The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[onejayhawk]

Would it make a difference to all these arguments the NRA keeps spouting if suddenly women started shooting men?

They do. Women are more likely than men to use a firearm in a murder.

I don't get what you are trying to say.

J

 

[Arwon]

That's one of the more creative abuses of statistics I've heard recently

 

[Chose]

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

I was just pointing out that claiming car manufactures are off the hook, because of the intended use is transportation, was in contradiction to the other point he was making. Yes of course it's not as simple as only foreseeability, although "reasonable risk" seems to just be begging the question.

 

[Takhisis]

This isn't true at all. A firearm manufacturer intends for their product to be able to propel a projectile towards a target. That target can be anything from a deer to a steel plate. There is not a single firearm on this planet that is only capable of shooting people so your claim that firearms' only purpose is to kill people kinda falls flat.

Does this apply to those companies which market their guns as fingerprint-proof and/or with suppressors, hiders, full-semi-automatic conversion kits, etc.?

 

[cardgame]

Allowing people to sue manufacturers when the product is used outside of its intended purpose is pretty dumb. How would the firearm industry as a whole survive such nonsense?

Would you sue a cutlery company because your brother got stabbed to death by a CutCo knife?

Also, I think a lot of moderates would feel better about gun control if the topic was amending the constitution instead of screwing with it. Anti-gun measures are being used (or are under consideration for being used) like anti-abortion measures in Texas, and neither one is okay.

 

[Farm Boy]

Would you sue a cutlery company because your brother got stabbed to death by a CutCo knife?

You jest, but the more I think about it, the more I think the line could slide there*. People need pariahs when they're mad and want control. They'll generate them, it's just a matter of where the lines are in society as to where they're generated from.

*though obviously a stretch in current conditions.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The difference is Congress isn't currently considering legislation that would ban kneeling during the national anthem, but they are considering legislation that would effectively ban guns.

They didn't need to, because NFL owners, at the urging of the Supreme leader, fans and and other members of the government did it for them. We've been through this. You already tried to make a "but he can't do anything to them" claim and I pointed out to you that Big Jerruh had in-fact threatened to bench anyone who kneeled, thereby threatening their livelihood... you don't remember this?

You dismissed the threat when it was directed at the NFL players but now you're howling about it when its directed at gun proponents. The difference isn't "Congress" the difference is your values.

This isn't true at all. A firearm manufacturer intends for their product to be able to propel a projectile towards a target. That target can be anything from a deer to a steel plate.

Yes it is true. What is stopping power and why is it discussed in the marketing of a firearm? What's ironic/funny is that when people make these kinds of specious arguments to you they get accused of playing games. A steel plate? Dude... C'mon

your claim that firearms' only purpose is to kill people kinda falls flat.

This is a strawman. I never made that claim.

Now you are getting to the heart of what the anti-gun BLM-kneeling crowd wants. They don't care about destroying the livelihoods of people as long as it's people they disagree with.

Fixed that for you... Again, when I made this exact observation in the context of NFL protesters, you fought tooth and nail... not because I was wrong in principle, but just because you don't agree with the cause. Now you've once again proven my point.

This isn't about livelihoods or principles or the Constitution or "rights" or any of that BS. This is about your beloved hobby and you not wanting anyone disturbing it.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yes you did, and no matter how much you deny it, I'm going to treat this discussion going forward as such.

No I didn't and no matter how many times you try to hang this strawman on me, I'm going to keep calling it out. Please quote the post where I said that "firearms' only purpose is to kill people". You can't because, I've never said that and you know it. Your just saying that because that's what you want to argue against, which is textbook strawmanning. But its completely untrue, and you know its untrue, which is why you can't quote it.

If you want to argue against the hypothetical "those people who say firearms only purpose is to kill people" and show those hypothetical people how wrong they are, fine, have at it. But I am not those people, and you know it. Leave me out of your arguments against those people.

 

[metalhead]

I was just pointing out that claiming car manufactures are off the hook, because of the intended use is transportation, was in contradiction to the other point he was making. Yes of course it's not as simple as only foreseeability, although "reasonable risk" seems to just be begging the question.

You're right. It does beg the question. That's why we have buildings and people in robes and an entire profession dedicated to arguing both sides and figuring out the answers to difficult questions that require weighing evidence and determining whether the risk a product poses is reasonable. And foreseeable. And whether, if the risk is a reasonable one, companies are mitigating the risk to the extent it is (here's that word again) reasonable.

It's not a hobby, it's a right. And that's really why it is easy to dismiss arguments that compare firearm regulation to any other regulation. When someone whines about "but cars are regulated so why not guns?" that can be easily dismissed with "the Constitution doesn't guarantee your right to own or drive a car."

The Constition doesn't guarantee your right to own a gun, either. Every single Constitutional amendment has permissible, broad restrictions placed upon the enumerated rights in the name of public safety. The Second Amendment is no different in this regard.

You're just using the Constitution as a shield because you don't have a practical argument to make.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The Constition doesn't guarantee your right to own a gun, either. Every single Constitutional amendment has permissible, broad restrictions placed upon the enumerated rights in the name of public safety. The Second Amendment is no different in this regard.

You're just using the Constitution as a shield because you don't have a practical argument to make.

Which is why we have folks, including retired SCOTUS Justices talking now about doing away with the 2nd Amendment entirely.

 

[El_Machinae]

The Constition doesn't guarantee your right to own a gun, either. Every single Constitutional amendment has permissible, broad restrictions placed upon the enumerated rights in the name of public safety. The Second Amendment is no different in this regard.

