|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 6, 2017 21:58:27 GMT -5
THAT is why it's not too soon to talk about this, "low class" though it may be. The best time to talk about it is BEFORE THE NEXT ONE HAPPENS. I'd submit we should have a conversation about gun regulation, but not right after something like this as if this triggered it (No pun intended) where we're trying to say, if we only had this regulation, this would not have happened. Well, until we know what happened, how a new law would affect. Fine. How about THIS one?If there's a good reason why firearm makers should enjoy a protection denied to automobile manufacturers or drug companies, I'd like to know what it is.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 6, 2017 22:25:54 GMT -5
I'd submit we should have a conversation about gun regulation, but not right after something like this as if this triggered it (No pun intended) where we're trying to say, if we only had this regulation, this would not have happened. Well, until we know what happened, how a new law would affect. Fine. How about THIS one?If there's a good reason why firearm makers should enjoy a protection denied to automobile manufacturers or drug companies, I'd like to know what it is. Yeah, so if I understand that a gun dealer or manufacturer can be sued because a gun they made is used to shoot someone. So every time someone is shot or killed, that results in a lawsuit against someone for making a product. I don't think there's a rush to sue car manufacturers for car accidents. Or people who make liquor products for drunk driving. And a tax on a product is another way to punish gun makers for what the owners do. I don't see how either stops violence with guns. It's another way to shift the fault from the perpetrator to the maker.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 7, 2017 1:30:46 GMT -5
Yeah, so if I understand that a gun dealer or manufacturer can be sued because a gun they made is used to shoot someone. So every time someone is shot or killed, that results in a lawsuit against someone for making a product. I don't think there's a rush to sue car manufacturers for car accidents. Or people who make liquor products for drunk driving. And a tax on a product is another way to punish gun makers for what the owners do. I don't see how either stops violence with guns. It's another way to shift the fault from the perpetrator to the maker. That's not comparing apples to apples. A car accident occurs as the result of either a defect in the car, lack of proper maintence of the car, driver error, or natural circumstances. Drunk driving occurs when people drink too much - then drive. Which is contraindicated by manufacturers of both items ("drink responsibly") and by the law. In both of those cases, either the product's been used incorrectly, or something's gone wrong. With assault rifles, for example, killing is exactly what they're made for. So if the product is used as intended, people die.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 7, 2017 7:38:19 GMT -5
Well...if people get drunk, then the liquor is being used as intended. And when people get drunk, they can do stupid things. I, for one, would like to be able to sue Anheuser-Busch for 35 years of embarrassing moments...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2017 8:13:01 GMT -5
Yeah, so if I understand that a gun dealer or manufacturer can be sued because a gun they made is used to shoot someone. So every time someone is shot or killed, that results in a lawsuit against someone for making a product. I don't think there's a rush to sue car manufacturers for car accidents. Or people who make liquor products for drunk driving. And a tax on a product is another way to punish gun makers for what the owners do. I don't see how either stops violence with guns. It's another way to shift the fault from the perpetrator to the maker. That's not comparing apples to apples. A car accident occurs as the result of either a defect in the car, lack of proper maintence of the car, driver error, or natural circumstances. Drunk driving occurs when people drink too much - then drive. Which is contraindicated by manufacturers of both items ("drink responsibly") and by the law. In both of those cases, either the product's been used incorrectly, or something's gone wrong. With assault rifles, for example, killing is exactly what they're made for. So if the product is used as intended, people die. You can't spell assault rifle without "assault." Well...if people get drunk, then the liquor is being used as intended. And when people get drunk, they can do stupid things. I, for one, would like to be able to sue Anheuser-Busch for 35 years of embarrassing moments... It's intended for people to drink. That isn't the same as intending to get them drunk. I drink regularly. I rarely even get buzzed. The last time I was actually drunk -- a long time ago. Lots of us social drinkers who just enjoy the taste of wine, beer, scotch, whatever. In fact, it's most of us. Getting drunk is misusing it. Similarly, the purpose of food is not to eat until you puke. Though, of course, it could happen. Also, misusing booze is rarely fatal (except perhaps to the user, after an extended period of misuse ). Guns, on the other hand... ETA: Also, outside of the military, what is exactly the purpose of people owning powerful guns that can shoot lots of times without stopping to reload? Do hunters need to kill 26 deer all at once?
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 7, 2017 8:28:08 GMT -5
Booze is also not intended to be combined with driving.
That was the part of that example I meant to stress.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 7, 2017 8:37:43 GMT -5
The booze example was a little tongue-in-cheek. I do think comparing guns to booze, in terms of consequences, is absurd.
