Gun ownership poll

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Deertick

"To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued
against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms
or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the
misuse of their products by others."

Sounds pretty prohibity to me? Any other codified restrictions for any other industry, offhand? Who decides frivolous? People who also cite the "McD's coffee lawsuit?

They also throw "trade associations" into the mix. Wonder who wrote the text?

The portion you pointed too is exactly what I said. It bars them from being sued because somebody else misused their product, a very narrow and specific type of frivolous lawsuit. Read the bill. Read what you quoted. It is not a general prohibition against sueing them, they can be sued and are sued. They are legally liable for all of their actions like anyone else and any other company. They just aren’t legally liable for the actions of other people. Just as a lawsuit against a knife manufacturer because a person stabbed someone will not succeed.

The reason the bill was for gun manufacturers specifically is because these frivolous lawsuits started to be used as a political bludgeon, to tie up manufacturers in expensive lawsuits to try and pull an end run around the 2nd. The left doesn’t seem to care about suing manufacturers of other objects used in murders, because it doesn’t further a political goal. There appears to be no political will from them to address homicides not committed with a gun.

As I have saud before, there are plenty of legitimate arguments against the 2nd and for regulation. It continues to baffle me why none of them are used, and instead claims that are simply factually false are made instead. Almost every claim to fact used to support an opinion being made by banners and regulators in this thread is simply and provably false, misstating existing regulations, being mechanically wrong, and refusing to learn what the terms they throw around actually even mean. Manufacturers and dealers are liable for all of their actions, and few industries have to go through as much monitoring as they do. Research what happens to FFL’s who break the rules. There is not a prohibition on suing them; you just have to sue them for their own actions and not the actions of people they are not affiliated with.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Carter08

https://www.edworkingpapers.com/site...s/ai21-476.pdf

Can you provide a summation of this study?

Originally Posted by Deertick

I guess if we are calling people who don't want unfettered access "banners", I'll use "willy-nillys" to differentiate the groups.

The willy-nillys fought with all of it's might background checks and waiting periods. They still fight the closing of the 'gun show loophole'. The FBI doesn't complete background checks on hundreds of thousands of requests within the 3 day period (noted, not all result in purchase), meaning that legally, the sale can be completed. (Although the few gun shops I have patronized made it clear that they wait for the background all clear.)

Waiting period / background checks have been shown to put a dent in ineligible individuals purchasing firearms legally. Something like 35% rejection due to felonies or DVI's. Make every purchase everywhere subject to the same standards.

Also, I fully support charging individuals who have their unsecured / unattended firearms stolen / accessed and subsequently used in a felony. And, no, in the center console of your unlocked vehicle is NOT secured.

Willy nillys, who's with me?

I've seen videos of car chases, where the criminal jacks someone else's car and does property damage/physical harm to others. Should the owner of the car that was stolen be charged?

Originally Posted by icurnmedic

Only here can a victim become the perpetrator and be held liable ...
I sure hope my axes, chainsaws, kitchen knives are never stolen and used in any kind of assault.... wait does that make it an assault kitchen knife..

We should have common sense laws restricting Assault Paper that causes paper cuts.

Originally Posted by Deertick

But it is OK for Congress to pass a law prohibiting gun manufacturers from being sued? I know that issue was at the tippy-top of Americans' list of priorities. No faith in the legal system?

Pretty sure Big Pharma is protected by this exact thing, including most recently their COVID "vaccines".

So no, very little faith in the legal system.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

As I have saud before, there are plenty of legitimate arguments against the 2nd and for regulation. It continues to baffle me why none of them are used, and instead claims that are simply factually false are made instead.

I'd be interested to read what you think are the legitimate arguments against the 2nd and for regulation.

Thanks

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I'd be interested to read what you think are the legitimate arguments against the 2nd and for regulation.

Thanks

I posted some of them earlier in this thread. You’re welcome.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I posted some of them earlier in this thread. You’re welcome.

Okay, I'll just read all 400 of your posts....

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Okay, I'll just read all 400 of your posts....

When you get done could you please update all of us?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by bnorth

When you get done could you please update all of us?

Haha

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Okay, I'll just read all 400 of your posts....

I think I've acted as curator here enough; that your side has several times needed me to find the posts for them to try and attack is a little weird. You could read 777 to start.

I post too much. Got me there. Man, I've been burned real good.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

I post too much. Got me there. Man, I've been burned real good.

They might not mind if you completely agreed with them.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

They might not mind if you completely agreed with them.

We seem to have a lot of those threads. PWCC, PSA, eBay trying to protect buyers, the list could go on and on. They do make for fun reading though.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think I've acted as curator here enough; that your side has several times needed me to find the posts for them to try and attack is a little weird. You could read 777 to start.

I post too much. Got me there. Man, I've been burned real good.

Not sure why you've pointed me to post #777. I don't see any legitimate arguments against the 2nd and for regulation in that one. Just you droning on again, lecturing us about logic.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Not sure why you've pointed me to post #777. I don't see any legitimate arguments against the 2nd and for regulation in that one. Just you droning on again, lecturing us about logic.

It's a good place to start, since you apparently need help in making a logical argument. I'm sure your side can do it. I'm sure you could read the previous post specifically naming several of the routes to go to use a consistent and logical argument, if you still can't figure out how a logical argument works to make one yourself.