You're just using the Constitution as a shield because you don't have a practical argument to make.

There are already pretty broad restrictions in place for firearms, especially considering they're a constitutional right.. Honestly, this is the major problem, that its a constitutional right. The reason why anyone can make a statement that any specific intervention is not allowed is because of the underlying rights.

The 2nd Amendment really is the underlying problem. Socially, people have interpreted it in various ways, and so it's part of the culture and hard to get rid of. Or even replace. But it's the problem. Without it, the discussion becomes much more reasonable and is about self-defense, or being a hobbyist or whatever.

 

[Lexicus]

They don't care about destroying the livelihoods of people as long as it's people they disagree with.

Actually, I don't care about destroying the livelihoods of people who make a living by selling deadly weapons. And after we get rid of the civilian firearm industry, we'll be coming for the defense contractors
There's plenty of space on the proverbial wall for everyone who makes a living by facilitating the murder of children.

especially considering they're a constitutional right..

They are not. The Second Amendment is about maintaining militias. It is not about protecting any right to individual gun ownership.

 

[EgonSpengler]

It's not a hobby, it's a right. And that's really why it is easy to dismiss arguments that compare firearm regulation to any other regulation. When someone whines about "but cars are regulated so why not guns?" that can be easily dismissed with "the Constitution doesn't guarantee your right to own or drive a car."

I have to admit, Commodore, you're the first gun proponent I've met, online or otherwise, who admits to this. This is the main reason I'm in favor of repealing the Second Amendment. I'm not 100% against all gun ownership, but the 2nd makes most of these conversations pointless, because gun owners always have it to fall back on. I disagree that your enjoyment of guns isn't a hobby, it clearly is, but it's also a Constitutional right.

 

[Sommerswerd]

There are already pretty broad restrictions in place for firearms, especially considering they're a constitutional right.. Honestly, this is the major problem, that its a constitutional right. The reason why anyone can make a statement that any specific intervention is not allowed is because of the underlying rights.

The 2nd Amendment really is the underlying problem. Socially, people have interpreted it in various ways, and so it's part of the culture and hard to get rid of. Or even replace. But it's the problem. Without it, the discussion becomes much more reasonable and is about self-defense, or being a hobbyist or whatever.

The motivation of the discussion is about self-defense, or being a hobbyist, hunter, etc. Its just that as @metalhead (and you, and @EgonSpengler ) say... the discussion can't be reasonable, because the Constitution keeps getting used to turn the hobby into something more akin to a religion in terms of sanctity.

For my part, I see great value in the militia aspect of the 2nd Amendment and I wish that the SCOTUS would re-interpret it more along those lines. I also prefer manufacturer liability over a complex patchwork of inconsistent, politically-driven bans across multiple states... but if the position of gun advocates is that "the opposition just secretly wants to ban all guns forever so never give up, never surrender, don't give an inch or they'll take the mile"... well... "reasonable" is going to be elusive.

 

[onejayhawk]

That's one of the more creative abuses of statistics I've heard recently

Howso? He was claiming women did not use firearms against men. That is statistically untrue. Women use guns extensively.

No I didn't and no matter how many times you try to hang this strawman on me, I'm going to keep calling it out. Please quote the post where I said that "firearms' only purpose is to kill people". You can't because, I've never said that and you know it. Your just saying that because that's what you want to argue against, which is textbook strawmanning. But its completely untrue, and you know its untrue, which is why you can't quote it.

If you want to argue against the hypothetical "those people who say firearms only purpose is to kill people" and show those hypothetical people how wrong they are, fine, have at it. But I am not those people, and you know it. Leave me out of your arguments against those people.

Handsguns primary purpose is to threaten to kill people. Is that close enough?

J

 

[El_Machinae]

I delved into 2A culture. A lot of it really is insanely paranoid. People are tribal, and there is a lot of virtue signaling. People get status based on hating governments. And amusingly, there's little acceptance that other people deserve full rights. The 2A implies Hawaii should be allowed to have nukes but not Iran ...

 

[Farm Boy]

lol, k.

 

[Yeekim]

Rights don't require practical arguments.

Suppose we're discussing whether or not the 2nd amendment ought to be repealed?

 

[metalhead]

Rights don't require practical arguments. I guess we should just repeal the 3rd Amendment too since there's no practical reason for that to exist either right? How about the 4th Amendment? We've already all sold our data and privacy to corporations, so what practical reason do we have for privacy when it comes to the government?

Basically, my point is I shouldn't have to explain or justify why I need my rights. Any of them.

Your point is wrong and involves a fundamental misunderstanding of how Constitutional rights work, and what they are. They actually do require practical examination to be protected from being curtailed, because rights do not exist in a vacuum.

So for example, a statement that "It's my right under the Second Amendment to own a firearm" is an overbroad and incorrect generalization. First, we need to know who you are. Then, we need to know what you mean by "firearm." Your statement simply cannot be assessed as an appropriate assertion of rights without first reducing it to a practical application.

The question isn't about why you need your rights, it's about what your rights actually are. I agree that the "why" question is self-evident, but we're dealing with the "what" question here.

 

[Lexicus]

The Supreme Court disagrees. And they have disagreed since 1886. And since we have 132 years of Supreme Court justices who have dedicated their entire lives to interpreting the Constitution disagreeing with you, some random guy from New Jersey, I'm going to go out on a limb and say your interpretation isn't anywhere near correct.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html

For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation.

[...]

When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”