The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Manfred Belheim]

Ah right... it's a SAFE-queen, not a safe QUEEN. Still don't quite get how it's a queen. It is fun though.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Ah right... it's a SAFE-queen, not a safe QUEEN. Still don't quite get how it's a queen. It is fun though.

It's a queen because it's useless, pointless and expensive.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Not a chess fan then I see.

 

[Hygro]

So not like yasss queen armaments?

 

[Birdjaguar]

It's a queen because it's useless, pointless and expensive.

Don't be dissin' Lizzy!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

LEGO: "Yeah... um... that's nice... you'll be hearing from our lawyers."

I would be interested to see what claim LEGO could possibly make against this firearm, given that generic lego-like blocks are a thing that exists legally. It would be different if their logo were on it, like those "satan shoes" that kept the Nike swoosh. Or if the gun were crafted out of actual LEGO pieces. It doesn't look like either of those things are in play here though. LEGO probably loses the case and money in such a hypothetical.

The Mexican government has sued some of the biggest US gun manufacturers, accusing them of fuelling bloodshed through reckless business practices.

Mexico can suck one. They need to be laughed out of court, with prejudice.

I wonder what would happen if all hand guns were manufactured such that each time the gun was fired it had a 30% chance of killing the firer rather than going where the gun was aimed?

People would make their own, sue the manufacturers, and if the guns were made that way intentionally someone might go vigilante on the person making the decision.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The point of my post was to introduce an element of risk to the shooter in firing a handgun. Currently. shooting someone carries little to no risk to the shooter. Risk might make folks be more thoughtful about usig them.

 

[Samson]

The point of my post was to introduce an element of risk to the shooter in firing a handgun. Currently. shooting someone carries little to no risk to the shooter. Risk might make folks be more thoughtful about usig them.

But if there is any choice at all people will chose to not bear that risk.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The point of my post was to introduce an element of risk to the shooter in firing a handgun. Currently. shooting someone carries little to no risk to the shooter. Risk might make folks be more thoughtful about usig them.

Claiming "shooting someone carries little to no risk to the shooter" is...simply not true. If you so much as draw a handgun, you odds of some kind of adverse consequence go up immensely. You are more likely to be shot, and more likely to be in trouble with the law. Even in textbook self defense cases like the Rittenhouse situation, where the people who he shot were grabbing at his gun, pointing a gun of their own at him etc, he has already lost substantial time + been under threat before trial even begins. One of his assailants, who actively approached him and drew a handgun, certainly showed some manifested risk from pointing that handgun as well.

There's a saying I've seen repeated fairly often: "If you pull out a gun, you'd best be prepared to use it". That doesn't mean you always should use it, but there are some obvious implications there.

Those implications are not "pulling out a gun is about as much risk as not doing so".

IIRC, statistically most incidents are resolved in 4 shots. If you do a reasonable targeting of "center mass, 3 shots", odds on you shoot yourself. Complete idiocy. Weapons are not designed to harm the user, regardless of weapon. Weapons that can do so easily are indicative of a bad weapon.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Claiming "shooting someone carries little to no risk to the shooter" is...simply not true. If you so much as draw a handgun, you odds of some kind of adverse consequence go up immensely. You are more likely to be shot, and more likely to be in trouble with the law. Even in textbook self defense cases like the Rittenhouse situation, where the people who he shot were grabbing at his gun, pointing a gun of their own at him etc, he has already lost substantial time + been under threat before trial even begins. One of his assailants, who actively approached him and drew a handgun, certainly showed some manifested risk from pointing that handgun as well.

There's a saying I've seen repeated fairly often: "If you pull out a gun, you'd best be prepared to use it". That doesn't mean you always should use it, but there are some obvious implications there.

Those implications are not "pulling out a gun is about as much risk as not doing so".

IIRC, statistically most incidents are resolved in 4 shots. If you do a reasonable targeting of "center mass, 3 shots", odds on you shoot yourself. Complete idiocy. Weapons are not designed to harm the user, regardless of weapon. Weapons that can do so easily are indicative of a bad weapon.

