Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • psych
    replied
    Originally posted by SJHovey View Post

    Gun manufacturers have always been subject to the same product liability laws that car manufacturers deal with. If you design or produce a product, you can be held liable for design defects or manufacturing defects.

    Car manufacturers are recalling cars due to design or manufacturing defects that result in people getting burned up or getting injured by faulty airbags or whatever. Gun manufacturers have seen the same thing. A Remington shotgun I owned had a design defect in it that resulted in the barrel occasionally bursting and causing injury. Remington sent me a check as part of that lawsuit, and I've never used the gun since.

    The problem here is that the MSU shooting, and all of the rest, haven't caused any harm or injury to anyone as a result of a design or manufacturing defect. To the contrary, the guns worked precisely as they were designed to work. If I use a hammer to club someone to death, is that a design or manufacturing defect in the hammer?

    That is where the law has struggled to assign liability to gun manufacturers for these mass killings.

    With respect to insurance, that's all fine, and I have no objection, but is that really going to impede someone from shooting up a school?
    The answer to your question is obviously yes. We can argue how many people that would impact, but like you said in your "be noble" post, if even one person stops shooting up a school because he or his dad couldn't afford the insurance on a gun, that's an infinitesimal effect, but it's better than nothing. We can both agree it's not the best option, or maybe even the 10th best option, but that's beside the point. We know that will make a difference. Putting a trigger lock on my non-existent gun also makes a difference, but what kind of difference compared to the new gun insurance? To that, I say, who cares? Do both. They both work. What's the downside of the insurance? Besides the inevitable backslapping of politicians?

    Leave a comment:


  • psych
    replied
    Originally posted by SJHovey View Post

    Many years ago I attended a community leadership conference, and this guy talked about how problems are solved and addressed. I wish I could remember his name, but I can't.

    He said that people get together and agree, "we need to solve the housing crisis" or "we need to solve the hunger crisis" or "we need to eliminate racism" or "we need to solve the gun crisis." Everyone agrees that these are all wonderful ideals, and it would be great if you could do that, but you can't. They are simply too large and too complex, and when people start working on trying to "solve" these problems, they simply give up.

    So then, the common idea is, why don't we just have "the government" solve it. Here's why, because it can't either.

    According to the speaker, here is what you do. You start small. You start in your own house, you start with your neighbor, you start with your own block. You take steps to solve the problem there. The effect is infinitesimal, but if enough people follow your lead, it's no longer infinitesimal.

    So, with the gun problem for example, here is what you can do. Get a group of your friends or neighbors and form an organization. Raise some money. Use the money to go out and buy gun trigger locks. They're maybe $10 a pop. Walk your neighborhood with your friends, and ask homeowners if they have any firearms, and tell them that if they do, you're offering to give them a free trigger lock if they'll put it on their guns and keep the key somewhere safe. Do stuff you can actually do. Don't think about "solving the gun crisis." Think about doing something that has some small chance of making a difference.

    My worldview is this. Every morning when I get up I have a chance to make my world just a little bit better. You go to work. Do a good job. You pick up an empty McDonald's bag and throw it in the garbage, or grab an empty plastic water bottle and throw it in recycling. Are you solving the climate crisis? Nope, but you did one tiny little thing to help, and that's what you can do.
    That's rich, coming from the guy who commonly reminds us that the backslapping coming from people who think they've accomplished something, even if it's only infinitesimal in nature, is abhorrent and hypocritical behavior. Like when you mocked California gun laws a couple years ago, in a strangely similar manner to Drew, after an inevitable shooting happened in California, in what I can only guess was an apparent effort to invalidate California's stricter gun laws.
    Look, while the "Be the change you want to see in the world" shtick is noble, and I hope more people follow my lead of never owning a gun, nor ever even shooting one, government is often utilized effectively to accomplish problems quicker than the grassroots, be the change you want to see method. There can be, and often is, both things in play when progress is made. California's gun laws are working. So are Massachusetts'. As you've noted before in previous posts, you don't see much of a difference between California's and Louisiana's per capita gun deaths, but the difference in the two states are hundreds of lives saved, which, while infinitesimal compared to the thousands of gun deaths the United States has the pleasure of experiencing every year, is still a difference in the right direction.

    Leave a comment:


  • MichVandal
    replied
    Originally posted by SJHovey View Post

    Gun manufacturers have always been subject to the same product liability laws that car manufacturers deal with. If you design or produce a product, you can be held liable for design defects or manufacturing defects.

    Car manufacturers are recalling cars due to design or manufacturing defects that result in people getting burned up or getting injured by faulty airbags or whatever. Gun manufacturers have seen the same thing. A Remington shotgun I owned had a design defect in it that resulted in the barrel occasionally bursting and causing injury. Remington sent me a check as part of that lawsuit, and I've never used the gun since.

