Gun Control thread (merged many)

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

So why mention it? No one else here has. Is this a problem?

Moderators shouldn't laugh at people ... why did you bring it up?

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by MaDef

@Tchocky, I'm not going to argue semantics over this.

Neither am I. Correcting a blatantly incorrect statement isn't "semantics".
You said the government are doing their damnedest to confiscate weapons. That's. Not. True.

Semantics is the difference between a magazine and a clip when talking about laws.

But I will leave you with this thought. At the present time it's easier/quicker to buy a weapon on the black market than it is to buy one legally.

What? This makes no sense.

Quicker maybe. But there are problems with this line of thinking.

Easier, hell no.

-If you're in a state with a waiting period and if you know the right people.
-If you have a connection you trust.
-If the criminal has the weapon you want at the price you want.
-If you are comfortable committing a crime to get your firearm.
-If you're sure that the seller isn't participating in a sting operation.

This doesn't work out to "quicker/easier". For example, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona and Alaska all have no waiting period before you get your gun.

And that's just the "A" states. I could go on.

so these "feel good" laws that get passed are, in the short term, a waste of time/money/effort, but in the long term, whittles away more of my constitutional rights.

Huh? An extra 200 background checking staff, which merely adds weight to the laws already on the books, is a "feel-good" move? And how do they erode your rights under the 2nd Amendment?

I don't see how background checks for gun sellers does this either.

Or the extra half a billion for mental health services relating to gun violence.

Or the research into "smart gun" technology.

I agree in a sense that small-scale efforts like this are not going to make a huge difference, but that is more reflective of political reality than anything else.

This is all that can be done right now.

Originally Posted by Tchocky

<snip>

Great post!

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

Moderators shouldn't laugh at people ... why did you bring it up?

I'm not laughing, and I wasn't asking as a moderator. I was just curious. You brought it up, for no reason that I can see. Again, if his race and color have no bearing on anything, why mention it at all?

[Onkel Neal]

A case in court to hold the manufacturer accountable in the Sandy Hook massacre.

Wheeler and Barden are part of a potentially precedent-setting lawsuit seeking accountability from gun-maker Remington.


"Our families deserve that day in court," said Joshua Koskoff, an attorney representing nine victims' families and a teacher who survived. "We believe they should be accountable to their fair share of responsibility."

The case has the potential to make history if it goes to trial. A 2005 federal law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, grants gun manufacturers immunity from any lawsuit related to injuries that result from criminal misuse of their product -- in this case the AR-15 rifle.

"It's always been a big uphill battle for plaintiffs to sue the gun industry," said Georgia State University law professor Timothy Lytton. "It was even before the immunity (legislation), and it's an even bigger one now."

One exception to the immunity legislation is what's called "negligent entrustment."

"Say a gun retailer handed a gun to a visibly intoxicated person, then they're not subject to the immunity," said Lytton, who studies gun industry litigation.

You might ask: Since Remington did not come into direct contact with the shooter -- that happened at a gun retailer -- how would that apply? The lawsuit argues that the way in which the company sells and markets a military-style weapon to the civilian market is a form of negligent entrustment.

"Remington took a weapon that was made to the specs of the U.S. military for the purpose of killing enemy soldiers in combat -- and that weapon in the military is cared for with tremendous amount of diligence, in terms of training, storage, who gets the weapon, and who can use it," Koskoff, the attorney for the families, said. "They took that same weapon and started peddling it to the civilian market for the purposes of making a lot of money."

And it is completely legal. I can see holding a manufactuer accountable if they broke the law or took reckless action....but this is like saying a drunk driver who killed someone--quick, what make car was he driving, let's sue them.

At some point this could end up in the SC....

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/22/health...uit/index.html

[August]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

A case in court to hold the manufacturer accountable in the Sandy Hook massacre.



And it is completely legal. I can see holding a manufactuer accountable if they broke the law or took reckless action....but this is like saying a drunk driver who killed someone--quick, what make car was he driving, let's sue them.

At some point this could end up in the SC....

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/22/health...uit/index.html

Maybe they're hoping that the insurer will see a settlement as the cheaper option which would allow the anti's to declare victory. Only nine of the 26 families have signed onto this which should say something to it's overreach.

The larger purpose here however is not to win the lawsuit but rather to impose gun control by bankrupting gun dealers and manufacturers out of business with waves of lawsuits. Even frivolous lawsuits costs money to defend against, money which some, including most small time dealers, can't afford. The only thing that stopping most of them is the PLCAA and that's definitely on their radar to repeal.

Until then I hope that once this attempt fails Remington and the other defendants counter sue the pants off of them for legal costs.

[Oberon]

Even I consider this daft. Sure, it wouldn't hurt gun manufacturers to create safer, tamper-free guns, but you can't sue someone for it.
Heck, it's not as if the weapon didn't do its job, it did it very well, can't blame them for that. In fact, to be honest, the only blame to be put around here is squarely at the shooters feet. His mother had the firearms, yes, and he was able to access them, but he was 20 years old and she had no reason to think that he'd do something crazy, despite his psychological issues, which to be honest, many other people have had and have not shot up a school.
It's really only in hindsight that red flags start appearing, sadly.

