|
Post by Amadan on Nov 8, 2017 12:00:10 GMT -5
It's easy for you shit all over a reasonable proposal. It's impossible for you to come up with a better one. Okay, what are the grounds you consider reasonable for suing gun manufacturers, and what can they do to avoid such lawsuits? If your answer is "Don't sell guns" or "Don't sell guns (that shoot more than X rounds/look like military rifles/are popular with mass murderers/etc." then you're not really looking for civil liability for defective products/irresponsible manufacturing, you're looking for a way to effectively ban something that can't be banned legislatively. If that is the case, just admit you want them banned and wanting to sue gun manufacturers is a way of getting around the inability to outright ban them. Which is a pragmatic strategy for people who want to ban guns, but it's perfectly reasonable to oppose this both from a gun rights perspective and from the perspective that that's not the intended purpose of civil liability. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is not quite as extensive as you're implying. The PLCAA protects gun manufacturers from being sued for a gun being criminally misused. In other words, if you buy a gun and commit a crime with it, your victims can't sue the gun manufacturer. This is a protection car manufacturers don't have - if you buy a car and use it to mow down a sidewalk full of pedestrians, the victims could sue the car manufacturer. But it probably wouldn't succeed, and people don't usually hold the car maker to blame. A lot of people were suing gun manufacturers, so Congress passed the PLCAA. Gun manufacturers can still be sued for defective products (e.g., if your gun malfunctions and hurts someone). They can also still be sued for selling to retailers known to perform insufficient criminal background checks, as can the retailers. The Sandy Hook lawsuit tried to adapt that strategy by claiming that selling AR-15s to civilians was defacto negligent marketing. That suit was dismissed, though the appeal is being heard later this month. So what exactly are you advocating? That gun manufacturers should be able to be sued for: 1. Manufacturing guns used in criminal acts? That would be prohibited by the PLCAA, for good reason (unless your actual objective in suing is to effect a gun ban). 2. Manufacturing guns that malfunction and cause injury? You can still sue them for that. 3. Selling guns negligently (i.e., knowing more or less that they're being heavily sold to criminals, drug dealers, etc.)? The PLCAA doesn't prevent that directly. 4. Selling guns "negligently" (i.e., selling guns you don't think should be sold)? See #1, but that is being appealed.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 8, 2017 12:38:32 GMT -5
Tongue-in-cheek? These were 26 human beings from ages 17 months to 77 years old slaughtered in a house of worship and you want to be flippant TWO DAYS after a massacre? If it's too early to discuss gun control then it's too early to crack wise about dead babe. Oh, please. Nowhere have I said anything about it being too early to discuss something. And my comment had nothing to do with the people who were killed. If you're so emotionally feeble that you can't separate such things, then perhaps you should avoid all human contact for a week or two, until you can manage to process things. A pathetic attempt to pat yourself on the back for your superior empathy, even as you shit on anyone else who dares to show their empathy by offering thought and prayers. Newsflash, NT: it's true that thoughts and prayers aren't changing anything, but neither are your--and others--faux outrage fests on that subject. This is the company you're keeping, models of compassion all: Side note: you know what's funny? A lot of the people I see who are all ragey over "thoughts and prayers" seem to really like hashtag activism, which strikes me as not all that removed from an expression of sympathy ("thniking of you," "sending positive thought," etc.), more often than not Side note: Nothing's funny about this. I didn't know Keith Olbermann, Wil Wheaton and whomever that last guy is were members of The Colline Gate, but even if they are, I keep my own company. The company that doesn't find the funny in dead babies. Dear Lord, the nightmares that await those first-responders. I'm not "emotionally feeble" robeiae. I'm just not emotionally callous to introduce lame attempts at humor into a thread where nothing is funny. Your own sense of "humor" may be calibrated somewhat differently. And "thoughts and prayers" are still useless bullshit. 26 people were butchered like cattle in God's house. If the prayers they sent to God went unanswered, it's not likely yours are going to be heard.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 8, 2017 12:46:25 GMT -5
Wil Weaton is an actor who played Wesley Crusher on Star Trek TNG and has appeared often as himself on Big Bang Theory. For the record, he apologized right after he sent that tweet.
Here's the thing. There's nothing wrong with offering thoughts and prayers when something like this happens, and Wil apologized because to condemn that as if there's no value to prayer in a situation where the victims were praying seems grotesque. An atheist may not find any value in prayers, but clearly the victims did and offering them shouldn't be shamed. Doing so only makes people tune out whatever else you offer.
If one wants to criticize a politician for only offering thoughts and prayers instead of also offering a legislative solution, I've got no issue with that.