    The problem here is that the MSU shooting, and all of the rest, haven't caused any harm or injury to anyone as a result of a design or manufacturing defect. To the contrary, the guns worked precisely as they were designed to work. If I use a hammer to club someone to death, is that a design or manufacturing defect in the hammer?

    That is where the law has struggled to assign liability to gun manufacturers for these mass killings.

    With respect to insurance, that's all fine, and I have no objection, but is that really going to impede someone from shooting up a school?
    So we have an item that is only designed to kill people, and somehow we let parents buy these items for their kids to do whatever they want. And there's a real question if the parents can be held responsible when that kid takes it to school and murder class mates.

    But if you want to have your own personal transportation that has it's own significant power, you have to register the vehicle, have a license (and a measurable amount of skill to use it) AND have insurance.

    What kind of country are we?

    It IS easier to get a gun than it is to own and drive a car.

    Leave a comment:


  • MichVandal
    replied
    So we missed a mall shooting yesterday in Texas... geezus.

    Leave a comment:


  • SJHovey
    replied
    Originally posted by MichVandal View Post

    That's a pretty darned effective thing to do, it seems. Keeps all of the gun laws, but it puts real liability on companies who don't have any liability issues. As a former auto employee, we got sued on a very regular basis for flaws, and it really turned up the recall requirements- even a minor hint at a fire was a huge recall.

    Given the rest of the economy that takes more (but not all) responsibility than the gun industry does- they will be fine if they assume some. And it also shifts a lot of responsibility to the sellers of new guns, too. Which doesn't happen much.

    We are a mostly free market country- let the market deal with their problems.

    I also am wondering why we don't have gun licensing like we do with cars. One is just to be able to move freely, the other is to just kill another person. I'm forced to have insurance to have a car, why can't gun owners be forced to have insurance? That would certainly make them more responsible to not let them get out.

    It won't end everything, but it will be much better than doing nothing.
    Gun manufacturers have always been subject to the same product liability laws that car manufacturers deal with. If you design or produce a product, you can be held liable for design defects or manufacturing defects.

    Car manufacturers are recalling cars due to design or manufacturing defects that result in people getting burned up or getting injured by faulty airbags or whatever. Gun manufacturers have seen the same thing. A Remington shotgun I owned had a design defect in it that resulted in the barrel occasionally bursting and causing injury. Remington sent me a check as part of that lawsuit, and I've never used the gun since.

    The problem here is that the MSU shooting, and all of the rest, haven't caused any harm or injury to anyone as a result of a design or manufacturing defect. To the contrary, the guns worked precisely as they were designed to work. If I use a hammer to club someone to death, is that a design or manufacturing defect in the hammer?

    That is where the law has struggled to assign liability to gun manufacturers for these mass killings.

    With respect to insurance, that's all fine, and I have no objection, but is that really going to impede someone from shooting up a school?

    Leave a comment:


  • MichVandal
    replied
    Originally posted by TalonsUpPuckDown View Post

    You're referring to the Sandy Hook parents (see below). I'm talking more broadly. My former Trumptard West Virginian gun totin' hillbilly neighbor had a pistol go off accidentally in his suburban Columbus garage. If the bullet hit my wife, I want to sue the bleep out of Remmington for a faulty safety (which he claimed was the cause). The liability protections afforded gun manufacturers go WAY beyond mass murder.

    "Gee TUPD, that could put gun manufacturers out of business...OH THE HUMANITY!" Yeah, no. It would force them to address the liability head on instead of shirking it. Someone with mental illness steals a gun and shoots up a Walmart or a two-year-old kid in Detroit shoots himself with a gun found under his mother’s bed. Smart weapons would render said weapon useless in the hands of said nutcase and said toddler. "But TUPD, the technology isn't there or reliable, it won't work!" Yeah, no. When faced with purchasing a liability insurance policy from Lloyds for $1B you can bet that gun manufacturer will find a way to make it happen. After all, it's a free market and the demand isn't going away. "But TUPD, this will be a PIA!!!" Yep, a truly free market can be a ***** sometimes. Free market principles say the gun manufacturer and gun owner should bear the risk. Yet here we are, us non-gun owners getting stuck with the bill while gun manufacturers and gun owners get away with murder (see what I did there?). "But TUPD, what are you going to do about the guns that are already out there?" Yeah, not my problem. I've been paying the tab for this since I was born and so have my fellow countrymen. Time for the accountable to be held accountable, I've paid more than my fair share.

    Did I mention that a truly free market can be a *****?

    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law...mass-shootings
    That's a pretty darned effective thing to do, it seems. Keeps all of the gun laws, but it puts real liability on companies who don't have any liability issues. As a former auto employee, we got sued on a very regular basis for flaws, and it really turned up the recall requirements- even a minor hint at a fire was a huge recall.

