Gun Rights Victory!

[Solaris]

The law allowing people to own guns was made when it took like a minite to reload for the next shot.

Now days you can buy guns that can empty a 30round clip in a matter of secounds, its completly unnessacary.

You don't need guns for self defensive against criminals, we do fine in the UK.
And you don't need them to defend against a government, you have the power of the vote to do that.

 

[Sulkdodds]

It's a good law apart from the fact that I really don't believe widely available weaponry for all is really such a good idea considering how often we hear about people shooting each other over there. :/

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

sweet I can't wait to get my assault rifle and armor piercing bullets to go... hunting...yeah its dear season can't wait to go do that..hunting..

seriously who needs these weapons..the most I could understand was a 9mm pistol for "self defense"..im confident that no one needs assault weapons for self defense

You already could before this law. AW Ban ended in 2004.

 

[Ravioli]

We all know that America is ****t up anyway, so lets just sit back and continue laugh at them...whats the next thing? I bet 20 euros that they will make the new Florida law across the whole Country.

America.....:/ i feel so sad for them...

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

We all know that America is ****t up anyway, so lets just sit back and continue laugh at them...whats the next thing? I bet 20 euros that they will make the new Florida law across the whole Country.

America.....:/ i feel so sad for them...

What in the hell are you even talking about?

We make a step towards fixing one of the main sources of mockery at our nation, torte reform, and that makes us ****ed up?

And what Florida law?

 

[T.H.C.138]

sorry for being off topic...

but did you ever notice how so many "enlightened" people do exactly what us dumb americans are always accused of?

sitting on a high-horse looking down on all who surround...

anyways...back to you

 

[gick]

sorry for being off topic...

but did you ever notice how so many "enlightened" people do exactly what us dumb americans are always accused of?

sitting on a high-horse looking down on all who surround...

anyways...back to you

I dunno, I think Sweden is pretty flawless

 

[Milkman]

What in the hell are you even talking about?

We make a step towards fixing one of the main sources of mockery at our nation, torte reform, and that makes us ****ed up?

And what Florida law?

Ah don't bother with that kid, hes just one of those bandwagon us haters from europe.

As for the florida law, apparently "locals" can now shoot on sight anyone who makes "threatening" geastures or comments. The Brady campaign got it into the news after they started handing out flyers at airports warning tourists about the new law. Thats how the media is reporting it anyways, which is pretty vague at best. I wouldn't mind seeing some more details on it. Had No Limits elightened us on the subject matter yet? He is behind his quota this week for politically charged threads. Tsk tsk

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

correction, if people in general were less prone to violence, there would be less murders. However as it is very clear that people in general are quite prone towards violence, assuming you are a responsible law abiding citizen, you should be able to arm yourself in an apprpriate manner. Meanwhile, gun manufacturers should be able to do their job without having to worry about a lawsuit everytime a gun works exactly as it should, (i.e. putting a small metal spike or cloud of pellets through someone)

The gun manufactures are not only responsible for whether or not their products work. They are also responsible for the consequences of the product they produse.

For example, if a chemical factory produces chemical waste, they are responsible for disposing of that waste properly, because if this is not done, chemcial waste will cause a negative environmental and social externality.

Gun manufactures cause a negative social externality and they are responsible for the remedy of this externality.

The law should enforce that responisbility, (although total gun ban would be a better option.)

 

[Flyingdebris]

the point of a gun is to harm or to kill unless it is using blanks or rubber rounds, sueing a company for making something that does what its supposed to is ridiculous. A gun company has no way of knowing whether a piece will be used to stop a robbery or commit one. Anyway, its not the gun's fault someone gets shot, its the person who fired it.

However if a certain gun had a tendency to say malfunction and blast parts of itself back at the user, or contain some sort of carcinogen in the rubber grip. Then i can easily see that as grounds for a lawsuit.