But when the people prayer shaming act like a hashtag can save the world, and don't address the issue themselves without demonizing, and with proposals like let's sue gum makers for following the law, then you're not helping either.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 8, 2017 14:04:44 GMT -5
Okay, look - after horrific tragedies, some people are going to react inappropriately and while that deserves calling out, it is human nature that people are often not at their best when reacting in anger, shock, and horror. So I think rob is making rather too much of Wil Wheaton and Keith Olbermann's tweets - yes, they were insensitive, but not everyone has a public relations manager to keep them from tweeting while emotions are running hot. (Or at all - what Wil Wheaton tweets after a mass shooting pales in comparison to what Trump tweets on a daily basis.) But you're making rather too much of using the word "funny" in proximity to a tragedy. Like, you know perfectly well that rob was not saying that a church full of dead people was "funny" and picking out that word was just a cheap potshot. Also, dark humor is a thing. It may not be your thing, but it doesn't make someone an evil person because they get snarky even in the midst of tragedy.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 8, 2017 17:03:14 GMT -5
Rob's funny was supposed to mean knee slapping laughter, it was it's an odd thing that... And I think we all knew that.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Nov 8, 2017 20:04:25 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. That's not an unreasonable argument. No it's not. And not only that, it is A VERY GOOD ARGUMENT. So... in answer, you say: But that wasn't the argument. It wasn't all or nothing. Not everyone is all or nothing, not by a long shot. To use the existence of extremes on either side is not a counterargument. If you don't have a better one, then may I take it you agree with Cass, that the enjoyment of shooting an AR-15, of not having to reload so often, of stockpiling ammo because bulk purchases save money, are not valid arguments against enacting laws against these things?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 8, 2017 22:56:12 GMT -5
No,I do not. There is a difference between acknowledging that an argument is not unreasonable, and agreeing with it in its entirety.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Nov 8, 2017 23:18:48 GMT -5
No,I do not. There is a difference between acknowledging that an argument is not unreasonable, and agreeing with it in its entirety. So, what is your counterargument? Because you didn't make one.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 8, 2017 23:30:26 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. This is such a crock of utter shit. WHY should gun manufacturers enjoy a protection NO OTHER BUSINESS IN AMERICA has? Because of the fucking 2nd Amendment or because of the fucking NRA? A gun is not meant to shoot. A gun is meant to kill. You don't use it to hammer nails or club a deer. You buy a gun because you either really enjoy target-shooting or you may want to use it to kill someone. That's ALL a gun is for. I don't give a damn about what a non-gun owner who wants to blow off the next killing spree because he thinks Colt deserves to be lawsuit-free thinks is a "reasonable law" and who needs your sympathy? If you have none for those dead kids at Sandy Hook back in 2012, why would you have any for the dead kids at Sutherland Springs. I think the majority of shootings are dealing with illegal guns. There's also a culture which outlawing guns isn't going to change.
More Than 80 Percent of Guns Used in Mass Shootings Obtained LegallyBut what? Here. I'll finish your sentence. "I support the 2nd Amendment, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean you need an arsenal or you should be allowed to buy a gun if you're fucking nuts or you've committed violent acts against your own family like cracking your stepson's skull." Yeah, that's really extreme, Vince. it's also a crap argument. NOBODY is seriously proposing eliminating the 2nd Amendment because it isn't going to happen. What is happening is the same old, tired-ass, reactionary scare tactics rhetoric, gun defenders like you barf up, but you're do it over an ever-growing stack of bullet-riddle corpses. You know you're real quick to criticize any idea to end the shield from legal liability of gun manufacturers and even faster to say even discussing it isn't reaching anyone who isn't for a defacto ban. Which it's not. Gun manufacturers faced lawsuits all the way until 2005 and somehow they survived. Now you're all worried that an $8 billion dollar business that makes a killing out of Americans killing each other is going to fold up and blow away if they lose a special protection they never should have been given? I submit its you who is unreasonable and you who isn't interested in a more productive discussion. It's easy for you shit all over a reasonable proposal. It's impossible for you to come up with a better one. <abbr data-timestamp="1510148137000" class="o-timestamp time" title="Nov 8, 2017 8:35:37 GMT -5">Nov 8, 2017 8:35:37 GMT -5</abbr> Vince524 said: Because, nobody is looking to put other businesses out of business for doing their job by the rules. If a gun seller doesn't follow the law, you have a case. If a gun maker makes a defective weapon, that's different.
