Another Shooting

[phork]

Making gun makers liable? No thanks. They arent doing anything wrong.

Nobody should have to submit to an annual checkup in order to exercise constitutionally given rights.

When those rights have an ability to kill people I think its an option.

 

[ND NYC]

anyone have data on the % of 18-30 year olds who are registered to vote? who actually vote?

I know both are ridiculously low numbers.

the only chance for real and lasting change to this gun issue is not to change anyone's minds (that will NEVER happen)... it's to vote out people who support doing nothing about it.

maybe this issue will be the one to finally get kids to the polls. theres a chance it could.

the skeptic in me says it won't, but the optimist hopes it finally does.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

anyone have data on the % of 18-30 year olds who are registered to vote? who actually vote?

I know both are ridiculously low numbers.

the only chance for real and lasting change to this gun issue is not to change anyone's minds (that will NEVER happen)... it's to vote out people who support doing nothing about it.

maybe this issue will be the one to finally get kids to the polls. theres a chance it could.

the skeptic in me says it won't, but the optimist hopes it finally does.

People are split in this country in terms of rural vs city, gun-owner vs non-gun-owner. They'll vote accordingly. I don't think being in the younger generation automatically gives hope for change.

Views on gun policy in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

 

[ACamp1900]

Nobody should have to submit to an annual checkup in order to exercise constitutionally given rights.

I tend to disagree, and not just as it pertains to the 2nd Am... but other rights as well.

 

[IrishLax]

How exactly is a retailer supposed to know, much less a manufacturer? They don't have the investigative capability or authority to dig into a person's psyche like that. That's insane.

Uhhhh they do if someone volunteers to do it as a condition of purchase... people run detailed background checks including home visits if you want to adopt a fucking cat these days... the cat people don't need to be an authorized agency to do that, it's the people who have to agree to the terms if they want their damn cat...

So it goes like this --

Person: I want a gun.
Seller 1: OK well we get fined $100k if the gun is used in a homicide, so we're not going to sell it to you unless you agree to these terms.
Person: I don't want to agree to these terms.
Seller 1: OK well then we're not selling you a gun because we don't know if we can trust you.
Person: Fine, I'll take my business elsewhere...
Seller 2: Yeah, we have similar terms because we also want to make sure you're sane and trained before we sell you a gun.

You make the sellers financially responsible for the use of the weapons they're producing and watch what happens... they would start making people get background checks, mental health checks, they'd do a home visit, etc. They wouldn't be selling them to anyone they thought wasn't a responsible gun owner. Right now? They don't give a single shit if the products they're producing are used for murder.

This is no different than how car companies get fined if their cars aren't engineered correctly for public safety.

 

[IrishLax]

Making gun makers liable? No thanks. They arent doing anything wrong.

Nobody should have to submit to an annual checkup in order to exercise constitutionally given rights.

Well regulated is literally in the language of the Amendment, so I disagree.

 

[wizards8507]

Uhhhh they do if someone volunteers to do it as a condition of purchase... people run detailed background checks including home visits if you want to adopt a fucking cat these days... the cat people don't need to be an authorized agency to do that, it's the people who have to agree to the terms if they want their damn cat...

So it goes like this --

Person: I want a gun.
Seller 1: OK well we get fined $100k if the gun is used in a homicide, so we're not going to sell it to you unless you agree to these terms.
Person: I don't want to agree to these terms.
Seller 1: OK well then we're not selling you a gun because we don't know if we can trust you.
Person: Fine, I'll take my business elsewhere...
Seller 2: Yeah, we have similar terms because we also want to make sure you're sane and trained before we sell you a gun.

You make the sellers financially responsible for the use of the weapons they're producing and watch what happens... they would start making people get background checks, mental health checks, they'd do a home visit, etc. They wouldn't be selling them to anyone they thought wasn't a responsible gun owner. Right now? They don't give a single shit if the products they're producing are used for murder.

This is no different than how car companies get fined if their cars aren't engineered correctly for public safety.

Except that's NOT how it would go. It would go like this.

Person: I want a gun.
Seller: OK well we get fined $100k if the gun is used in a homicide, so we're not going to sell it to you unless you agree to these terms.
Person: Okay I agree to those terms.
Seller conducts background check, everything turns up fine.
Person: Murders a bunch of people.