As for the Florida law, the brady campaign has blown it out of proportion. Basicly what law sets in place is that if a person is put into a situation where the application of lethal force can save his/her life from an attacker, that person is entitled to have that option available instead of just running away. All it does is expand on self defense. I live in florida and i have not seen a single wild west type shoot out yet. So its all good

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

the point of a gun is to harm or to kill unless it is using blanks or rubber rounds, sueing a company for making something that does what its supposed to is ridiculous.

Incorrect, a gun, in america, is deemed as a weapon to defend one's self. This is why guns that are not used for hunting are legalised in america. Hence, if a weapon is used for anything else besides self-defense, the manufacturer should be held liable.

A gun company has no way of knowing whether a piece will be used to stop a robbery or commit one. Anyway, its not the gun's fault someone gets shot, its the person who fired it.

Yes it is. Cleary it is. If I provide you with a weapon, and you go an shoot someone with it, I am clearly partly responisble for it as I provided you with that weapon. If I was a drug dealer, and I provided you with drugs, are you telling me that what I am doing is perfectly okay and what you are doing is wrong? After all it was your fault that you used the drugs. It's the same thing.

If a gun company, which makes millions, if not billions of dollars in profits annually, is not capable of being responsible for how their products are used, then who is capable? The government? The police? No. If anyone has the capacity to deal with it would be the gun companies. Where the hell do their goddamn profits go anyway? Think about it, what better use is there for their profits then for them to spend it on methods to control how their weapons are used by the people they sell them to? Corporations were initially made to serve the public, not exploit their stupidity and weaknesses to make money out of them. The law should be doing everything to make corporations return to their original purpose.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Incorrect, a gun, in america, is deemed as a weapon to defend one's self. This is why guns that are not used for hunting are legalised in america. Hence, if a weapon is used for anything else besides self-defense, the manufacturer should be held liable.

By that very same logic, a lamp is meant to provide lighting. If I use the bulb to burn someone severely, the producer of the lamp is responsible. Completely wrong. If something is used in a manner it is not supposed to be, the person who did it is FULLY responsible, only.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

guns are supposed to be used to kill others.

lightbulbs are not supposed to be used to burn others.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Then perhaps you could explain why you said
"Incorrect, a gun, in america, is deemed as a weapon to defend one's self."

In response to
"the point of a gun is to harm or to kill unless it is using blanks or rubber rounds"

Either way, you've negated your own point. The use of a product by someone else is not another person's responsibility. If I purposely run over 20 people with my Chevrolet, Chevrolet cannot be sued for it.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

By that very same logic, a lamp is meant to provide lighting. If I use the bulb to burn someone severely, the producer of the lamp is responsible. Completely wrong. If something is used in a manner it is not supposed to be, the person who did it is FULLY responsible, only.

Incorrect, a lamp is meant to do what ever the person who has it does with it. There is no innate purpose in a lamp. Human beings are the ones that give it a purpose.

Hence, the role of the manufacture, should be, not only to create the lamp, but also ensure that it is used correctly, in a way that does not harm others. If it cannot achieve this, then the manufacturer will go out of buisness trying to do so, and the product that is causing harm to others will cease to exist as it will no longer be manufactured. Simple Logic. Same with Guns. If the gun manufactures cannot sustain in maintaining the way their products are used, then they will go out of buisness and people will no longer suffer from the negative effects of guns.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Incorrect, a lamp is meant to do what ever the person who has it does with it. There is no innate purpose in a lamp. Human beings are the ones that give it a purpose.

If you're going to claim a lamp has no specific purpose then the same can be said for guns.

Hence, the role of the manufacture, should be, not only to create the lamp, but also ensure that it is used correctly, in a way that does not harm others. If it cannot achieve this, then the manufacturer will go out of buisness trying to do so, and the product that is causing harm to others will cease to exist as it will no longer be manufactured. Simple Logic. Same with Guns. If the gun manufactures cannot sustain in maintaining the way their products are used, then they will go out of buisness and people will no longer suffer from the negative effects of guns.