If a man legally buys a gun then uses it to knock over a store, kill their ex or shoot up a church, the guy who followed the law in making the gun or selling the gun isn't at fault. If you allow that, you allow an end run around the 2nd amendment. That's the reason why people want to sue the gun makers and sellers, isn't it? To stop the making and selling of guns that are legal. Have a case why that particular gun shouldn't be legal to make or sell, change the law. Don't punish the guy following the law.
Your weasel words are just a roundabout way of repeating what I already said and you ignored: It's easy for you shit all over a reasonable proposal. It's impossible for you to come up with a better one. Repeating a lie about ending the 2nd Amendment isn't going to make it true. You don't want solutions. You just want your damn guns. Wil Weaton is an actor who played Wesley Crusher on Star Trek TNG and has appeared often as himself on Big Bang Theory. For the record, he apologized right after he sent that tweet. For the record I didn't watch either one of those shows and don't care who Will Wheaton is or what he has to say. So what? I'm not running for office and I don't need you to tune in or out to anything I say. If someone is feeling they are being shamed by being told their thoughts and prayers are weak sauce, that's their problem. I'm not looking for converts or confirmation. I tried to offer up a way for victims of gun violence to be able to sue gun manufactures. I don't care if that helps or hurt people who deliberately distort a reasonable proposal with warmed-over NRA talking points. Nobody here is claiming a hashtag can save the word because it can't, but bullshit "thoughts and prayers" ain't saving it either.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 8, 2017 23:45:43 GMT -5
Okay, look - after horrific tragedies, some people are going to react inappropriately and while that deserves calling out, it is human nature that people are often not at their best when reacting in anger, shock, and horror. So I think rob is making rather too much of Wil Wheaton and Keith Olbermann's tweets - yes, they were insensitive, but not everyone has a public relations manager to keep them from tweeting while emotions are running hot. (Or at all - what Wil Wheaton tweets after a mass shooting pales in comparison to what Trump tweets on a daily basis.) But you're making rather too much of using the word "funny" in proximity to a tragedy. Like, you know perfectly well that rob was not saying that a church full of dead people was "funny" and picking out that word was just a cheap potshot. Also, dark humor is a thing. It may not be your thing, but it doesn't make someone an evil person because they get snarky even in the midst of tragedy. Yeah. It kinda does. Robert Scott Marshall, a 56-year-old male. Karen Sue Marshall, a 56-year-old female. Keith Allen Braden, a 62-year-old male. Tara E. McNulty, a 33-year-old female. Annabelle Renae Pomeroy, a 14-year-old female. Peggy Lynn Warden, a 56-year-old female. Dennis Neil Johnson Sr., a 77-year-old male. Sara Johns Johnson, a 68-year-old female. Lula Woicinski White, a 71-year-old female. Joann Lookingbill Ward, a 30-year-old female. Brooke Bryanne Ward, a 5-year-old female. Robert Michael Corrigan, a 51-year-old male. Shani Louise Corrigan, a 51-year-old female. Therese Sagan Rodriguez, a 66-year-old female. Ricardo Cardona Rodriguez, a 64-year-old male. Haley Krueger, a 16-year-old female. Emily Garcia, a 7-year-old female. She died at a hospital. Emily Rose Hill, an 11-year-old female. Gregory Lynn Hill, a 13-year-old male. Megan Gail Hill, a 9-year-old female. Marc Daniel Holcombe, a 36-year-old male. Noah Holcombe, a 1-year-old female. Karla Plain Holcombe, a 58-year-old female. John Bryan Holcombe, a 60-year-old male. Crystal Marie Holcombe, a pregnant 36-year-old female. Carlin Brite “Billy Bob” Holcombe, the unborn baby of Crystal Holcombe, gender unknown.
Don't try to tell me what I'm making too much of. You're unqualified for that. Don't try to tell me what I know "perfectly well." You're even less qualified for that. Dark humor is one thing. Sick humor is another. What you call "dark" I call "sick" and its not subject to your agreement or disagreement. There is video of Devin Kelley walking through the church shooting men, women, children and infants in the head. Now in your opinion, would accessing and uploading the video to the web be "dark" or "sick?" You make the call, o sanctimonious one. My vote is "sick." Sick as fuck, but hey, I might be making rather too much of it.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 8, 2017 23:53:56 GMT -5
Yeah, all other things being equal, I wouldn't condemn genuine thoughts and prayers - the operative word being 'genuine'. I would welcome and commend them. But it's patently insulting - cruel, even - for an elected leader, whose responsibility is to do well and good by the people - to blandly offer "thoughts and prayers" as a stand-in for, oh, relief, aid, and changes that can save lives and preserve the lives and liberty of people who, you know, want to be able to go about their lives without being mown down. That's the liberty that comes first: not the liberty to wield personal death machines. In those cases, "thoughts and prayers" is just code for "I'm not lifting a finger to help, and don't you dare question a Christian" (regardless of whether they ever go to church or say prayers). It's a bluff. So, I see very little problem with the tweets above. They wouldn't make the top 10,000 problems with the events of the past week. Finally:
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Nov 9, 2017 0:33:40 GMT -5
Will Wheaton was responding directly to Paul Ryan's vacuous "the people of Sutherland need our prayers" tweet. I thought Wheaton's response was quite appropriate, but maybe I'm wretched. It's entirely possible, even probable, that the families of the victims feel comfort from the public call for people to pray for them. That's their religion, after all. I don't understand it, but I'm not them, and my family members weren't just shot to death, so... if that's what they need, so be it.