With all of my droning on, I'm sure you can find something to legitimately attack very quickly.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I'd be interested to read what you think are the legitimate arguments against the 2nd and for regulation.

Thanks

Agreed. It’s simply look at the second. Well I can look at the first and understand there have been many, many legitimate restrictions placed on speech and religion that do not run afoul. When it comes to the second, any legitimate restrictions are met with such odd protest. No one is trying to ban guns. Just trying to balance good and bad and save lives at the end of the day.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Agreed. It’s simply look at the second. Well I can look at the first and understand there have been many, many legitimate restrictions placed on speech and religion that do not run afoul. When it comes to the second, any legitimate restrictions are met with such odd protest. No one is trying to ban guns. Just trying to balance good and bad and save lives at the end of the day.

Yes, some people are. 10,000% tax on ammunition, suing gun manufacturers as being responsible for murderers using their products to commit crime... these are not reasonable things and are clearly designed to drive gun manufacturers and retailers out of business.

There ARE people trying to ban guns and they are coming at it from several different angles, including, someday, tearing down the 2nd Amendment.

And who will be the big winners? Gang members and other assorted murderers, who will have an entire society of defenseless sheep to slaughter with little concern for their own safety. And, like cocaine, heroin, and other illegal things, they will have another product (guns) they can sell at huge markups, since they'll have a monopoly on that business.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Yes, some people are. 10,000% tax on ammunition, suing gun manufacturers as being responsible for murderers using their products to commit crime... these are not reasonable things and are clearly designed to drive gun manufacturers and retailers out of business.

There ARE people trying to ban guns and they are coming at it from several different angles, including, someday, tearing down the 2nd Amendment.

And who will be the big winners? Gang members and other assorted murderers, who will have an entire society of defenseless sheep to slaughter with little concern for their own safety. And, like cocaine, heroin, and other illegal things, they will have another product (guns) they can sell at huge markups, since they'll have a monopoly on that business.

I understand that fear but I don’t think it’s warranted. Most sensible people on the left do not want to leave you defenseless a d let that be the outcome. They’re truly just trying to work on a better solution to these mass shooting, and admittedly not focusing as much as they should on single killings. At any rate, work with them, don’t assume they are villains.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I understand that fear but I don’t think it’s warranted. Most sensible people on the left do not want to leave you defenseless a d let that be the outcome. They’re truly just trying to work on a better solution to these mass shooting, and admittedly not focusing as much as they should on single killings. At any rate, work with them, don’t assume they are villains.

When you oppose law abiding, trained, concerned personnel to be armed in schools as a precaution, you are, in fact, leaving those kids defenseless. Your own posts show my fear is warranted.

Identifying school shooters before they go off is nearly impossible. That is utopia, not reality. Reality is, when a murderer goes off, he needs to be stopped with lethal force as quickly as possible.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

When you oppose law abiding, trained, concerned personnel to be armed in schools as a precaution, you are, in fact, leaving those kids defenseless. Your own posts show my fear is warranted.

Identifying school shooters before they go off is nearly impossible. That is utopia, not reality. Reality is, when a murderer goes off, he needs to be stopped with lethal force as quickly as possible.

I oppose the current system that lets a kid buy a gun legally and then use it a day or two later to blow up a bunch of school kids and teachers. You seem to be ok with this and not realize the good guy with a gun theory is bs. It’s weird.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by Mark17

When you oppose law abiding, trained, concerned personnel to be armed in schools as a precaution, you are, in fact, leaving those kids defenseless. Your own posts show my fear is warranted.

Identifying school shooters before they go off is nearly impossible. That is utopia, not reality. Reality is, when a murderer goes off, he needs to be stopped with lethal force as quickly as possible.

I'll probably regret this, but if it is nearly impossible to identify school shooters, what exactly makes you think you would be successful identifying law abiding, trained, concerned personnel?

[G1911]

cgjackson222 proposed banning semi-auto and anything capable of holding more than 5 rounds, as I recall, constituting most all post-civil war technology.

The troll whose views flipped around once he saw an opening for his personal vendetta proposed a de facto ban on every gun of any kind with a 10,000x tax on any ammunition.

Several others have proposed bans too but aren’t in the current rendition of the debate.

Words have actual meanings. Anyone with a dictionary knows this.

This is what I’m talking about when I point out the lack of sensible argument from the other side. Don’t try and have it both ways and straight up lie about terms, existing bills, and mechanics. Pretending that a ban isn’t a ban is just idiotic. Make a logically valid argument (I.e., a good one - one that is not self contradictory, and consistent with the dictionary and verifiable facts). It is not difficult to do so. I’m an idiot, the rest of you can surely make an argument that passes elementary Aristotelian logic.

An argument should always be valid, whether one agrees with it or not. This simple hurdle still isn’t being cleared. Logic is 2,500 years old and has not changed much, one doesn’t need to be a scholar to get the basics and form a coherent, rational thought. Insisting that words do not mean what they mean, that mechanical items perform in a way they factually do not, and being dead wrong about existing laws do not form a logical argument.

This is really not hard. It’s difficult to fathom how a logical argument still hasn’t been made.