.iad...

Nevertheless surely it would be highly irresponsible to provide many such
people with guns; if only to remove the possibility that they might use
the weapon to harm themselves, if not other people

In any case whatever the state of the person's mental health what
possible *legitmate* use would a 17 year old have for a hand gun
in the first place ?


bb

[Pamela]

On 19:53 8 Feb 2024, JNugent said:
> On 08/02/2024 10:01 am, billy bookcase wrote:
>

> [SNIP]

>
> I have never heard that in Liverpool or elsewhere.
>
> Perhaps our social circles are different.
>
>

> The implication in my post was nothing of that sort at all.
>
> It had been stated (by another poster) that a child in the USA, given a
> gun as a gift, had been trained on how to shoot it (presumably
> accurately) but had not been given safety instruction.
>
> I pointed out that to my knowledge (and direct experience), that simply
> does not happen.
>
> I cannot see why you have, or anyone else has, a problem with the fact
> that the safety side of the instruction comes first.

There is a required "notice" under the US Youth Handgun Safety Act, and
this may cover the mandatory safety information you mentioned. As a
Federal Law, I understand it applies to all States. There is a leaflet
about this in a link on the ATF page below.

<https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/guide/atf-i-53002-%E2%80%94-youth-
handgun-safety-act-notice>

https://shorturl.at/ckvzK

[JNugent]

That is an entirely different point.

A poster asserted that the "child" mentioned in the OP had (in terms)
been taught to shoot accurately but had not been trained in firearm
safety procedures.

My point was simply that that was rather unlikely.

> I lived there for years, and
> in my personal experience, the majority of those that I met had had
> little or no professional training. "Go practice out in the woods
> with one of our guns" was more likely.
> And while deer hunting, a large amount of alcohol was regularly
> consumed, with the expected results.

I dare say.

[JNugent]

Thank you.

Article D looks interesting.

[JNugent]

In the USA?

Target shooting.

Self-defence/defense.

Home defence/defense.

Being prepared for a planned career in law enforcement.

There must be others.

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <jnug...@mail.com> wrote in message news:l2mu1k...@mid.individual.net...

What's wrong with borrowing Mom or Pops ?
>
> Self-defence/defense.

Ah right. Shootouts in the street with innocent members of the public
being caught in the crossfire
>
> Home defence/defense.
>
Ah right. A shootout at home alongside Mom and Pop blasting away as
well. A bullet riddled burglar and $1000's worth of damage to furniture
and bullet holes in the walls.

> Being prepared for a planned career in law enforcement.

One might reasonably assume they provide weapons training.
>
> There must be others.

Apparently some of the aggrieved parents are considering suing the school
as the boy wasn't checked over with a metal detector before entering the
school, as he should have been.



bb

>

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <jnug...@mail.com> wrote in message news:l2kpqa...@mid.individual.net...

>>>>
>>>> No rellies in good ol' Mississippi then, I take it ?
>>>
>>> Whatever that might mean, I have an idea that the answer is "No".
>>
>> quote:
>>
>> 1. A relative
>>
>> :unquote
>>
>> https://www.scousedictionary.co.uk/rellie/
>>
>> HTH
>
> I have never heard that in Liverpool or elsewhere.
>

Never watched "Brookside" then ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookside_(TV_series)

Calm down, calm down !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scousers


bb

[JNugent]

How would that be different?

>
>> Self-defence/defense.
>
> Ah right. Shootouts in the street with innocent members of the public
> being caught in the crossfire

It's the reason why many people carry guns (especially "concealed carry").

It's a legal right.

>
>> Home defence/defense.
>
> Ah right. A shootout at home alongside Mom and Pop blasting away as
> well. A bullet riddled burglar and $1000's worth of damage to furniture
> and bullet holes in the walls.

Another legal right.

Killing a burglar is not necessarily seen as a blatant breach of the
burglar's yooman rites to take possession of the householder's possessions.

>
>> Being prepared for a planned career in law enforcement.
>
> One might reasonably assume they provide weapons training.

You HAVE heard of cadet training, yes? Even in the UK?

>
>> There must be others.
>
> Apparently some of the aggrieved parents are considering suing the school
> as the boy wasn't checked over with a metal detector before entering the
> school, as he should have been.

That's a failing - if at all - on the part of someone other than the
boy's parents.

Isn't it?

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <jnug...@mail.com> wrote in message news:l2o1le...@mid.individual.net...

The 17 year old might have less opportunuty to take the gun to school
with him.