    Given the rest of the economy that takes more (but not all) responsibility than the gun industry does- they will be fine if they assume some. And it also shifts a lot of responsibility to the sellers of new guns, too. Which doesn't happen much.

    We are a mostly free market country- let the market deal with their problems.

    I also am wondering why we don't have gun licensing like we do with cars. One is just to be able to move freely, the other is to just kill another person. I'm forced to have insurance to have a car, why can't gun owners be forced to have insurance? That would certainly make them more responsible to not let them get out.

    It won't end everything, but it will be much better than doing nothing.

    Leave a comment:


  • TalonsUpPuckDown
    replied
    Originally posted by SJHovey View Post

    I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, but wasn't there already a big award or something for parents of some school kids in a lawsuit they brought against the gun manufacturers?
    You're referring to the Sandy Hook parents (see below). I'm talking more broadly. My former Trumptard West Virginian gun totin' hillbilly neighbor had a pistol go off accidentally in his suburban Columbus garage. If the bullet hit my wife, I want to sue the bleep out of Remmington for a faulty safety (which he claimed was the cause). The liability protections afforded gun manufacturers go WAY beyond mass murder.

    "Gee TUPD, that could put gun manufacturers out of business...OH THE HUMANITY!" Yeah, no. It would force them to address the liability head on instead of shirking it. Someone with mental illness steals a gun and shoots up a Walmart or a two-year-old kid in Detroit shoots himself with a gun found under his mother’s bed. Smart weapons would render said weapon useless in the hands of said nutcase and said toddler. "But TUPD, the technology isn't there or reliable, it won't work!" Yeah, no. When faced with purchasing a liability insurance policy from Lloyds for $1B you can bet that gun manufacturer will find a way to make it happen. After all, it's a free market and the demand isn't going away. "But TUPD, this will be a PIA!!!" Yep, a truly free market can be a ***** sometimes. Free market principles say the gun manufacturer and gun owner should bear the risk. Yet here we are, us non-gun owners getting stuck with the bill while gun manufacturers and gun owners get away with murder (see what I did there?). "But TUPD, what are you going to do about the guns that are already out there?" Yeah, not my problem. I've been paying the tab for this since I was born and so have my fellow countrymen. Time for the accountable to be held accountable, I've paid more than my fair share.

    Did I mention that a truly free market can be a *****?

    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law...mass-shootings

    Leave a comment:


  • SJHovey
    replied
    Originally posted by TalonsUpPuckDown View Post

    How 'bout we legislate away the federal laws protecting gun manufacturers from liability claims. Why not finally let the free market price into the product the true costs of the associated risks instead of keeping the price artificially low by using the federal government to shovel these costs onto the rest of us. Seems simple and fits squarely within the conservative worldview. Want an AR-whatever? Cool. That'll be $85,000. Want a 6-shooter? Cool, that'll run you $2,800. Wait...no...that'll be $3,200 as Lloyds just raised their premiums (again). Now there's no need to talk about the nuances of banning whatever is or is not classified as an assault weapon, we simply let the market speak.

    I disagree the government is not the place to help solve this crisis.
    I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, but wasn't there already a big award or something for parents of some school kids in a lawsuit they brought against the gun manufacturers?

    Leave a comment:


  • RaceBoarder
    replied
    Originally posted by TalonsUpPuckDown View Post

    How 'bout we legislate away the federal laws protecting gun manufacturers from liability claims. Why not finally let the free market price into the product the true costs of the associated risks instead of keeping the price artificially low by using the federal government to shovel these costs onto the rest of us. Seems simple and fits squarely within the conservative worldview. Want an AR-whatever? Cool. That'll be $85,000. Want a 6-shooter? Cool, that'll run you $2,800. Wait...no...that'll be $3,200 as Lloyds just raised their premiums (again). Now there's no need to talk about the nuances of banning whatever is or is not classified as an assault weapon, we simply let the market speak.

    I disagree the government is not the place to help solve this crisis.
    That is actually an interesting proposition that I haven't heard mentioned before.

    I think it's a fair idea. Hell, even make a concession that the gun people can't be sued over acts that happened in the past. Only incidents that happened on the day the legislation goes into effect or later.

    Leave a comment:


  • TalonsUpPuckDown
    replied
    Originally posted by SJHovey View Post

    Many years ago I attended a community leadership conference, and this guy talked about how problems are solved and addressed. I wish I could remember his name, but I can't.

    He said that people get together and agree, "we need to solve the housing crisis" or "we need to solve the hunger crisis" or "we need to eliminate racism" or "we need to solve the gun crisis." Everyone agrees that these are all wonderful ideals, and it would be great if you could do that, but you can't. They are simply too large and too complex, and when people start working on trying to "solve" these problems, they simply give up.

