Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Lemon Merchant, Apr 2, 2018.
I didn't blame the NRA either.
Let me refine then. I don't think your premise - "lack of negotiation leads to scorched earth" is accurate. Cons are pariahs and certain cons ever more so. People need pariahs when they feel the need for control. Now, these might be good restrictions, perhaps, but them being good or bad has precious little relevance to them being enacted in this manner in this time.
Culture of violence, especially through white supremacy and toxic masculinity.
You mean kind of like how ammosexuals like to pretend that society is overrun by crazed murderers in order to justify the nice happy feeling of control the gun gives them?
I see you keep getting baited into this rabbit hole, which is understandable, cuz lawyer.
But Commodore is being deliberately obtuse to avoid the glaringly obvious point - saying that someone ought to be allowed to be sued IS NOT THE SAME as saying they ought to be found liable for their behavior.
He keeps making the same arguments, but we have courts which would entertain those arguments and then decide for themselves. He is adamant that there is no basis for holding gun manufacturers liable for gun violence, but also argues that such questions should not come before a court of law.
Which is pretty darn strange - if liability was so obviously not going to attach, you'd want gun companies to be strutting into every courthouse in America to prove once and for all that they are diligent and responsible stewards of public safety, and in no way to blame for gun violence.
Certainly there are arguments to be made against liability for manufacturers and retailers. But if one doesn't even want those arguments heard and considered in a court of law - how strongly do they really believe in them?
Its not lack of negotiation. Its lack of compromise that I am talking about. That's different. Putting that aside... by "Cons" do you mean:
1. "The opposite of 'Pros" (as in people who are against something)?
2. "charlatans" (as in Con-men)?
3. Conservatives (as in republicans, libertarians, politically right-leaning etc)?
And putting all the above aside... I agree that that the electorate is the problem, and deserves the blame.
I thought he meant convicts. As in, sometimes even the NRA backs away from protecting gun rights of certain groups because their membership generally finds them distasteful...like convicted black jaywalkers, for example.
I think it is pretty well documented that domestic abusers have far higher incidence of gun violence than the general public. Gun violence activists have stressed this point over and over again, that taking guns away from domestic abusers would save lives.
It's also worth noting that no matter how broadly you want to read "arms" in the Second Amendment, public safety is always considered a pressing enough government interest to supersede rights granted in the Bill of Rights. So anyone who cries, "Second Amendment!" in response to a given gun safety measure isn't actually making an argument, they're likely just engaging in failing white guy identity politics.
The bearers of the scarlet F. Though we're expanding, incrementally, that to scarlet Ms as well. Hey, maybe the numbers bear it out and we'll all be happier as we continue down the path to a post-forgiveness society.
In the US one of the main sources of illegal guns in the hands of criminals is people who bought guns leagally and kept them in an unlocked car or truck. Thieves go around to parked cars and try the doors, and when one is unlocked they steal anything they can carry away. Which often is a handgun.
If the issue is whether the misuse or abuse was foreseeable by the manufacturer, how could your defense of car manufactures possibly be that cars are intended to serve as transportation? By your own words that isn't the issue. Surely car accident deaths, as well as the use of cars to intentionally take someone's lives, are foreseeable by the manufacturer.
If we are talking about small arms manufacturer liability, I'd have thought the arms trade and feeding global low level conflicts would be a more fruitful place to start.
But that's outside US court jurisdiction.
Really? That seems uncharacteristically narrow.
A source? Sure. A main source? I dunno about that. At least in my part of the world systematic straw purchasing is far and away the biggest source. There's a gun show at the local fairgrounds twice a year and I know of at least two guys who come away with more than a hundred guns available for no questions asked sale every time. They have their crews of clean cut, clean record college students and soccer moms that buy ten or a dozen "for their own use" weapons and then "change their minds" and sell to them before they even get them home, and they have enough inventory to last through to the next show.
The point of having a court system is to help productive activities develop and enrich the country.
See this sort of shonky graft seems like a productive place to start! There's no point having regulations if they're not well-written and followed in spirit as well as letter.
They are neither, as the gun lobby wants to make sure every criminal has a gun. Remember, every time an American is shot to death, the NRA makes more money.
Well, yeah. That well written part is the catch. The barrel strokers fought tooth and claw against any sort of regulation, then when their backs were to the wall the NRA owned congress produced a pile of manure that is in fact unenforceable. Now whenever the issue comes up they alternate between "before we consider any new regulation we need to enforce the regulations we have" and "we have regulations now and they clearly haven't done any good, why should we have any more?"
It's not that simple. The inquiry doesn't end with foreseeability, a foreseeable risk which is nevertheless reasonable, and which a manufacturer takes steps to mitigate once the risk becomes known to them is one for which the manufacturer does not incur liability.
Liability only attaches when a manufacturer (or other actor in the chain of commerce) knows of a foreseeable risk that arises from the sale and use of their product, and that risk is either unreasonable and the product isn't pulled, or the risk is reasonable but the actor doesn't take any steps to warn of and mitigate the harm caused by the risk.
It's worth noting, too, that the only reason Congress passed a ban on suing gun manufacturers under most products liability theories is because people had started suing gun manufacturers - and winning. The arguments in favor of liability were being heard and winning in court, so rather than clean up their act, the gun companies ran to Congress and got them to ban any further lawsuits.
So that just lays another level of absurdity on any attempts to claim that somehow gun manufacturers are the good guys doing nothing wrong. When called upon to prove it in court, they ran to the Congress they own and banned lawsuits instead. Because that's what innocent people do
Separate names with a comma.