All of that is true, I think. I think there's a lot of evidence that owning a gun, carrying a gun, or having a gun in your home does not correlate with a lower likelihood of being victimized by a crime, or being killed, or whatever. And I think places that have more guns are not generally safer than places that have fewer guns. As always, causation and correlation are tricky, and circumstances in one place may not reflect circumstances in another, but really it's all moot anyway, because I think most people don't own a gun (or, conversely, refuse to own one) for well-considered, coldly-rational reasons. It seems to me that gun ownership is either a cultural thing or a product of fears (or both), and neither is tethered to reason and rationality. A person operating on those wavelengths doesn't need to refute the data to make the decision to own a gun. They might even understand and acknowledge the data and still make the choice to own a gun without any commensurate need, if they're comfortable being so contradictory. Gun enthusiasts who engage in debates about the efficacy of guns and whatnot are just engaging in the debate for the heck of it; maybe they just enjoy the jousting, or maybe they haven't figured out how to articulate, explain and defend their real reasons for wanting a gun.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I would be interested to see what claim LEGO could possibly make against this firearm, given that generic lego-like blocks are a thing that exists legally. It would be different if their logo were on it, like those "satan shoes" that kept the Nike swoosh. Or if the gun were crafted out of actual LEGO pieces. It doesn't look like either of those things are in play here though. LEGO probably loses the case and money in such a hypothetical.

Of course you'd be interested. That's one defining characteristic of being a layperson. You have no idea, that's why people who do know get paid for it. You don't seem have a grasp at what constitutes "loses" in this context. I can think of lots of claims that LEGO could make if they were so inclined and properly incentivized, which they certainly may be, to protect their brand. If they call me and ask then I will of course lay all that out for them for $500 an hour. For free?... not so much.

EDIT: And just to avoid the back-and-forth... LEGO apparently agrees with me, and already sent exactly the "you'll be hearing from our lawyers" message that I jokingly referenced, and the gun company has already backed down and discontinued the product, so they clearly didn't share your appraisal of the situation.

Utah-based gun company pulls ‘Block19’ after Lego request

Culper Precision has issued a new statement on social media, saying in part, “We have decided to take the product down after some communication with Lego.”

A spokesperson with Lego tells ABC4.com, “We have contacted the company and they have agreed to remove the product from their website and not make or sell anything like this in the future.”

https://www.abc4.com/news/local-new...gun-company-pulls-block19-after-lego-request/

 

[Edmund Ironside]

Even in textbook self defense cases like the Rittenhouse situation

On the subject of Kyle Rittenhouse and guns...

"Two weeks before he shot three people in Kenosha, killing two, Kyle Rittenhouse was captured on video threatening to shoot men he believed were shoplifting at a pharmacy, according to prosecutors.
In the video...Rittenhouse is on the side of a street, watching several people leaving a CVS Pharmacy. “Bro, I wish I had my (expletive) AR, I’d start shooting rounds at them,” Rittenhouse says...The brief video, shot from across a busy street at night, shows a group of people leaving a CVS carrying bags and loading them into the trunk of a car....According to Binger, Rittenhouse “apparently believed, with no actual evidence, that these individuals (in the video) were shoplifting from the store” as he was watching from across the street. “The video from only 15 days earlier … provides crucial insight” into Rittenhouse’s state of mind, the motion argues."

https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/lo...cle_cddeb29f-5a86-5151-ab20-a3834456304e.html

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I can think of lots of claims that LEGO could make if they were so inclined and properly incentivized, which they certainly may be, to protect their brand. If they call me and ask then I will of course lay all that out for them for $500 an hour. For free?... not so much.

Anybody can make claims, the questions is whether those claims will win.

EDIT: And just to avoid the back-and-forth... LEGO apparently agrees with me, and already sent exactly the "you'll be hearing from our lawyers" message that I jokingly referenced, and the gun company has already backed down and discontinued the product, so they clearly didn't share your appraisal of the situation.

It seems LEGO agreed with you and the gun company was one of

a) willing to pull the offering out of respect for the request
b) wasn't sufficiently confident it would win in court, relative to the benefit of continued production of that (which will likely be an uncommon request)
c) deemed the court fees worth less than fighting it in court even if they could win

While I'm not sure LEGO had a strong case here, I could see a company with vastly fewer resources picking any of the above easily despite that. Especially if they don't predict much future revenue stream from it. Fighting on principle doesn't seem worth the cost to them, but I will argue it here since my costs/losses are not theirs.