Seriously, how the hell do the logistics of that play out in your mind? Every gun shop in the country employing private investigators to snoop on every potential purchaser? These are small family businesses with a small handful of employees for the most part.

Well regulated is literally in the language of the Amendment, so I disagree.

You're a lawyer, aren't you? Well-regulated, in the context of the 2A, mean's well-trained.

Well-regulated = Well trained
Militia = The entire body of the people

So if you want to get all Constitutional about it, every person should be compelled to complete X hours of firearms training every year, on the government's dime.

 

[wizards8507]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I will kill any tax legislation that benefits <a href="https://twitter.com/Delta?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Delta</a> unless the company changes its position and fully reinstates its relationship with <a href="https://twitter.com/NRA?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@NRA</a>. Corporations cannot attack conservatives and expect us not to fight back.</p>— Casey Cagle (@CaseyCagle) <a href="https://twitter.com/CaseyCagle/status/968199605803454465?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 26, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
This is a bad, bad take, and possibly criminal. You can't punish one private entity for choosing not to associate itself with another private entity.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Take a look at what teachers would really be up against if armed with a handgun and confronted with an AR-15.<br><br>Watch <a href="https://twitter.com/SRuhle?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SRuhle</a> explain: <a href="https://t.co/EyxlMKkhAx">https://t.co/EyxlMKkhAx</a> <a href="https://t.co/2DIbKrNg2f">pic.twitter.com/2DIbKrNg2f</a></p>— MSNBC (@MSNBC) <a href="https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/968221658900320257?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 26, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
This is an equally bad take. Holy shit they're stupid.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Every gun shop in the country employing private investigators to snoop on every potential purchaser? These are small family businesses with a small handful of employees for the most part.

The point of such an approach is to make it so prohibitively expensive for stores to do the checks or for potential buyers to pay for such checks that nobody can afford to sell or buy a gun legally. Sort of like raising the price of gasoline to $50/gal or making car insurance cost $50,000/yr... you haven't banned cars, but you've made it impossible for almost anyone to drive one. It's an end run around the Constitution. Meanwhile, the battered wife who fears for her life or the homeowner in a bad neighborhood will be disarmed and the criminals, by definition, will ignore all the gun laws and arm themselves on the black market.

 

[wizards8507]

The point of such an approach is to make it so prohibitively expensive for stores to do the checks or for potential buyers to pay for such checks that nobody can afford to sell or buy a gun legally. Sort of like raising the price of gasoline to $50/gal or making car insurance cost $50,000/yr... you haven't banned cars, but you've made it impossible for almost anyone to drive one. It's an end run around the Constitution. Meanwhile, the battered wife who fears for her life or the homeowner in a bad neighborhood will be disarmed and the criminals, by definition, will ignore all the gun laws and arm themselves on the black market.

Yup. See the "Wizard Get Your Gun" thread for an outline of how Connecticut operates, which lots of people see as a national model. I'm at $300 so far and I haven't bought a thing yet. Next I'm going to be waiting for two months. It's a poll tax.

 

[RDU Irish]

Can someone on a PC embed this?

https://twitter.com/TheLastRefuge2/status/966854507744374784

Corruption on a massive scale in Broward and Miami-Dade counties. Law enforcement colluding with schools to cover up crimes committed by students in order to juice their stats for grant money and whatnot.

Two calls to police in the last few years - both times they dismissed clear crimes and did not do their jobs. Gotta keep those crime stats in rainbow unicorn land, yo.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

So if you want to get all Constitutional about it, every person should be compelled to complete X hours of firearms training every year, on the government's dime.

That is indeed the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment. I previously suggested that there would be benefits to compulsory military service (with all the training that entails), but you objected on the grounds that it would be an outrageous violation of liberty.

Perhaps the universal right to arm oneself only obtains as long as it furthers the universal duty to defend the commonwealth?

 

[zelezo vlk]

That is indeed the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment. I previously suggested that there would be benefits to compulsory military service (with all the training that entails), but you objected on the grounds that it would be an outrageous violation of liberty.

Perhaps the universal right to arm oneself only obtains as long as it furthers the universal duty to defend the commonwealth?

Bring back the rum ration

 

[wizards8507]

That is indeed the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment. I previously suggested that there would be benefits to compulsory military service (with all the training that entails), but you objected on the grounds that it would be an outrageous violation of liberty.