But that said:
1) What qualifies as "misusing booze" is a matter of opinion. Alcohol is a drug. There is an addictive component and alcohol companies--like tobacco companies--count on that element, dispite their investment in "responsible use" advertising.
2) Imo, the "power" of a gun is largely inconsequential, with regard to purpose. A simple handgun, for instance, is made to kill people, even moreso than any sort of rifle, since it's completely useless for hunting.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 7, 2017 8:59:22 GMT -5
A car is meant to drive, but not to drive into people as happened last week in NYC.
A gun is meant to shoot, not to commit murder, mass or otherwise.
The idea of allowing lawsuits seems to be an end run around the 2nd amendment. We can't take away someone's 2nd amendment, so we'll just litigate them out of existence. That's seems to be the intent behind lawsuits of that nature. And that kind of arguments make someone like me, an non gun owner who would be open to reasonable laws, non sympathetic to new gun regs.
And yes, the booze is tongue in cheek, but to make the point. Many things can be used to hurt or kill, but guns are singled out where the person using the weapon isn't the sole person responsible for the use of it in an illegal way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2017 9:09:20 GMT -5
An assault rifle is meant to shoot...what?
Serious question here. You don't shoot 26 deer at once. Do you really need to shoot a target for fun a zillion times without reloading, even assuming fun is protected by the second amendment? Assault rifles were made to shoot people. Their use to do other things is like using an armored tank to go to the mall.
We've amended the Constitution and retracted amendments before. The second amendment is not sacred. And certainly it could be clarified and limited. I reject that it belongs in the same space as the first and fourth amendments, which I think are essential to democracy. It's more in a space with prohibition and slavery, IMO -- maybe it's time to admit it's not working.
I actually don't want to take people's hunting rifles away. What I want are very strict background checks, very strict gun laws, and I'd like see to see rigorous standards for a license before you are permitted to own a gun.
ETA:
Yes, I know prohibition and the war on drugs weren't very effective at stopping people from using alcohol and drugs. But I think guns are quite a bit different, IMO.
Alcohol and drugs, lots and lots of people want and see as relatively harmless. That creates a huge demand for them, hence making them quite lucrative to produce illegally. Most people were willing to turn a blind eye to illegal production, sale, and use -- and to use the products themselves. Also, they are easy to produce -- you can do so in your basement. Hence, fighting them is a losing battle, and a fairly pointless one. Far better to legalize and regulate them -- which also will likely result in safer products and better treatment for those who do misuse them.
What percentage of the population feels that way about assault rifles? .
ETA:
To note -- gun control seems to work pretty well in other countries. Do bad people sometimes get hold of one? Sure. But come on, there's nothing like the gun violence we have here. Not to mention the accidental shootings.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 7, 2017 10:04:53 GMT -5
Okay, to answer Cassandra's question - I own an AR-15. I also own some extra large (40-round) magazines which are legal to own (but not buy) in my state. "Why would you want an assault rifle??"Leaving aside semantic arguments about what is and is not an "assault rifle," the simple answer is that I like shooting as a hobby (or used to - my guns have actually been gathering dust for a while). I don't hunt - I just shoot at paper targets. (An AR-15 could be used as a hunting rifle, but it's not really the proper caliber.) I chose an AR-15 because I used to be in the Army and I wanted to practice with something like the rifle I'd used in the military. An AR-15 is really not more dangerous than a lot of hunting rifles that can also take large magazines. It's less dangerous than a lot of them, in fact, since many hunting rifles are higher caliber and have a longer range. An AR-15 is scary because it "looks military" (because it's a civilian version of a military rifle). But that's why we have semantic arguments about the term "assault rifle." The actual design of a real assault rifle is meant to facilitate carrying it into battle, so yes, an AR-15 is a better choice for storming bunkers or exchanging fire in street combat, but as far as using it for mass murders, again, other than looking scarier, it isn't any worse than a lot of less scary-looking hunting rifles. "Why would anyone buy a large magazine if they don't plan to kill people?"If you've ever been at the range, you know that "down time" spent reloading is tedious and annoying (and hard on your fingers). Being able to shoot more rounds before you have to reload is convenient and enjoyable. Yes, it also makes it possible to shoot more people before you reload, if that's your intent. I understand that. I probably would not be hugely opposed to a law banning 40-round magazines. I'm just explaining that there are legitimate reasons for hobbyists who don't plan on killing anyone to own "assault rifles" with large magazines. Why would anyone own (some large number) of rounds?Another thing that often comes up (though not here, yet) is people aghast at someone owning hundreds or even thousands of rounds of ammunition. Why would you buy that much ammo if you're not planning something nefarious? Again, it's simple. You can easily shoot a couple hundred rounds at a full day at the range. And ammunition, like anything else, is cheaper in bulk. So someone who goes to the range regularly might well buy a crate of boxes of 50-100 rounds at a time. That doesn't even require one to be a "prepper" as an explanation. Just putting that out there. If you want to argue that AR-15s should be illegal, or large capacity magazines should be illegal, or owning more than X rounds of ammo should be illegal, you can argue that, but at least understand that owning any or all of the above does not make one either a crazy survivalist or someone planning a mass murder - they are all perfectly normal for serious sport shooters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2017 10:59:32 GMT -5
Well, but that purpose comes down to "fun hobby for some people." And the argument for large magazines is "annoying element making things slightly less fun for those people."