>>
>>> Self-defence/defense.
>>
>> Ah right. Shootouts in the street with innocent members of the public
>> being caught in the crossfire
>
> It's the reason why many people carry guns (especially "concealed carry").
>
> It's a legal right.

Indeed. Shootouts in the street endangering innocent bystanders are a
possible consequence of people exercising their legal right.

>>
>>> Home defence/defense.
>>
>> Ah right. A shootout at home alongside Mom and Pop blasting away as
>> well. A bullet riddled burglar and $1000's worth of damage to furniture
>> and bullet holes in the walls.
>
> Another legal right.
>
> Killing a burglar is not necessarily seen as a blatant breach of the burglar's yooman
> rites to take possession of the householder's possessions.

Indeed. So that as I said a shootout in the home with the 17 year old blasting away
alongside Mom and as Pop leaving a bullet riddled burglar and $1000's worth of damage
to furniture and bullet holes in the walls is in many States the householder legal right.
And regardless of what affect it might have on their home insurance premiums..

>>
>>> Being prepared for a planned career in law enforcement.
>>
>> One might reasonably assume they provide weapons training.
>
> You HAVE heard of cadet training, yes? Even in the UK?

Where they take the guns home with them, and to school during the week ?

>>
>>> There must be others.
>>
>> Apparently some of the aggrieved parents are considering suing the school
>> as the boy wasn't checked over with a metal detector before entering the
>> school, as he should have been.
>
> That's a failing - if at all - on the part of someone other than the boy's parents.
>
> Isn't it?
>

Er no. If it wasn't for *some* parents allowing their children to take guns with
them to school, then there wouldn't be calls by other parents for schools to
waste tax dollars on metal detectors; rather than on teachers salaries, books
and teaching equipment .



bb

[JNugent]

On 10/02/2024 10:42 am, billy bookcase wrote:

> "JNugent" <jnug...@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 09/02/2024 07:45 pm, billy bookcase wrote:

[ ... ]

>
>>>>> Nevertheless surely it would be highly irresponsible to provide many such
>>>>> people with guns; if only to remove the possibility that they might use
>>>>> the weapon to harm themselves, if not other people
>>>>> In any case whatever the state of the person's mental health what
>>>>> possible *legitmate* use would a 17 year old have for a hand gun
>>>>> in the first place ?
>
>>>> In the USA?
>>>> Target shooting.
>
>>> What's wrong with borrowing Mom or Pops ?
>
>> How would that be different?
>
> The 17 year old might have less opportunuty to take the gun to school
> with him.
>

That's a matter of empirical circumstance.

>
>>>> Self-defence/defense.
>
>>> Ah right. Shootouts in the street with innocent members of the public
>>> being caught in the crossfire
>
>> It's the reason why many people carry guns (especially "concealed carry").
>> It's a legal right.
>
> Indeed. Shootouts in the street endangering innocent bystanders are a

> possible consequence of people exercising their legal right...

...as are undefended murders, sometimes multiple murders. You can't and
won't stop gun-carrying criminals, whether of the armed robber or
mass-shooter variety, by making sure that all of their potential victims
are defenceless against firearms. If there were a way of ensuring that
criminals could not gain access to weapons, that'd be a potentially
fruitful policy line to follow. But you can't, so it isn't. Not in the
USA as things stand, anyway.

>
>>>> Home defence/defense.
>
>>> Ah right. A shootout at home alongside Mom and Pop blasting away as
>>> well. A bullet riddled burglar and $1000's worth of damage to furniture
>>> and bullet holes in the walls.
>
>> Another legal right.
>> Killing a burglar is not necessarily seen as a blatant breach of the burglar's yooman
>> rites to take possession of the householder's possessions.
>
> Indeed. So that as I said a shootout in the home with the 17 year old blasting away
> alongside Mom and as Pop leaving a bullet riddled burglar and $1000's worth of damage
> to furniture and bullet holes in the walls is in many States the householder legal right.
> And regardless of what affect it might have on their home insurance premiums..

Let them worry about that?

After all, they might prefer bullet holes in the doors walls and
woodwork to being dead. Some people are funny that way.

>
>>>> Being prepared for a planned career in law enforcement.
>
>>> One might reasonably assume they provide weapons training.
>
>> You HAVE heard of cadet training, yes? Even in the UK?
>
> Where they take the guns home with them, and to school during the week ?

Marksmanship is a good preparation for various service careers.

