Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2017 23:17:39 GMT -5
There, there, Vince. I'll make fun of your typos.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Nov 18, 2017 23:18:28 GMT -5
The PLCAA bars suits "for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended." www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7901 That's not either of your cases. The Cricket case did not involve someone's "criminal or unlawful" misuse of the product. And Tylenol didn't involve a product functioning "as designed and intended" (it was facing a strict liability casei.e., the defective product injured the consumer ). The PLCAA bars suits for negligence. They allow suits for negligent entrustment (essentially, selling a gun to someone who the seller thinks may commit a crime) and negligence per se (breaking a law). There is no recourse for negligence. The Cricket case was predicated upon negligence. Not negligence per se--there was no law at the time barring the manufacture of a lighter a toddler might be able to operate. As I'm sure you know, there is a difference between negligence, and negligence per se. So, the PLCAA allows suits for negligence per se (essentially, acts that violate the law) and for negligent entrustment (essentially, selling a gun to someone the seller knows to be dangerous). This is all fine and good, but what the PLCAA does is prevent legal suit for anything beyond these clearly criminal acts. The PLCAA protects a host of other actions by gun manufacturers and sellers, whether they could in fact be deemed negligent under existing tort law. Here's an analysis of how the PLCAA protects manufacturers and sellers from the problem of gun theft: scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1271&context=flrI read the whole thing, all 49 pages. It's compelling. Read it, or don't, but the idea that the PLCAA is "no big deal" is disproved, I think, by this particular analysis which is solely focused on gun theft.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2017 23:23:15 GMT -5
Did you read all of the links I posted in this thread in their entirety?
The cases? The articles? The PLCAA itself?
Or did you just google for articles that agreed with you?
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Nov 18, 2017 23:28:10 GMT -5
haggis , Angie , robeiae , cray and I pretty much live to make jokes about one another's typos. OK, mostly we make jokes about cray's typos. Be that as it may, we are still making fun of typos made years ago. Hence why we "founce" instead of "flounce," among other things. I take particular delight in jumping on Haggis's before he has time to catch and correct them. He usually catches them pretty quickly, so I have to be quick on the draw. Yes, and that IS funny, but it's a bit different when you're friends, wouldn't you say? Or are Opty and nighttimer friends, and Opty was just making a good-humored joke, and nighttimer would be chuckling and gaffawing if he were here? Seriously, don't play the daft card.
|
|
|
Post by haggis on Nov 18, 2017 23:35:06 GMT -5
haggis , Angie , robeiae , cray and I pretty much live to make jokes about one another's typos. OK, mostly we make jokes about cray's typos. Be that as it may, we are still making fun of typos made years ago. Hence why we "founce" instead of "flounce," among other things. I take particular delight in jumping on Haggis's before he has time to catch and correct them. He usually catches them pretty quickly, so I have to be quick on the draw. For the record, I have enough problems with my own prostate. I protest your blatant attempt to proselytize about the prostration of those who might protest were they here. So I won't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2017 23:35:47 GMT -5
haggis , Angie , robeiae , cray and I pretty much live to make jokes about one another's typos. OK, mostly we make jokes about cray's typos. Be that as it may, we are still making fun of typos made years ago. Hence why we "founce" instead of "flounce," among other things. I take particular delight in jumping on Haggis's before he has time to catch and correct them. He usually catches them pretty quickly, so I have to be quick on the draw. Yes, and that IS funny, but it's a bit different when you're friends, wouldn't you say? Or are Opty and nighttimer friends, and Opty was just making a good-humored joke, and nighttimer would be chuckling and gaffawing if he were here? Seriously, don't play the daft card. That was my way of saying that I don't have a problem with the joke. Seriously, cut the drama.
|
|
|
Post by haggis on Nov 18, 2017 23:39:13 GMT -5
I'm feeling particularly aggrieved that nobody makes fun of my typos. Maybe I shouldn't use spell check so often? But then you guys would never understand anything I write. For the record Vince, You misspelled "rite."
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Nov 18, 2017 23:39:13 GMT -5
Did you read all of the links I posted in this thread in their entirety? The cases? The articles? The PLCAA itself? Or did you just google for articles that agreed with you? Yes, I read all the links you posted in their entirety. Also the PLCAA itself, which is saved as a .pdf to my desktop. I'll take it you haven't read the .pdf I linked yet, because it was about 3 minutes between my posting it and your response. It is a 46 page article from the Florida Law Review by a (I checked) highly esteemed attorney and professor of law. I have read a ton of articles in the last few days on the PLCAA. None of them have claimed ,as you claim, that the PLCAA has had no real effect on litigation.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Nov 18, 2017 23:48:06 GMT -5
Yes, and that IS funny, but it's a bit different when you're friends, wouldn't you say? Or are Opty and nighttimer friends, and Opty was just making a good-humored joke, and nighttimer would be chuckling and gaffawing if he were here? Seriously, don't play the daft card. That was my way of saying that I don't have a problem with the joke. Seriously, cut the drama. There's no "drama." Just me stating my opinion. It's illuminating to know that you don't have a problem with Opty's "joke." It's also irrelevant to me stating my own opinion of Opty's "joke."