Perhaps the universal right to arm oneself only obtains as long as it furthers the universal duty to defend the commonwealth?

 

[RDU Irish]

The point of such an approach is to make it so prohibitively expensive for stores to do the checks or for potential buyers to pay for such checks that nobody can afford to sell or buy a gun legally. Sort of like raising the price of gasoline to $50/gal or making car insurance cost $50,000/yr... you haven't banned cars, but you've made it impossible for almost anyone to drive one. It's an end run around the Constitution. Meanwhile, the battered wife who fears for her life or the homeowner in a bad neighborhood will be disarmed and the criminals, by definition, will ignore all the gun laws and arm themselves on the black market.

The criminals won't need guns to be emboldened.

https://www.libertarianism.org/media/free-thoughts/guns-mass-shootings


"Another thing that’s pretty clear from the social [00:24:00] science, and this is presented in my Supreme Court amicus brief for a large coalition of law enforcement organizations in the Heller case was study, after study, after study of both burglars who were in prison and even one study that managed to interview burglars in St. Louis who were out of prison and were active, successful, professional burglars. Is … The biggest part of their working day is observing the place they’re targeting and trying really hard to make sure there’s nobody [00:24:30] home when they go in, because if they do, there’s a high risk of getting shot. That is a … A burglar’s risk of getting shot is about equal to a burglar’s risk of going to prison. If you figure one is a deterrent, then probably the other equally-sized risk is also a deterrent.

The Centers for Disease Control, in the mid-1950’s, and they’re not known as one of the top pro-gun organizations out there, did a national study that estimated guns [00:25:00] are used defensively against burglars in the United States about 600,000 times a year. And again, the large majority of scenarios are not a shot being fired. It’s just eh display of the gun. The distinctive sound of a pump-action shotgun being racked to load the round makes the burglar decide to leave the scene.

You can contrast that with what goes on in Australia after they did their ban on defensive gun ownership. And England, and the Netherlands, and Ireland, and lots [00:25:30] and lots of other places where burglars deliberately come into occupied homes, and do so with impunity. And they do so because the occupied home is better for the burglar because you’ve got purses and wallets at home, where you can take cash, which has … You don’t have to sell at a discount the way you do with other goods that you’re fencing on the black market.

And we know they … Not the majority, but a significant minority of home [00:26:00] invasion burglaries when the occupants are present, leads to assault against the occupants. So, when you increase home invasion burglaries, when you … If you keep the number of burglaries constant, but you move more of them to becoming home invasions, you will be significantly raising the assault rate in the United States."

 

[dshans]

Making gun makers liable? No thanks. They arent doing anything wrong.

So Chevrolet should not have been held accountable and liable for their poorly designed and dangerous Corvair? Ford for their Pinto? Tobacco companies? Drug companies who churn out opiods, with little regulation or regard for consequence for profit, simply because the manufacture is legal?



Eyes wide shut.

 

[wizards8507]

So Chevrolet should not have been held accountable and liable for their poorly designed and dangerous Corvair? Ford for their Pinto? Tobacco companies? Drug companies who churn out opiods, with little regulation or regard for consequence for profit, simply because the manufacture is legal?



Eyes wide shut.

Corvair, liable. Pinto, liable. Van that works as intended but is used to mow down pedestrians, not liable.

Likewise, of course a gun manufacturer should be liable if a weapon malfunctions and blows up in someone's face at a range.

 

[Bishop2b5]

So Chevrolet should not have been held accountable and liable for their poorly designed and dangerous Corvair? Ford for their Pinto? Tobacco companies? Drug companies who churn out opiods, with little regulation or regard for consequence for profit, simply because the manufacture is legal?



Eyes wide shut.

If I burn up in a Pinto when Ford knew they were faulty and susceptible to catching on fire, then yes, Ford's liable. If I get drunk or angry and drive a non-faulty Mustang into a crowd of people, I'm at fault, not Ford.

 

[Circa]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wCoIsDDd3y4" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Maybe not Presidential although I can agree with him on this as a man.
Altho It's very odd he would respond to this type of situation knowing that officers are trained to go through a protocol when dealing with armed and dangerous people with possible hostages.

 

[dshans]

But could he have run in with his bone spurs?