    So then, the common idea is, why don't we just have "the government" solve it. Here's why, because it can't either.

    According to the speaker, here is what you do. You start small. You start in your own house, you start with your neighbor, you start with your own block. You take steps to solve the problem there. The effect is infinitesimal, but if enough people follow your lead, it's no longer infinitesimal.

    So, with the gun problem for example, here is what you can do. Get a group of your friends or neighbors and form an organization. Raise some money. Use the money to go out and buy gun trigger locks. They're maybe $10 a pop. Walk your neighborhood with your friends, and ask homeowners if they have any firearms, and tell them that if they do, you're offering to give them a free trigger lock if they'll put it on their guns and keep the key somewhere safe. Do stuff you can actually do. Don't think about "solving the gun crisis." Think about doing something that has some small chance of making a difference.

    My worldview is this. Every morning when I get up I have a chance to make my world just a little bit better. You go to work. Do a good job. You pick up an empty McDonald's bag and throw it in the garbage, or grab an empty plastic water bottle and throw it in recycling. Are you solving the climate crisis? Nope, but you did one tiny little thing to help, and that's what you can do.
    How 'bout we legislate away the federal laws protecting gun manufacturers from liability claims. Why not finally let the free market price into the product the true costs of the associated risks instead of keeping the price artificially low by using the federal government to shovel these costs onto the rest of us. Seems simple and fits squarely within the conservative worldview. Want an AR-whatever? Cool. That'll be $85,000. Want a 6-shooter? Cool, that'll run you $2,800. Wait...no...that'll be $3,200 as Lloyds just raised their premiums (again). Now there's no need to talk about the nuances of banning whatever is or is not classified as an assault weapon, we simply let the market speak.

    I disagree the government is not the place to help solve this crisis.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bronco
    replied
    Originally posted by SJHovey View Post

    Many years ago I attended a community leadership conference, and this guy talked about how problems are solved and addressed. I wish I could remember his name, but I can't.

    He said that people get together and agree, "we need to solve the housing crisis" or "we need to solve the hunger crisis" or "we need to eliminate racism" or "we need to solve the gun crisis." Everyone agrees that these are all wonderful ideals, and it would be great if you could do that, but you can't. They are simply too large and too complex, and when people start working on trying to "solve" these problems, they simply give up.

    So then, the common idea is, why don't we just have "the government" solve it. Here's why, because it can't either.

    According to the speaker, here is what you do. You start small. You start in your own house, you start with your neighbor, you start with your own block. You take steps to solve the problem there. The effect is infinitesimal, but if enough people follow your lead, it's no longer infinitesimal.

    So, with the gun problem for example, here is what you can do. Get a group of your friends or neighbors and form an organization. Raise some money. Use the money to go out and buy gun trigger locks. They're maybe $10 a pop. Walk your neighborhood with your friends, and ask homeowners if they have any firearms, and tell them that if they do, you're offering to give them a free trigger lock if they'll put it on their guns and keep the key somewhere safe. Do stuff you can actually do. Don't think about "solving the gun crisis." Think about doing something that has some small chance of making a difference.

    My worldview is this. Every morning when I get up I have a chance to make my world just a little bit better. You go to work. Do a good job. You pick up an empty McDonald's bag and throw it in the garbage, or grab an empty plastic water bottle and throw it in recycling. Are you solving the climate crisis? Nope, but you did one tiny little thing to help, and that's what you can do.
    This is exactly what we are seeing. Get enough kids shot and killed then they will demand change. The things we as adults have permitted have created a generation of children who have had enough. They're not dumb, they know that we are the only developed place on Earth that this occurs. They know it doesn't need to be that way. They are going to right our wrong for us.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartanforlife4
    replied
    I realize trying to apply logic to an individual who was not in a normal state of mind is likely a futile exercise, but the more details that come out the more that make you ask why.

    They found two notes on him which listed multiple businesses and workplaces that he felt had wronged him along with a church and school district in his hometown. Yet he goes to MSU to perform the act, where they have yet to find a connection.

    https://twitter.com/reporterdavidj/s...cu-JNntVHOpynA

    Leave a comment:


  • French Rage
    replied
    Originally posted by Drew S. View Post
    California has the strictest gun laws in the country and they have as many mass shootings as any other place.
    Nope: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/s...ty/firearm.htm

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    Originally posted by Drew S. View Post
    California has the strictest gun laws in the country and they have as many mass shootings as any other place.
    Do you have any ideas that aren't outdated talking points that have been dismissed a million times?

    Leave a comment:


  • Drew S.
    replied
    California has the strictest gun laws in the country and they have as many mass shootings as any other place.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X