>>>> There must be others.
>
>>> Apparently some of the aggrieved parents are considering suing the school
>>> as the boy wasn't checked over with a metal detector before entering the
>>> school, as he should have been.
>
>> That's a failing - if at all - on the part of someone other than the boy's parents.
>> Isn't it?
>
> Er no. If it wasn't for *some* parents allowing their children to take guns with
> them to school, then there wouldn't be calls by other parents for schools to
> waste tax dollars on metal detectors; rather than on teachers salaries, books
> and teaching equipment .

You said that aggrieved parents are considering taking legal action
against the school. That can only be because the school failed in an
*extant* duty to screen pupils arriving at the premises for firearms.

If the school had that duty and failed in it, the lawsuit has a chance
of success.

If the school didn't have that duty, the action is much less assured of
success.

In any case, arguing that if A was not the case, then individuals X, Y
and Z might not have felt the need to do, or not to so, something else
is a dubious chain of events, as I am sure you recognise.

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <jnug...@mail.com> wrote in message news:l2pfda...@mid.individual.net...

Just to show how effective gun ownership is in preventing murders....
but surely you must know this already ?

quote:

Intentional homicide victims per 100,000 inhabitants

Table last fully updated from data retrieved August 10, 2023 from UNODC.

US 6.4

UK 1.0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

:unquote

One of your first contributions to thread was as follows

" Firearm training in the USA - even if only the hiring of a weapon for an
hour at a range - always starts with safety instruction. "

With the emphasis on safety instruction

Now clearly when learning to drive a car, safety instructions are important. As
the sole purpose of cars is to carry people around; rather than killing and
maiming people.

Now clearly when being shown how to use a chainsaw safety instructions are
important; as the sole purpose of chainsaws is to cut down trees and cut up
logs rather than killing and maiming people

So that when being shown how to use a gun, safety instructions are important
because the primary purpose of guns is to.....**

Oh hang on a minute

I can only assume that at some stage the batteries in your irony meter have run
out For the money conscious, Kodak Alkalines as are available in Poundland
( but no longer a pound ) appear to perform quite well.


bb

* A lot of them used for target shooting blah, blah, blah, blah

[JNugent]

At whom is your sarcasm directed?

I am merely describing the facts as I have experienced them but already
knew them to be.

Even an hour's rent of a gun or pistol at a range in the States will
start with ten minutes of instruction as to the operation of the weapon,
the correct way to hold it (in particular, not placing a finger on the
trigger until ready to shoot), the correct stance (in order to deal with
the recoil) and the importance of never pointing the weapon at anyone
(even accidentally if reacting to a sound or a call from behind).

IOW, the safety aspects come first (like teaching where the brakes are
on a first driving lesson). Accuracy, range-finding, etc, come later.

Do you doubt that this is the case?

If so, why?

There is no point in trying to have a go at me, sitting here in the Home
Counties, for the general constitutional attitude to firearms in the
USA. Believe it or not, it's way outside my control.

As it happens, I once - a long time ago - had a temporary job helping to
fell trees in Cheshire in he projected line of the M56 eastward
extension at Lymm. I can tell you that safety instruction came first
when becoming familiar with the use of a chainsaw.

[Davey]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 12:37:53 +0000
JNugent <jnug...@mail.com> wrote:

> Even an hour's rent of a gun or pistol at a range in the States will
> start with ten minutes of instruction as to the operation of the
> weapon, the correct way to hold it (in particular, not placing a
> finger on the trigger until ready to shoot), the correct stance (in
> order to deal with the recoil) and the importance of never pointing
> the weapon at anyone (even accidentally if reacting to a sound or a
> call from behind).
>
> IOW, the safety aspects come first (like teaching where the brakes
> are on a first driving lesson). Accuracy, range-finding, etc, come
> later.
>
> Do you doubt that this is the case?
>
> If so, why?

I went to shoot at two ranges in the USA, an outdoor one in Michigan,
where the day was for 'vintage' guns, and one in Ohio, described
earlier. At this indoor session, there were all sizes of weapons,
ranging from children using .22 pistols, to the bear-killer, used for
gophers, I described earlier. At both ranges, I went with people who
owned their own guns, so were not using range-supplied weapons.
At both ranges, the assumption seemed to be that, if you had your own
gun, then you knew the rules. There was no instruction period as you
describe for rented guns, more like "You know the rules? Ok."
The Ohio range, being indoors, where each individual range
was well separated from its neighbours, had little potential for
damage, but it was still there.
The Michigan one did operate good safety procedures when shooting
stopped and the shooters went to collect their targets. The Ohio range
had no overall shooting stoppage, each shooter collected his targets
himself, although they were on a pulley to bring them to him.

