What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

Status
Not open for further replies.
Drew S. said:
Last year in Maine there were 30 homicides with around half by firearm and over 500 fentanyl deaths. Which one do you hear more about? And the scale of destruction isn’t even close.
Click to expand...

You know what else was more deadly than firearms? Cars. But that's also why there are so, so, so, so many safety and environmental laws around cars.

But you are pretty dumb to not understand the difference between a firearm and a car.

Especially that the guns number one design guide is that it kills the person who it's used against.

That's not what cars are for, that's not what fentanyl is for.

And I would suggest to you to look up car and fentanyl deaths that were intentional by someone else.

You know what else you don't hear about- mass murders committed by drivers.

Guns only purpose is to kill what they are shooting at. That's it. Other than harvesting meat, they have very little redeeming value to society.

So your silly defense of guns like that just perpetuates the proliferation of guns to a point that it's never going to stop. So on behalf of all of the dead and their families- thank you, drew. Your resistance to control will ensure that the future of our country will always live in fear.

Wasn't a recent post that you complained about the security measures that schools have to do? Seriously? Oh, yea, you clearly want all of these intentional deaths to happen. Good job.
 
Bronco said:
Stop taking the bait. Please.

Back to topic.

https://twitter.com/EricLloyd/status/1626005823506849793

10k people shown up at the MSU vigil tonight. It might take 30 years but this will be solved. I truly believe that.
Click to expand...

There was a vigil on UM's campus last night- but I'm not sure of the details- we were hoping to live stream it, but the link didn't work. Michigan is also going to honor State by putting green hearts with a Sparty in the middle on helmets this weekend for hockey and softball. I'm sure they were going to do something for BB, but I'd bet the game this weekend will be postponed for a while. Too soon for MSU- although a distraction would be good. My wife saw Izzo at the MSU vigil last night- so I'm sure he's not ready to move on yet, too.

We were also talking last night about the heroic call from the person who saw the person outside their home. And by heroic, I mean that I would be pretty terrified that I saw a person who allegedly just killed 3 people and shot 5 others in front of my home.
 
Bronco said:
It might take 30 years but this will be solved. I truly believe that.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Policy lags way behind the people on gun control for a bunch of reasons: rural over-representation in the EC and Senate, spectacularly successful gerrymandering by the GOP, bribery by the death merchants, and the refusal by the Packed Court to do anything about it. Those are artificial circumstances that defy democratic gravity. The country becomes ever more urbanized and more educated, the backwaters slowly but surely dry up as kids leave for a better life and are absorbed into modern society.

Twenty years ago there were large numbers of liberals who still parroted the line of the NRA. I don't know any who continue to. That is a sea change. Like many other things, we need government policy to catch up with the humans beings who live in this country. We will get there if we can keep our democracy.
 
SJHovey said:
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.
Click to expand...

You can do all these things while also using government as the will of the people. You need both grassroots and government action. Pursuing either in the absence of the either leads either to stagnation or dictatorship and doesn't change anything.

If the Right could get over its fear of / fury at The Gubmint, they would see rationally that it is simply the integral of all those infinitesimal changes you are talking about. Smog is not curtailed without the EPA. Slaves are not freed without the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment. Women don't have reproductive agency without Roe and the ERA.

You are absolutely right about the need for individuals tending their own garden. But government is just another tool we use as individuals to improve our world, and as a free democratic people we are absolutely entitled to use it, and we will. And it works.
 
Kepler said:
Policy lags way behind the people on gun control for a bunch of reasons: rural over-representation in the EC and Senate, spectacularly successful gerrymandering by the GOP, bribery by the death merchants, and the refusal by the Packed Court to do anything about it. Those are artificial circumstances that defy democratic gravity. The country becomes ever more urbanized and more educated, the backwaters slowly but surely dry up as kids leave for a better life and are absorbed into modern society.

Twenty years ago there were large numbers of liberals who still parroted the line of the NRA. I don't know any who continue to. That is a sea change. Like many other things, we need government policy to catch up with the humans beings who live in this country. We will get there if we can keep our democracy.
Click to expand...

Add to that, there has been an almost prohibition on research to gun violence for many years. So anyone who wants to research the effect of any policy can't get backing from anyone who can provide significant funding to pay for it.

Like my example of restricting magazine size and firing rate- that can't even be looked into on it's theoretical effectiveness.

Whereas the firearm industry can do whatever they want to fund research for their proposals- say they want teachers to all be armed- they can go and do that to see the result. And the previous NRA that did want gun control has been totally overwhelmed by the arms industry NRA- otherwise known as profit over everything.

So anyone wanting control is really starting on the back foot.
 
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/status/1626246167485882369?s=46&t=CKwU8bUicu-JNntVHOpynA
 
SJHovey said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
SJHovey said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TalonsUpPuckDown said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TalonsUpPuckDown said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
SJHovey said:
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?
Click to expand...

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 bitch 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 bitch?

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/can-gun-makers-be-liable-in-mass-shootings
 
TalonsUpPuckDown said:
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-week/can-gun-makers-be-liable-in-mass-shootings
Click to expand...

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.
 
MichVandal said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top