But just among us: they were in a CHURCH. The epicenter of PRAYER. GOD's HOUSE. They were probably PRAYING when they were shot to death. GAH. Enough with these platitudes. /wretched
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 9, 2017 8:18:44 GMT -5
No,I do not. There is a difference between acknowledging that an argument is not unreasonable, and agreeing with it in its entirety. So, what is your counterargument? Because you didn't make one. It depends on exactly what is being proposed. A law to limit all civilian magazines to 10 rounds? Okay, I would probably (reluctantly) go along with that. A law to ban AR-15s? No, for reasons I've given. A law against owning more than (X) rounds of ammunition? Probably not, but it would depend on the particulars. It would also depend a lot on what I perceive the end game to be, and what else is attached to bill.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 9, 2017 8:27:00 GMT -5
<abbr title="Nov 8, 2017 23:45:43 GMT -5" data-timestamp="1510202743000" class="o-timestamp time">Nov 8, 2017 23:45:43 GMT -5</abbr> nighttimer said: Yeah. It kinda does. Robert Scott Marshall, a 56-year-old male. Karen Sue Marshall, a 56-year-old female. Keith Allen Braden, a 62-year-old male. Tara E. McNulty, a 33-year-old female. Annabelle Renae Pomeroy, a 14-year-old female. Peggy Lynn Warden, a 56-year-old female. Dennis Neil Johnson Sr., a 77-year-old male. Sara Johns Johnson, a 68-year-old female. Lula Woicinski White, a 71-year-old female. Joann Lookingbill Ward, a 30-year-old female. Brooke Bryanne Ward, a 5-year-old female. Robert Michael Corrigan, a 51-year-old male. Shani Louise Corrigan, a 51-year-old female. Therese Sagan Rodriguez, a 66-year-old female. Ricardo Cardona Rodriguez, a 64-year-old male. Haley Krueger, a 16-year-old female. Emily Garcia, a 7-year-old female. She died at a hospital. Emily Rose Hill, an 11-year-old female. Gregory Lynn Hill, a 13-year-old male. Megan Gail Hill, a 9-year-old female. Marc Daniel Holcombe, a 36-year-old male. Noah Holcombe, a 1-year-old female. Karla Plain Holcombe, a 58-year-old female. John Bryan Holcombe, a 60-year-old male. Crystal Marie Holcombe, a pregnant 36-year-old female. Carlin Brite “Billy Bob” Holcombe, the unborn baby of Crystal Holcombe, gender unknown. What is posting a list of victims supposed to prove? People make Holocaust jokes. People make "starving Ethiopian" jokes. People make dead baby jokes. People were making 9/11 jokes while the towers were still burning. Personally, I find such jokes distasteful. But I also understand that for some people, the impulse to make light of dark tragedies is irresistible. I might give them the stink-eye, but label them as "evil" because they offended Nighttimer's tender sensibilities or mine? No. I'm perfectly qualified to assess that you knew rob was not saying church shootings are funny. That's not what we're talking about here. You know this also. I am not expressing an opinion about what you do (or should) find offensive, I'm expressing the opinion that you are willfully taking one thing - rob's use of the phrase "You know what's funny?" to refer to something else - and pretending to think he was referring to the dead victims when you know he was not, just as you are taking one thing - my reference to dark humor - and pretending I'm referring to uploading carnographic videos.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 9, 2017 8:28:55 GMT -5
I tried to offer up a way for victims of gun violence to be able to sue gun manufactures. I don't care if that helps or hurt people who deliberately distort a reasonable proposal with warmed-over NRA talking points. Asking again - what could gun manufacturers do to avoid lawsuits, under your proposal, other than stop manufacturing guns?
|
|