>From my limited experience, it sounds as though you have a
rose-tinted view of the way in which personal gun ownership is carried
out in the USA. It sounds rather as though you have read the book of how
it should be in theory. If I feel this way, after only a few experiences
amongst "The Good Ol' Boys" of the MidWest, then there must be many more
similar across the vast country, where gun ownership is regarded as a
God-given right, right up there with having a Driver's License, and
some areas are still regarded as the Wild West.

--
Davey.

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <jnug...@mail.com> wrote in message news:l2rtd1...@mid.individual.net...

Because Jennifer Crumbley, 45, has been of convicted of involuntary manslaughter
in helping buy her 17 year old, apparently mentally disturbed son. a gun; which he
subsequently took to school, and shot four of his classmates dead, ?

The very subject of this thread.

Where quite clearly neither Jennifer Crumbley nor her 17 year old son seemed
overly concerned with any "safety aspects"

And so its perfectly reasonable to ask, is it not, what posible relevance
"safety aspects" have to to this particular case; except in the fact that
they've quite clearly been ignored.

As indeed

quote:

" 14 Dec 2022 · Gun violence recently surpassed car accidents as the leading cause of
death for American children. No group of kids has been spared,"

.https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/14/magazine/gun-violence-children-data-statistics.html

:unquote

would appear to confirm

>
> There is no point in trying to have a go at me, sitting here in the Home Counties, for
> the general constitutional attitude to firearms in the USA. Believe it or not, it's way
> outside my control.

Well as Charlton Heston is long dead and Donald Trump is otherwise
engaged you appear to be the only representative of the gun lobby who
is currently available

>
> As it happens, I once - a long time ago - had a temporary job helping to fell trees in
> Cheshire in he projected line of the M56 eastward extension at Lymm. I can tell you
> that safety instruction came first when becoming familiar with the use of a chainsaw.

At a guess, I would imagine you were actually engaged in cutting off the
branches of the felled trees.

And always cutting downwards, as instructed.


bb

>

[Pamela]

On 15:08 7 Feb 2024, JNugent said:
> On 07/02/2024 11:40 am, Davey wrote:

>> "Jeff Gaines" <jgne...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have always been an advocate for parents being held responsible
>>> for their children's behaviour while the child is under the age of
>>> criminal responsibility.
>>
>>> A mother in America has just been found guilty of involuntary
>>> manslaughter after her son was involved in a school shooting and
>>> faces a 60 year jail sentence.
>>
>>> Could that happen here? Should it happen here?
>>
>> I am not qualified to answer that question, merely to conjecture
>> about it, but I think it noteworthy that the parents seem to have

>> actually bought the gun and given it to the child as a present. I
>> have met American people who are proud of their offspring's gun
>> prowess. Not intrinsically wrong, but their reasons are most suspect,
>> the training is only focussed on the shooting side of it, not the
>> safety aspect, and their sense of their own responsibility is totally
>> lacking. A surreal evening was spent at an indoor shooting range,
>> where my hosts had some high-powered, recoil-less rifle that could
>> probably stop a Grizzly Bear, gave a loud 'Whoomph' sound, and was
>> usually used to shoot gophers, as they are more common than bears in
>> Ohio. There cannot have been much gopher left after one of those
>> shots.
>
> Having had some limited shooting tuition in the USA, I think I am
> qualified to answer part of what you said.
>

> Firearm training in the USA - even if only the hiring of a weapon for

> an hour at a range - always starts with safety instruction. That is
> both in general...
>
> ..."Don't ever point the gun at anyone; don't suddenly turn around
> whilst aiming it; keep your fingers well away from the trigger unless
> you gave decided to shoot" (and more than that)...
>
> ...and weapon specific, dealing with the safety catch, the correct
> manner of handling the weapon and the correct stance...
>
> I cannot believe that a child was taught weapon-handling and accuracy
> of target hitting and not the general safety procedures which are, in
> many states, mandated by law before a permit can be issued.

I'm quite sure a parent buying a child a gun as a gift would go through
the essential safety precautions in the vast majority of cases. If only
how to use the safety lock.

IMHO many objections raised in this thread rely on rather oblique
follow-ups and far-fetched reasoning and to the point of time wasting.

[Pamela]

On 08:33 11 Feb 2024, billy bookcase said:
> "JNugent" <jnug...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:l2pfda...@mid.individual.net...
>>

>> [...]