I'm willing to let people have their rifles to hunt or shoot targets (with appropriate checks, etc.). But I'm not so troubled if they have the annoyance of reloading more often.
Some people might have fun harmlessly chucking hand grenades at piles of dirt. But if I'm not mistaken, we don't legally allow that kind of fun.
I do know and understand that not everyone who shoots at targets and hates reloading is a homicidal nut. (I had a boyfriend who owned guns for hunting and fun -- I even went shooting with him a couple if times, though not to kill anything. For the record, it was fun. So I totally get that not everyone who likes guns is an irresponsible nut.) I just don't regard a minor annoyance with regard to a hobby to be something our constitution should be read to protect against.
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Nov 7, 2017 11:01:25 GMT -5
Serious question here. You don't shoot 26 deer at once. Do you really need to shoot a target for fun a zillion times without reloading, even assuming fun is protected by the second amendment? Assault rifles were made to shoot people. Their use to do other things is like using an armored tank to go to the mall. Most hunters I know would never invite someone like that to their hunting group again. In fact, they'd sound out the person before the first invitation to see if they match their code. They take pride in one shot, one kill. If you need to track prey to kill it, you failed as a hunter. Sometimes that happens, but the hunters feel bad because they've caused suffering. Someone who needs to put ten bullets into the prey is not only an awful hunter but a terrible person, according to those hunters. They take pride in what they do. They take pride in what they are.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 7, 2017 11:16:22 GMT -5
The point is, what the lawsuit is for is to punish someone who makes or sells a gun when they have no control over what someone will do with the gun. The desired end result is what? That they shouldn't sell it to someone that will use it for murder? They can't know that at the time of purchase. So the desired result is to stop they from selling the gun. Which is a way of outlawing the gun without officially outlawing the gun. If one wants to make the case for outlawing a specific gun, make that case.
We could tell gun makers and sellers to put something on the box the gun and ammo comes in that says "This weapon is not intended for use in the slaughter of human beings." But I think we all know that will have no affect. It's like having a warning on a can of nuts that say, "May contain nuts."
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 7, 2017 11:58:25 GMT -5
Well, but that purpose comes down to "fun hobby for some people." And the argument for large magazines is "annoying element making things slightly less fun for those people." I'm willing to let people have their rifles to hunt or shoot targets (with appropriate checks, etc.). But I'm not so troubled if they have the annoyance of reloading more often. Some people might have fun harmlessly chucking hand grenades at piles of dirt. But if I'm not mistaken, we don't legally allow that kind of fun. I do know and understand that not everyone who shoots at targets and hates reloading is a homicidal nut. (I had a boyfriend who owned guns for hunting and fun -- I even went shooting with him a couple if times, though not to kill anything. For the record, it was fun. So I totally get that not everyone who likes guns is an irresponsible nut.) I just don't regard a minor annoyance with regard to a hobby to be something our constitution should be read to protect against. That's not an unreasonable argument. But the more unreasonable version is "So why should you be allowed (X) at all?" Somewhere between "Everything is allowed" and "Nothing is allowed" is a reasonable compromise, but an awful lot of people on both sides will not see any compromise as reasonable, which means it's never going to be a settled issue. As for the lawsuit issue: the problem with this is that if you can sue any gun manufacturer if anyone uses their gun to kill someone, you're effectively putting all gun manufacturers out of business. In other words, it's not tort reform, it's just a backdoor gun prohibition.
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Nov 7, 2017 12:07:07 GMT -5
Serious questions - considering how flooded the US is with guns*, what can realistically be done outside of doing like Australia and ban guns and then have a gun amnesty collection? I can already imagine the hyperventilation on Fox News if this would ever be suggested. It's basically impossible. No new laws are going to change it, and mass-shootings will continue with the guns that are already in circulation. Isn't a new law basically doing something for the sake of appearing to do something, even if the doing has no real effect? * In 2016 there were about 330 million guns in circulation, owned by about a third of the population.
|
|