|
|
|
Post by haggis on Nov 19, 2017 0:00:28 GMT -5
That was my way of saying that I don't have a problem with the joke. Seriously, cut the drama. There's no "drama." Just me stating my opinion. It's illuminating to know that you don't have a problem with Opty's "joke." It's also irrelevant to me stating my own opinion of Opty's "joke." Christine, sometimes typos are simply funny. We all make them. The fact that NT isn't here at this moment is, I think, irrelevant in this case. It's not like he has anything to defend. Everyone knows it was a typo. Like all of us make. All the time. If, when NT comes back, he decides to, he can certainly double down and defend his word choice, but I'm thinking it's not that freaking important and that maybe we should move on,
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2017 0:27:22 GMT -5
Indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Nov 19, 2017 0:41:52 GMT -5
There's no "drama." Just me stating my opinion. It's illuminating to know that you don't have a problem with Opty's "joke." It's also irrelevant to me stating my own opinion of Opty's "joke." Christine, sometimes typos are simply funny. We all make them. The fact that NT isn't here at this moment is, I think, irrelevant in this case. It's not like he has anything to defend. Everyone knows it was a typo. Like all of us make. All the time. If, when NT comes back, he decides to, he can certainly double down and defend his word choice, but I'm thinking it's not that freaking important and that maybe we should move on, Yes, it was an objectively funny typo. But making fun of such while someone is not here, by someone who has never shown any semblance of friendship, equates to basically laughing at them "behind their back," as opposed to playful fun where all the participants are friends. Also, I must add the idea that NT would defend his word choice is objectively funny. BUT I'M NOT LAUGHING, HAGGIS. (I will deny it upon pain of death) Moving on....
|
|
|
Post by haggis on Nov 19, 2017 1:00:01 GMT -5
Christine, sometimes typos are simply funny. We all make them. The fact that NT isn't here at this moment is, I think, irrelevant in this case. It's not like he has anything to defend. Everyone knows it was a typo. Like all of us make. All the time. If, when NT comes back, he decides to, he can certainly double down and defend his word choice, but I'm thinking it's not that freaking important and that maybe we should move on, Yes, it was an objectively funny typo. But making fun of such while someone is not here, by someone who has never shown any semblance of friendship, equates to basically laughing at them "behind their back," as opposed to playful fun where all the participants are friends. Also, I must add the idea that NT would defend his word choice is objectively funny. BUT I'M NOT LAUGHING, HAGGIS. (I will deny it upon pain of death) Moving on.... I assume the use of capital letters is intended to let me know you're serious. But, hey. We're talking about a typo. And you're turning it into a capitol case because NT can't defend his typo at this time. WTF? Why is this such a big deal for you? Nobody is laughing at NT. We're chuckling over a typo. The kind of thing we all do. All the time. Like I said before. But, you know, as long as you want to move on....
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Nov 19, 2017 1:18:05 GMT -5
Yes, it was an objectively funny typo. But making fun of such while someone is not here, by someone who has never shown any semblance of friendship, equates to basically laughing at them "behind their back," as opposed to playful fun where all the participants are friends. Also, I must add the idea that NT would defend his word choice is objectively funny. BUT I'M NOT LAUGHING, HAGGIS. (I will deny it upon pain of death) Moving on.... I assume the use of capital letters is intended to let me know you're serious. But, hey. We're talking about a typo. And you're turning it into a capitol case because NT can't defend his typo at this time. WTF? Why is this such a big deal for you? Nobody is laughing at NT. We're chuckling over a typo. The kind of thing we all do. All the time. Like I said before. But, you know, as long as you want to move on.... The all caps was meant to be hyperbolic. There is no defending of a typo, so I thought your mention of the possibility of such was funny, especially considering NT's propensity for doubling down. That said, NT is in a temporary ban, so I think the best course of action is to not address his posts while he is gone, even if it's just all in good fun, which, I'm sorry I doubt, but I do. Imagine if you were on a board, got a temp ban, and people you were constantly at odds with (to put it mildly) poked fun at your posts in your absence. It's a cheap shot, imo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2017 1:31:16 GMT -5
Did you read all of the links I posted in this thread in their entirety? The cases? The articles? The PLCAA itself? Or did you just google for articles that agreed with you? Yes, I read all the links you posted in their entirety. Also the PLCAA itself, which is saved as a .pdf to my desktop. I'll take it you haven't read the .pdf I linked yet, because it was about 3 minutes between my posting it and your response. It is a 46 page article from the Florida Law Review by a (I checked) highly esteemed attorney and professor of law. I have read a ton of articles in the last few days on the PLCAA. None of them have claimed ,as you claim, that the PLCAA has had no real effect on litigation. For someone who got all fussed about whether "three" qualifies as "several", you sure do play fast and loose with my words. I never said it had no effect. I said that IMO many gun control proponents exaggerated its effects. I supported that point with, among other things, examples of cases permitted under exceptions to the PLCAA, with logic, and with legal analysis (which, as a legal expert myself, I am qualified to do) drawing distinctions between the cases barred by the PLCAA and the cases you cited. Laugh if you like, but I put a good bit of thought, trouble, and research into it. You come back with "Here, this 46 page article doesn't agree that the PLCAA has no effect! Refute it!" Yeah, no. I'm pro gun control -- I actually don't care about convincing you on this. And I don't think you're interested in considering my arguments. So, what's the point. I have more fun things to do with my weekend. It's late and I'm tired, both in general and of this argument. I'm going to bed.
|
|