>
> Just to show how effective gun ownership is in preventing murders....
> but surely you must know this already ?
>
> quote:
>
> Intentional homicide victims per 100,000 inhabitants
>
> Table last fully updated from data retrieved August 10, 2023 from
> UNODC.
>
> US 6.4
> UK 1.0
>

> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

A average like that fails to identify the usefulness of a gun at dealing
with an individual attack by an armed assailant. This preventative
strategy may shift the risk onto an unarmed person but that has no
bearing on the point made earlier ....

"... you can't and won't stop gun-carrying criminals, whether of the

armed robber or mass-shooter variety, by making sure that all of
their potential victims are defenceless against firearms."

>> [...]

>
> One of your first contributions to thread was as follows
>
> " Firearm training in the USA - even if only the hiring of a weapon
> for an hour at a range - always starts with safety instruction. "
>
> With the emphasis on safety instruction
>
> Now clearly when learning to drive a car, safety instructions are
> important. As the sole purpose of cars is to carry people around;
> rather than killing and maiming people.
>
> Now clearly when being shown how to use a chainsaw safety instructions
> are important; as the sole purpose of chainsaws is to cut down trees
> and cut up logs rather than killing and maiming people
>
> So that when being shown how to use a gun, safety instructions are
> important because the primary purpose of guns is to.....**
>
> > Oh hang on a minute

The purpose of a gun is to shoot someone or something. The safety
instructions are to ensure the intended target and not someone else gets
hit. Seems straightforward enough.

[Fredxx]

On 12/02/2024 14:22, Pamela wrote:
> On 08:33 11 Feb 2024, billy bookcase said:
>> "JNugent" <jnug...@mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:l2pfda...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> Just to show how effective gun ownership is in preventing murders....
>> but surely you must know this already ?
>>
>> quote:
>>
>> Intentional homicide victims per 100,000 inhabitants
>>
>> Table last fully updated from data retrieved August 10, 2023 from
>> UNODC.
>>
>> US 6.4
>> UK 1.0
>>
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
>
> A average like that fails to identify the usefulness of a gun at dealing
> with an individual attack by an armed assailant. This preventative
> strategy may shift the risk onto an unarmed person but that has no
> bearing on the point made earlier ....
>
> "... you can't and won't stop gun-carrying criminals, whether of the
> armed robber or mass-shooter variety, by making sure that all of
> their potential victims are defenceless against firearms."

But you can make it harder for criminals.

I recall an episode of Gangsters (Catching the Kingpins) on Radio 4
where the police were eavesdropping onto EncroChat conversations. It
seemed quite difficult for criminals to get their hands on a gun and
ammunition, and with high prices. This was put largely down to mandatory
sentencing for possession.

In countries where possession is lawful, you have no chance!

[Mark Goodge]

Ammunition is a big factor, too. Without something to fire from it, a gun is
little more than decoration. So a black market in guns also requires a black
market in ammunition.

But ammunition is actually harder to keep covert than a gun. It's harder to
store, and harder to transport. When the IRA was active, for example, lack
of ammo was often more of a problem for them than lack of guns.

Of course, it's not impossible to transport and trade in contraband
ammunition. In many respects, it's similar to drugs in the way it has to be
handled and concealed.

But there's the rub. Because the kind of people with the motivation to
acquire the skills and contacts necessary to handle that kind of contraband
tend to prefer, well, drugs. Because drugs are more lucrative. And the
penalties for being caught with them, at least at the lower end of the
scale, are less than those for illegal possession of ammunition.

All of which adds up to the fact that it's relatively hard to acquire
ammunition for illegal guns. And that in turn tends to depress demand for
illegal guns. Which reduces the demand for ammunition. So there is even less
incentive to supply it. And so the circle continues.

Mark

[JNugent]

What is the connection?

> Where quite clearly neither Jennifer Crumbley nor her 17 year old son seemed
> overly concerned with any "safety aspects"

That, if true, is for them to answer, just as it seems from the
reactions of the authorities there.

Being "unconcerned" does not mean that no safety procedures were
explained or imparted. But you don't need to have that pointed out.

> And so its perfectly reasonable to ask, is it not, what posible relevance
> "safety aspects" have to to this particular case; except in the fact that
> they've quite clearly been ignored.

They might or might have not been ignored. That's a matter for
individuals involved to answer.

But the suggestion that instruction on accuracy and markmanship had been
given but none on gun safety is "odd" to say the least.