 

[NorthDakota]

So Chevrolet should not have been held accountable and liable for their poorly designed and dangerous Corvair? Ford for their Pinto? Tobacco companies? Drug companies who churn out opiods, with little regulation or regard for consequence for profit, simply because the manufacture is legal?



Eyes wide shut.

If a gun is poorly designed and is dangerous to the operator, maybe I guess? Should a gun company get in trouble because I go to a sporting goods store, pick up a gun, and end up shooting someone? I don't think that's their problem.

 

[phork]

If a gun is poorly designed and is dangerous to the operator, maybe I guess? Should a gun company get in trouble because I go to a sporting goods store, pick up a gun, and end up shooting someone? I don't think that's their problem.

Just curious here. Do you think there is a problem at all?

 

[wizards8507]

Just curious here. Do you think there is a problem at all?

Yes. Social atomization. Whiskey can tell you all about it.

 

[phork]

Yes. Social atomization. Whiskey can tell you all about it.

Is this just an American problem?

 

[NorthDakota]

Just curious here. Do you think there is a problem at all?

Not with the NRA or guns. With people, sure.

 

[SonofOahu]

So you think attacking people for saying “God” is appropriate? And assault of politicians you don’t agree with should be encouraged/celebrated?

Depends on the context of the "God" usage. If it was something as simple as God Bless America, then not appropriate. If it was something along the lines of the constant, and impotent, use of "thoughts and prayers," then yes. Totally called for.

Rand Paul!? Shit, even Republicans cheered for his "assault." The only person with a more punchable face (and personality) is Ted Cruz.

 

[SonofOahu]

Evryone deals with trauma a little differently. I simply don't know what these kids are dealing with. That said, even before this event, this kid seemed overly political and angry for his age....seems like adults around him might try and hear him, but also help him, not encourage him to be the worst him he can be.

I wouldn't say "overly" angry or political. I think teens, in general, can run pretty angry. Shit, I was a monster in my teen years. Political, not so much.

Today's youth are definitely not shy about speaking out and engaging, that's for sure. That's the strength and weakness with these youngsters: they don't know their place. They've been put on pedestals, plus today's technology puts everyone in contact with each other.

Forget six-degrees of separation, these kids can directly speak at whomever they connect to on Twitter, Snapchat, etc.

 

[SonofOahu]

One law I'd like to see is making fire arm retailers/manufacturers financially liable for how their gun is used. If there was a million dollar penalty for your firearm being used in a homicide, I bet you most retailers/manufacturers would stop selling guns to people they weren't as certain as humanly possible wouldn't use it for crime/terrorism/murder. It's one way for capitalism to actually solve a problem.

That's an intriguing suggestion. The thing is, in places like Hawaii, the final say on who gets the gun is not the shop or manufacturer's call. It's really the Police Department's call, through the gun permits.

 

[SonofOahu]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">What the <a href="https://twitter.com/NRA?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@NRA</a> and Dana Loesch don't want you to see: <br><br>The following video clip is a basic AR-15 with a bump stock.<br><br>Make sure to watch the entire clip. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BoycottNRA?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BoycottNRA</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BanAssaultWeapons?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BanAssaultWeapons</a> <br><br>"Just an AR-15 on steroids." <a href="https://t.co/Gt5xKv3aNb">pic.twitter.com/Gt5xKv3aNb</a></p>— Jᴀsᴏɴ W. Tᴀʏʟᴏʀ (@JWadeTaylor) <a href="https://twitter.com/JWadeTaylor/status/967557639277367297?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 25, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
ar-15 with bump stock.

I'll be honest... I clicked just because of the girl in the thumbnail. I wasn't disappointed. Thanks.

 

[SonofOahu]

That is indeed the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment. I previously suggested that there would be benefits to compulsory military service (with all the training that entails), but you objected on the grounds that it would be an outrageous violation of liberty.

Perhaps the universal right to arm oneself only obtains as long as it furthers the universal duty to defend the commonwealth?

I think people are missing the fact that we already have a "well regulated militia." Wouldn't the National Guard be the vision of what the Founding Fathers were hoping to create? Dovetailing with your idea, would compulsory service in the NG be a more apt route to "local" gun ownership?

I know, I know, the NG can be/is a worldwide force, but that's not why they were created.