[Skybird]

If the authorities would know what I can do with a simple kitchen knife or a provisional baton, a Kubotan or a Tonfa , following this case's logic I would need to have a SWAT team jumping on me in no time.

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

A case in court to hold the manufacturer accountable in the Sandy Hook massacre.



And it is completely legal. I can see holding a manufactuer accountable if they broke the law or took reckless action....but this is like saying a drunk driver who killed someone--quick, what make car was he driving, let's sue them.

At some point this could end up in the SC....

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/22/health...uit/index.html

I try not to even think of Sandy Hook considering how absolutely horrible and unimaginable things were. No matter what happened to the shooter, the parents were essentially given a life sentence of remembering their lost child that was senselessly taken away. We all feel terrible of what happened.

Nothing is going to bring those lost children back. Legal actions such as this are essentially to assign blame. I'm sure the gun manufacturer had no idea this was going to take place. As long as the gun manufacturer legally manufactured and sold the weapons through legally authorized stores and outlets, they are blameless.

Everyone including Oberon and August made good points as well. It could be these lawyers want to make a name for themselves in that they slayed the " dragon " There has to be a common sense way to keep weapons out of the hands of those who shouldn't possess them. This isn't the way. I hope the case is dismissed.

As you said Neal, vehicles of every kind kill a greater number of people every year in auto crashes. Should they be banned as well ?

[U505995]

I'm a pro-gun guy but I found this cartoon that made me laugh.

No Obama was never going to take er guns, but all they people were going crazy over it.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

I try not to even think of Sandy Hook considering how absolutely horrible and unimaginable things were. No matter what happened to the shooter, the parents were essentially given a life sentence of remembering their lost child that was senselessly taken away. We all feel terrible of what happened....
As you said Neal, vehicles of every kind kill a greater number of people every year in auto crashes. Should they be banned as well ?

I would opine that more children are "taken away" because of alcohol related events than by guns. But I don't see anyone pushing for more alcohol.

Some claim that the "only purpose" of a gun is to kill. Ok, accepting that argument I would counter that the "only purpose" of alcohol is to impair judgement and get people drunk.

Which is the greater threat to society?

Well the answer is what ever you don't personally enjoy doing.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I would opine that more children are "taken away" because of alcohol related events than by guns. But I don't see anyone pushing for more alcohol.

Some claim that the "only purpose" of a gun is to kill. Ok, accepting that argument I would counter that the "only purpose" of alcohol is to impair judgement and get people drunk.

Which is the greater threat to society?

Well the answer is what ever you don't personally enjoy doing.

Well said.

[Platapus]

The easiest right to infringe is a right you don't personally use.

As an atheist, I would not mind if the First Amendment right to freedom of religion were to be repealed. Might solve some problems.

However, as an American, I will fight to maintain the citizen's right to freedom of religion as I recognize that my personal feelings/opinions/beliefs should not dictate what others are allowed to do. I also recognize that despite some extremists, religion is positive influence on our society.

I wish the anti-gun people would have the same thought process.

In any case if safety and "think of the children" is truly the motivation, guns are low on the list of stuff that needs fixin' in this country.

So, sure, put the risks to our citizens in order of most occurrences and start working on fixing that list. When we fix the other stuff, then perhaps we can start talking about guns.

But when guns are moved to the top of the list, logic is simply not the primary motivator. Emotions and politics are.

A right should not be infringed based on emotions or politics.

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I would opine that more children are "taken away" because of alcohol related events than by guns. But I don't see anyone pushing for more alcohol.

Some claim that the "only purpose" of a gun is to kill. Ok, accepting that argument I would counter that the "only purpose" of alcohol is to impair judgement and get people drunk.

Which is the greater threat to society?

Well the answer is what ever you don't personally enjoy doing.

I'm not sure if I would agree alcohol takes more kids lives but without statistical numbers.... Maybe from drunk drivers I'm thinking. However, your point is well made that there are more important things to fix and as we both said, you can't ban cars and alcohol although they did try to ban alcohol once.

As usual, you present a thought provoking post and thread.

Originally Posted by Platapus

I would opine that more children are "taken away" because of alcohol related events than by guns. But I don't see anyone pushing for more alcohol.

Some claim that the "only purpose" of a gun is to kill. Ok, accepting that argument I would counter that the "only purpose" of alcohol is to impair judgement and get people drunk.

Which is the greater threat to society?

Well the answer is what ever you don't personally enjoy doing.

I wonder, why do people always bring a completely different problem into the debate?
This is the gun control thread. Not the alcohol abuse thread.
While I get your point, I don't think it is sensible to go along with it.

Debate the topic, don't create straw-men like that, or "cars" (the usual excuse).
(And no, I am still not anti-gun.)