> As indeed
>
> quote:
>
> " 14 Dec 2022 · Gun violence recently surpassed car accidents as the leading cause of
> death for American children. No group of kids has been spared,"
>
> .https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/14/magazine/gun-violence-children-data-statistics.html
>
> :unquote
>
> would appear to confirm
>
>>
>> There is no point in trying to have a go at me, sitting here in the Home Counties, for
>> the general constitutional attitude to firearms in the USA. Believe it or not, it's way
>> outside my control.
>
> Well as Charlton Heston is long dead and Donald Trump is otherwise
> engaged you appear to be the only representative of the gun lobby who
> is currently available
>

They wouldn't have me as a representative.

>> As it happens, I once - a long time ago - had a temporary job helping to fell trees in
>> Cheshire in he projected line of the M56 eastward extension at Lymm. I can tell you
>> that safety instruction came first when becoming familiar with the use of a chainsaw.
>
> At a guess, I would imagine you were actually engaged in cutting off the
> branches of the felled trees.
> And always cutting downwards, as instructed.

No. We were engaged in felling trees, a job which started with chainsaw
cuts (at various angles) into the trunk of the tree a couple of feet off
the ground. None of them were perpendicular to the ground. That would
have been useless.

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <jennings&c...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l3253e...@mid.individual.net...

> On 11/02/2024 16:31, billy bookcase wrote:
>> "JNugent" <jnug...@mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:l2rtd1...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 11/02/2024 08:33 am, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>> "JNugent" <jnug...@mail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:l2pfda...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> On 10/02/2024 10:42 am, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "JNugent" <jnug...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 09/02/2024 07:45 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ... ]

< Gross snippage >

>>>
>>> IOW, the safety aspects come first (like teaching where the brakes are on a first
>>> driving lesson). Accuracy, range-finding, etc, come later.
>>>
>>> Do you doubt that this is the case?
>>>
>>> If so, why?
>>
>> Because Jennifer Crumbley, 45, has been of convicted of involuntary manslaughter
>> in helping buy her 17 year old, apparently mentally disturbed son. a gun; which he
>> subsequently took to school, and shot four of his classmates dead, ?
>>
>> The very subject of this thread.
>
> What is the connection?

Well in you opinion, could the fact that Mrs Crumbley either had or hadn't
had the requisite safety training had any bearing on the possibility of
her being convicted of involuntary manslaughter ?

Or put it this way. If you were the Public Defense Attorney assigned to
helping Mrs Crumbley would you recommend that she produce her
signed and dated Gun Safety Certificate as evidence to be shown
before the Court ?

Wouldn't this make her appear even more guilty in their eyes ?

She knew what she was supposed to do but failed to act ?

So best leave the Gun Safety Certificate in the drawer ?

< more snippage>

>
>>> As it happens, I once - a long time ago - had a temporary job helping to fell trees
>>> in
>>> Cheshire in he projected line of the M56 eastward extension at Lymm. I can tell you
>>> that safety instruction came first when becoming familiar with the use of a chainsaw.
>>
>> At a guess, I would imagine you were actually engaged in cutting off the
>> branches of the felled trees.
>> And always cutting downwards, as instructed.
>
> No. We were engaged in felling trees, a job which started with chainsaw cuts (at
> various angles) into the trunk of the tree a couple of feet off the ground. None of
> them were perpendicular to the ground. That would have been useless.

But always cutting with the bottom of the bar I trust. Because while the
chain and the teeth are travelling towards the user on the bottom of the
bar, if the chain jams in the cut this will throw the saw "away" from
the operator. Same with sawing with the tip which potentially can send it
flying almost anywhere.



bb

>

[JNugent]

On 14/02/2024 15:26, billy bookcase wrote:

> "JNugent" <jennings&c...@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/02/2024 16:31, billy bookcase wrote:

>>> "JNugent" <jnug...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/02/2024 08:33 am, billy bookcase wrote:

>>>>> "JNugent" <jnug...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/02/2024 10:42 am, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>>>>> "JNugent" <jnug...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 09/02/2024 07:45 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>
>>>>>> [ ... ]
>
> < Gross snippage >
>
>>>> IOW, the safety aspects come first (like teaching where the brakes are on a first
>>>> driving lesson). Accuracy, range-finding, etc, come later.
>>>> Do you doubt that this is the case?
>>>> If so, why?
>
>>> Because Jennifer Crumbley, 45, has been of convicted of involuntary manslaughter
>>> in helping buy her 17 year old, apparently mentally disturbed son. a gun; which he
>>> subsequently took to school, and shot four of his classmates dead, ?

