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.
SJHovey said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

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.
 
SJHovey said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Kepler said:
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.
Click to expand...

If I had seen this post before my post, I would have deleted it. Mine is redundant.
 
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...
Yeah…..no.

You can fuck right off with that so long as “conservatives” are wielding government power at every level to advance every plank of their culture war BS in spite of - no, because of - everyone they hurt and to steal everything not nailed down so they can transfer the wealth to the 1%. You’d love it if liberals focused on community grassroots feel-good initiatives while you and your ilk are behind the scenes hollowing out the nation to the point of collapse. No skin off your nose - rich parasites can always go find another host to bleed.

So you’ll excuse me if, as ever, when a conservative starts with, “What liberals ought to do is….” all I hear is, “What would be really convenient for conservatives is if liberals would….”

We, the people, are coming for your guns, and we’re going to use the power of the government to do it. Get used to the idea.
 
psych said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't mock people who actually do something, even if it's just the tiniest thing. What I mock are politicians who pass laws that aren't going to have any meaningful impact, and then stand around clapping themselves on the back like they did something to solve the problem.

You watch. The D's control the governor's office and the legislature here in Minnesota this session. They're going for a pretty liberal agenda. What are they going to do for guns? It'll be something like stronger "red flag" laws and background checks.

I guaranty you that at some point during or after this session, the D leadership will hold a press conference at which point in time they will congratulate themselves on taking real and meaningful steps to eliminate the gun crisis here in Minnesota.

Will that be a claim with which you agree?

If they want to do something, I have an idea. Pass a law that makes it a felony, with mandatory prison time, for carrying a gun in a car where the gun is not secured with both a trigger lock and contained within a locked case.

Make it a felony if you own a gun and you don't keep it locked in a secure fashion and a minor comes into possession of it and commits a crime. Or, if you really want to have fun, how about this. Pass a law that says that if you are carrying a gun, it is automatically considered self defense if someone else shoots you.
 
French Rage said:
Is Drew ever going to back up his claim with numbers or is it going to be like his Grant Wahl claim that goes nowhere?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you missed it but there were two high profile mass shootings in CA in approximately the last month. There have been plenty of others as well.

I don’t even remember what my Grant Wahl claim was other than him dying in incredibly dodgy circumstances. If he did truly die of natural causes it is one of the most remarkable coincidences ever.
 
LynahFan said:
Yeah…..no.

You can **** right off with that so long as “conservatives” are wielding government power at every level to advance every plank of their culture war BS in spite of - no, because of - everyone they hurt and to steal everything not nailed down so they can transfer the wealth to the 1%. You’d love it if liberals focused on community grassroots feel-good initiatives while you and your ilk are behind the scenes hollowing out the nation to the point of collapse. No skin off your nose - rich parasites can always go find another host to bleed.

So you’ll excuse me if, as ever, when a conservative starts with, “What liberals ought to do is….” all I hear is, “What would be really convenient for conservatives is if liberals would….”

We, the people, are coming for your guns, and we’re going to use the power of the government to do it. Get used to the idea.
Click to expand...

As a target of right wing culture BS:

Definitely looking into owning a gun and self-defense training because asking the Proud Boys to kindly stop terrorizing drag shows isn't going to work.
 
French Rage said:
Picking limited data with a very specific time frame is always the best way to prove a point!!
Click to expand...

More to the point, California is home to one in 8 Americans. I know per capita stats are hard, but I think the south is more than holding its own in the mass shooting department.
 
unofan said:
More to the point, California is home to one in 8 Americans. I know per capita stats are hard, but I think the south is more than holding its own in the mass shooting department.
Click to expand...

He's going to point out that total firearm mortality death rate isn't the same as mass shooting death rate. Which is true. It may be that CA is not any better than other states per capita on mass shootings, whereas the previous map shows it is better overall. So you can tell the people who died of firearms in the other states in good ole private non-mass-shooting deaths to be grateful for that. Well, I mean you could if they weren't dead.
 
LynahFan said:
Yeah…..no.

You can **** right off with that so long as “conservatives” are wielding government power at every level to advance every plank of their culture war BS in spite of - no, because of - everyone they hurt and to steal everything not nailed down so they can transfer the wealth to the 1%. You’d love it if liberals focused on community grassroots feel-good initiatives while you and your ilk are behind the scenes hollowing out the nation to the point of collapse. No skin off your nose - rich parasites can always go find another host to bleed.

So you’ll excuse me if, as ever, when a conservative starts with, “What liberals ought to do is….” all I hear is, “What would be really convenient for conservatives is if liberals would….”

We, the people, are coming for your guns, and we’re going to use the power of the government to do it. Get used to the idea.
Click to expand...

"They're not my guns." Or something to that effect.
 
LynahFan said:
Yeah…..no.

You can **** right off with that so long as “conservatives” are wielding government power at every level to advance every plank of their culture war BS in spite of - no, because of - everyone they hurt and to steal everything not nailed down so they can transfer the wealth to the 1%. You’d love it if liberals focused on community grassroots feel-good initiatives while you and your ilk are behind the scenes hollowing out the nation to the point of collapse. No skin off your nose - rich parasites can always go find another host to bleed.

So you’ll excuse me if, as ever, when a conservative starts with, “What liberals ought to do is….” all I hear is, “What would be really convenient for conservatives is if liberals would….”

We, the people, are coming for your guns, and we’re going to use the power of the government to do it. Get used to the idea.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
SJHovey said:
I don't mock people who actually do something, even if it's just the tiniest thing. What I mock are politicians who pass laws that aren't going to have any meaningful impact, and then stand around clapping themselves on the back like they did something to solve the problem.

You watch. The D's control the governor's office and the legislature here in Minnesota this session. They're going for a pretty liberal agenda. What are they going to do for guns? It'll be something like stronger "red flag" laws and background checks.

I guaranty you that at some point during or after this session, the D leadership will hold a press conference at which point in time they will congratulate themselves on taking real and meaningful steps to eliminate the gun crisis here in Minnesota.

Will that be a claim with which you agree?

If they want to do something, I have an idea. Pass a law that makes it a felony, with mandatory prison time, for carrying a gun in a car where the gun is not secured with both a trigger lock and contained within a locked case.

Make it a felony if you own a gun and you don't keep it locked in a secure fashion and a minor comes into possession of it and commits a crime. Or, if you really want to have fun, how about this. Pass a law that says that if you are carrying a gun, it is automatically considered self defense if someone else shoots you.
Click to expand...

I’d be fine with 95% of privately owned guns vanishing in plain sight by noon today. Anything, including the two bills moving through the extremely tight Democratic majorities in the Minnesota House/Senate, are a step in that direction. The quintessential infinitesimal act, voting, put just enough Democratic politicians in place to hopefully make it happen. I personally don’t give a f-ck if politicians dance for the cameras afterwards. That’s the role for some of them. Would you find the governmental route less appalling and abhorrent if both political parties didn’t openly gyrate on television after passing a potentially infinitesimal impact law?
I still don’t own a gun. I’m doing my part. My neighbors don’t give a f-ck what I say about guns, and frankly, it’s none of my f-cking business what they be up to, as long as they leave my family alone. But the kids I take care of at work have learned about gun violence and gun safety from me during scheduled groups. Some of them already have gun-related charges. If I could get even one of those kids’ peers listening to make better decisions with firearms, I’m doing my infinitesimal part. If I stop one kid from going home and committing suicide with a firearm because my care played a role on his/her/their road to recovery, I’ve done my infinitesimal part.
Your “swing for the fences or you’ve done nothing” application to only government but not individual people is strange. I think I’d end up in a hospital contorting myself like that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top