.According to Binger, Rittenhouse “apparently believed, with no actual evidence, that these individuals (in the video) were shoplifting from the store” as he was watching from across the street. “The video from only 15 days earlier … provides crucial insight” into Rittenhouse’s state of mind, the motion argues."

The prosecution in the Rittenhouse case is comprised of human refuse. These are the same trash cans that tried to force his location to be public and are also attempting to get the donor list, to punish people who donated to Rittenhouse. Scum.

Talk from weeks prior in a non pressure situation with no imminent threat is not the same thing as being actively assaulted. When Rittenhouse was assaulted, his behavior in the moment was to hold fire until under immediate threat of bodily harm...completely opposite observed behavior from his alleged "threats". Even the complaint written against him reads like a self defense argument. There is no "state of mind" relevant to implicating someone who was objectively under attack, unless we have evidence that Rittenhouse instigated the encounters prior to his assault. Even then, it would be hard to pin the charges he has on him...charging people and grabbing at their weapon, striking them while they're down, and pulling a gun are them are not actions commensurate with any of Rittenhouse's alleged behaviors prior.

Talk aside, the only time he ever pulled the trigger was under objective threat of imminent bodily harm (or actually receiving it). Hence, textbook self defense. I'm not saying he's a good person, but the case against him is ridiculous given that the prosecution itself is doing so despite their own presented fact pattern being self defense.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Anybody can make claims

Correct

the questions is whether those claims will win.

Incorrect. Again, you are misapprehending what "winning" and "losing" means in this context. The issue isn't "winning". The issue is what the claimant's, in this case, LEGO's goal is. They accomplished their goal. That's all that matters. Also, you've attempted to move the goalpost. You said, quote "I would be interested to see what claim LEGO could possibly make". Now you're trying to switch it to what claim they could "win". Again LEGO has "won" in the sense that they accomplished their goal.

While I'm not sure LEGO had a strong case here

Again, a layperson isn't really capable of judging what makes a "strong" case. LEGO got what they wanted, so obviously their approach was strong enough to accomplish their goal... without even having to go to trial. It's pretty telling layperson thinking, to not be able to see how strong LEGO's position was, so strong in fact, that they could accomplish their goal without even having to file a lawsuit, let alone go to trial.

It seems LEGO agreed with you

Of course they did, because I know what I am talking about.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Again, you are misapprehending what "winning" and "losing" means in this context.

That's a fair point. Seems like a flaw in our legal system, though. But if you're stuck with the rules, might as well use them to best of one's ability.

 

[Sommerswerd]

That's a fair point. Seems like a flaw in our legal system, though. But if you're stuck with the rules, might as well use them to best of one's ability.

Calling it a "flaw" depends on your perspective. I doubt LEGO would see it as a "flaw", since they "won".

 

[Farm Boy]

Again, a layperson isn't really capable of judging what makes a "strong" case. LEGO got what they wanted, so obviously their approach was strong enough to accomplish their goal... without even having to go to trial. It's pretty telling layperson thinking, to not be able to see how strong LEGO's position was, so strong in fact, that they could accomplish their goal without even having to file a lawsuit, let alone go to trial.

It's easiest to map out the morality of legal arguments if you assume as if everybody is carrying a gun and can force people to the lowest common denominator. Because while that part is delegated, it is very much the dynamic. LEGO just has to make the marketing gun unprofitable. Enough legal departments make you unprofitable enough, and men with guns come for your stuff. And maybe for you, if the mood is right.

 

[Sommerswerd]

It's easiest to map out the morality of legal arguments if you assume as if everybody is carrying a gun and can force people to the lowest common denominator. Because while that part is delegated, it is very much the dynamic. LEGO just has to make the marketing gun unprofitable. Enough legal departments make you unprofitable enough, and men with guns come for your stuff. And maybe for you, if the mood is right.

Which is an eloquent way of saying that LEGO "won" because they had the "strong" position.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's a way of saying the legal department of any corporation LEGO's size can probably crush any other significantly smaller business, under the law, that it has tertiary or implied dealings with. It merely has to perceive an actual profit incentive to do so, and image is image. Men with guns get badges and feathers and shiny buttons and fancy braids for similarly good reason. Like a coral snake.

 

[Sommerswerd]

That's not mutually exclusive with the fact that Culper intentionally violated the bejesus out of LEGO's brand. Any way you look at it, LEGO was in a very favorable position, from top-to-bottom, which is ultimately why they got their way so easily.