Convicted? The last I read she was in the USA equivalent of the remand
stage.

>>>
>>> The very subject of this thread.
>>
>> What is the connection?
>
> Well in you opinion, could the fact that Mrs Crumbley either had or hadn't
> had the requisite safety training had any bearing on the possibility of
> her being convicted of involuntary manslaughter ?

I express no opinion on what the law in her state provides for. I don't
believe though, that it was the lady's experience with firearms which
was in issue. I understood that it was her son who did the shooting and
of whom it was claimed - with whatever or no justification - that while
he had had instruction in shooting accuracy (marksmanship), he had had
none in safety procedures.

There have since been several exchanges on that subject.

> Or put it this way. If you were the Public Defense Attorney assigned to
> helping Mrs Crumbley would you recommend that she produce her
> signed and dated Gun Safety Certificate as evidence to be shown
> before the Court ?

See above.

>
> Wouldn't this make her appear even more guilty in their eyes ?
> She knew what she was supposed to do but failed to act ?
> So best leave the Gun Safety Certificate in the drawer ?

Did she fail to act?

And if she did, on what?

And how, either way, do you know?

> < more snippage>
>
>>>> As it happens, I once - a long time ago - had a temporary job helping to fell trees
>>>> in Cheshire in he projected line of the M56 eastward extension at Lymm. I can tell you
>>>> that safety instruction came first when becoming familiar with the use of a chainsaw.
>
>>> At a guess, I would imagine you were actually engaged in cutting off the
>>> branches of the felled trees.
>>> And always cutting downwards, as instructed.
>
>> No. We were engaged in felling trees, a job which started with chainsaw cuts (at
>> various angles) into the trunk of the tree a couple of feet off the ground. None of
>> them were perpendicular to the ground. That would have been useless.
>
> But always cutting with the bottom of the bar I trust. Because while the
> chain and the teeth are travelling towards the user on the bottom of the
> bar, if the chain jams in the cut this will throw the saw "away" from
> the operator. Same with sawing with the tip which potentially can send it
> flying almost anywhere.

There was a specific safety procedure. It's a long time ago now. I
survived without injury.

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <jennings&c...@mail.com> wrote in message

news:l35a85...@mid.individual.net...

> On 14/02/2024 15:26, billy bookcase wrote:
>
>> "JNugent" <jennings&c...@mail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/02/2024 16:31, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>> "JNugent" <jnug...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/02/2024 08:33 am, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>>>> "JNugent" <jnug...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/02/2024 10:42 am, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>>>>>> "JNugent" <jnug...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 09/02/2024 07:45 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> [ ... ]
>>
>> < Gross snippage >
>>
>>>>> IOW, the safety aspects come first (like teaching where the brakes are on a first
>>>>> driving lesson). Accuracy, range-finding, etc, come later.
>>>>> Do you doubt that this is the case?
>>>>> If so, why?
>>
>>>> Because Jennifer Crumbley, 45, has been of convicted of involuntary manslaughter
>>>> in helping buy her 17 year old, apparently mentally disturbed son. a gun; which he
>>>> subsequently took to school, and shot four of his classmates dead, ?
>
> Convicted? The last I read she was in the USA equivalent of the remand stage.

quote:

" A jury has found a Michigan mother guilty of involuntary manslaughter for
failing to stop her son from carrying out a deadly school shooting."

Jennifer Crumbley, 45, is the first US parent convicted of manslaughter over
a mass shooting carried out by their child.

:unquote

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68223118

>>>>
>>>> The very subject of this thread.
>>>
>>> What is the connection?
>>
>> Well in you opinion, could the fact that Mrs Crumbley either had or hadn't
>> had the requisite safety training had any bearing on the possibility of
>> her being convicted of involuntary manslaughter ?
>
> I express no opinion on what the law in her state provides for. I don't believe though,
> that it was the lady's experience with firearms which was in issue. I understood that
> it was her son who did the shooting and of whom it was claimed - with whatever or no
> justification - that while he had had instruction in shooting accuracy (marksmanship),
> he had had none in safety procedures.
>
> There have since been several exchanges on that subject.
>
>> Or put it this way. If you were the Public Defense Attorney assigned to
>> helping Mrs Crumbley would you recommend that she produce her
>> signed and dated Gun Safety Certificate as evidence to be shown
>> before the Court ?
>
> See above.
>>
>> Wouldn't this make her appear even more guilty in their eyes ?
>> She knew what she was supposed to do but failed to act ?
>> So best leave the Gun Safety Certificate in the drawer ?
>
> Did she fail to act?
>
> And if she did, on what?
>
> And how, either way, do you know?