It's not the manufacturer's responsibility to regulate how people use the product. There is no feasible way to do so in the first place, with ANY product. By your logic my exact example with the Chevy means Chevy can be sued for me running over 20 people.

 

[Flyingdebris]

yes a gun is supposed to be used for defense. That happens to fall under the hurt or kill category that i had stated before. It doesn't shoot "defend rays" it shoots supersonic metal spikes that hurt and kill.

As for being liable for crimes caused by the guns they sell. Doesn't and shouldn't work like that. It is impossible to know exactly where every single weapon will end up after its manufacture. Guns exchange hands, they get sold, some are purchased illegally, some are stolen, some are just found.

Besides, that would open up the most ridiculous slippery slope ever if what you wanted were put into effect. A criminal could easily sue the cops for having incapacitated him with gunfire. "they shot at me, and it hurt, i'm sueing the gunmakers for making the guns that shot up my legs!"

If a gun works exactly as advertised by a gunmaker without undue malfunction it should not be sued. If they are making shitty guns, or actively putting them in the hands of criminals, or conducting illegal actions, THEN they should be sued.

besides
do you blame the knife or the stabber?
the folding metal chair or the pro wrestler?
the spiked baseball bat or the thug?

If i go and ruinate somebody's kneecap, the blame should fall on me, not the tool i used to carry out the action.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

yes a gun is supposed to be used for defense. That happens to fall under the hurt or kill category that i had stated before. It doesn't shoot "defend rays" it shoots supersonic metal spikes that hurt and kill.

As for being liable for crimes caused by the guns they sell. Doesn't and shouldn't work like that. It is impossible to know exactly where every single weapon will end up after its manufacture. Guns exchange hands, they get sold, some are purchased illegally, some are stolen, some are just found.

Besides, that would open up the most ridiculous slippery slope ever if what you wanted were put into effect. A criminal could easily sue the cops for having incapacitated him with gunfire. "they shot at me, and it hurt, i'm sueing the gunmakers for making the guns that shot up my legs!"

If a gun works exactly as advertised by a gunmaker without undue malfunction it should not be sued. If they are making shitty guns, or actively putting them in the hands of criminals, or conducting illegal actions, THEN they should be sued.

besides
do you blame the knife or the stabber?
the folding metal chair or the pro wrestler?
the spiked baseball bat or the thug?

If i go and ruinate somebody's kneecap, the blame should fall on me, not the tool i used to carry out the action.

Exactly.

One cannot sue the athletic company because a thug beat them with a baseball bat they produced.

 

[CptStern]

a baseball bat is made to hit balls ...a gun however.........

 

[Raziaar]

Manufacturers Warning: This firearm is not to be used for anything except the lawful protection of an individual, or group of individuals. We are not to be responsible if this firearm is used to unlawfully harm or kill any individuals, say for example: Jack Thompson. Just say videogames were at fault instead.

 

[CptStern]

ya cuz this weapon was made for "lawful protection of an individual, or group of individuals."

 

[Raziaar]

ya cuz this weapon was made for "lawful protection of an individual, or group of individuals."

LoL. Umm... don't you know i'm joking? Besides, I think you already know my stance on real firearms. I don't like em.

 

[15357]

ya cuz this weapon was made for "lawful protection of an individual, or group of individuals."

well, yes..... What are you implying?

 

[Raziaar]

Guns are bad. Guns are Bad. Guns are bad. Guns are bad. Guns are Bad. Guns are Bad. Guns are bad. Guns are Bad.

 

[CptStern]

well, yes..... What are you implying?

I thought it was obvious what I was implying ..the whole "guns for protection" argument is invalidated when it comes to assault rifles

 

[Zeus]

I thought it was obvious what I was implying ..the whole "guns for protection" argument is invalidated when it comes to assault rifles

Ya I agree with stern on this one. No one I mean no one in america needs an assault rifle to "defend themselves". That is complete and utter bull and we all know it. If you're living in north africa I could understand having one for protection but in america you don't have to deal with tribes fighting every day..