The point I'm making is that is any proceedings in Court the fact
as to whether she had or hadn't had safety training would be totally
immaterial.

A:

Prosecutor: "Mrs X, have you or your son had safety training ?"

Mrs X : "Yes"

Prosecutor "Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury you heard Mrs X
there admit, yes admit, that she and her son had safety training
and despite this, she did nothing, nothing, to prevent this crime.


B:

Prosecutor: "Mrs X, have you or your son had safety training ?"

Mrs X : "No

Prosecutor: "Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury you heard Mrs X
there admit, yes admit, that neither she nor her son had any
safety training. What kind of mother is this who despite having
had no safety training helps but her son a gun" ?

So given she loses out either way the topic is irrelevant.

Given the above its for the prosecution to raise the topic
if they so chose in order to sway the jury; not for the defence
to do their job for them.

>
>> < more snippage>
>>
>>>>> As it happens, I once - a long time ago - had a temporary job helping to fell trees
>>>>> in Cheshire in he projected line of the M56 eastward extension at Lymm. I can tell
>>>>> you
>>>>> that safety instruction came first when becoming familiar with the use of a
>>>>> chainsaw.
>>
>>>> At a guess, I would imagine you were actually engaged in cutting off the
>>>> branches of the felled trees.
>>>> And always cutting downwards, as instructed.
>>
>>> No. We were engaged in felling trees, a job which started with chainsaw cuts (at
>>> various angles) into the trunk of the tree a couple of feet off the ground. None of
>>> them were perpendicular to the ground. That would have been useless.
>>
>> But always cutting with the bottom of the bar I trust. Because while the
>> chain and the teeth are travelling towards the user on the bottom of the
>> bar, if the chain jams in the cut this will throw the saw "away" from
>> the operator. Same with sawing with the tip which potentially can send it
>> flying almost anywhere.
>
> There was a specific safety procedure. It's a long time ago now. I survived without
> injury.

So you never went on to chop down other trees ? Or even shrubs ?
Or just cutting up logs ?

You were never ever tempted to buy a chainsaw of your own ?
Just so as to be able to display your prowess much to the possible
admiration of both friends and relatives ?


bb

>

[JNugent]

Mea culpa. It must be the boy who is on remand (or USA equiv.).

Did she know it was going to take place?

If you say "No" or "Yes" - how do you know?

>
> B:
>
> Prosecutor: "Mrs X, have you or your son had safety training ?"
>
> Mrs X : "No
>
> Prosecutor: "Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury you heard Mrs X
> there admit, yes admit, that neither she nor her son had any
> safety training. What kind of mother is this who despite having
> had no safety training helps but her son a gun" ?
>
> So given she loses out either way the topic is irrelevant.

You are making huge leaps of illogical thought there.

>
> Given the above its for the prosecution to raise the topic
> if they so chose in order to sway the jury; not for the defence
> to do their job for them.
>
>>> < more snippage>
>
>>>>>> As it happens, I once - a long time ago - had a temporary job helping to fell trees
>>>>>> in Cheshire in he projected line of the M56 eastward extension at Lymm. I can tell
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> that safety instruction came first when becoming familiar with the use of a
>>>>>> chainsaw.
>
>>>>> At a guess, I would imagine you were actually engaged in cutting off the
>>>>> branches of the felled trees.
>>>>> And always cutting downwards, as instructed.
>
>>>> No. We were engaged in felling trees, a job which started with chainsaw cuts (at
>>>> various angles) into the trunk of the tree a couple of feet off the ground. None of
>>>> them were perpendicular to the ground. That would have been useless.
>
>>> But always cutting with the bottom of the bar I trust. Because while the
>>> chain and the teeth are travelling towards the user on the bottom of the
>>> bar, if the chain jams in the cut this will throw the saw "away" from
>>> the operator. Same with sawing with the tip which potentially can send it
>>> flying almost anywhere.
>>
>> There was a specific safety procedure. It's a long time ago now. I survived without
>> injury.
>
> So you never went on to chop down other trees ? Or even shrubs ?
> Or just cutting up logs ?

Not with a chainsaw, no.

> You were never ever tempted to buy a chainsaw of your own ?

No.

> Just so as to be able to display your prowess much to the possible
> admiration of both friends and relatives ?

No.