 

[T.H.C.138]

ok..I am going to sue the sun for being too bright and hurting my eyes...

and the company that made my skateboard for making me fall down go boom...

and the acorn that rolled under my foot when I was walking the other day...



see a pattern?

mankind is the problem...guns are INANIMATE objects...not vicious killers..

those are the guys holding the guns...

if it wasn't for people guns would just sit around doing nothing all day long..

lazy bastards

 

[Lemonking]

Ya I agree with stern on this one. No one I mean no one in america needs an assault rifle to "defend themselves". That is complete and utter bull and we all know it. If you're living in north africa I could understand having one for protection but in america you don't have to deal with tribes fighting every day..

in compton we have tribes fighting eachother.

 

[Javert]

"Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people...but guns help."
-Eddie Izzard

I'm still interested how they continue to use the 2nd Amendment, even if they misread (ie, "leave out") half of it. They should already recognize they form their legislation ideals on their own beliefs.

 

[Direwolf]

I certainly think that having an assault rifle is beyond anyone's needs, but usually those who want them aren't the ones looking to defend themselves from home invasion (survivalists are a whole 'nother can of worms).

I was actually thinking about this whole issue recently, and I think it comes down to how Americans regard banning anything. While over-litigation seems all too common these days, theres still a strong feeling in the country that actually banning something is an incredibly drastic measure. It should only be used if there is absolutely no purpose to the object other than causing harm.

And guns don't meet that criteria. I'm not going to argue that they weren't originally designed for that purpose, because thats ridiculous. But they're such a part of the world, like it or not, that many other ways of using them have grown up around them. Theres too many to list, but it ranges from hunting and sport shooting to collecting.

Now, theres also a strong feeling in the US that when guns are used to kill people, they're being used incorrectly. Even when its an accident, its the result of improper safety precautions; usually not having it locked up and the ammo stored seperately as it should be.

The result is that its become a part of the American conciousness that banning guns outright is just not supportable politically. It smacks too much of being denied something because of the misdeeds of others.
</fractured musings>

 

[The Mullinator]

Anyone who intends to buy a gun for more than hunting, use at shooting ranges, and self defence will always get passed any number of gun laws.

Guns aren't necessarily designed to kill people. Hunting is killing animals while shooting ranges are just for sport. The bow and arrow was designed for killing, javalins were designed for killing, most knives in history have been designed for killing. There really aren't many laws in any country against those devices. The only difference between a gun and those things are that guns are simply more efficient at killing.

Now after saying that I will also tell you now that the US does need stricter gun laws. If not for actually reducing gun violence then at least for the purpose of changing attitudes towards guns and violence in the US.

 

[Direwolf]

Thankfully, support of gun laws seems to have grown in recent years. Not being able to personally own something ready to go to war isn't going to crimp anyone's style.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I thought it was obvious what I was implying ..the whole "guns for protection" argument is invalidated when it comes to assault rifles

I don't see how it is at all? Depending on the calibur and other issues. The assault weapon 'designation' simply is done so on LOOKS. That's the truth. I'd feel MUCH, MUCH safer confronting a thief on my property armed with a .223 AR-15 than I would with any handgun at all. Accuracy and especially safety wise.

Either way, it doesn't do anything for Frenzy's point, it's not the manufacturer's responsibility.

Thankfully, support of gun laws seems to have grown in recent years. Not being able to personally own something ready to go to war isn't going to crimp anyone's style.

Actually gun control laws and other issues have lost support in recent years due to their inefficiency

See the Assault Weapons Ban not being renewed.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Yes, exactly, people are the problem. Hence, if a product is made, which the 'people' can not use properly, then the manufacturer that creates the product that people cannot use properly, will go out of buisness, hence the prodcut ceases to exist.

What part of this do you not understand?

I am saying that the manufacturers are PARTLY liable. Hence, if I kill you with the gun without the intention of defending myself, then I am liable, and so is the person who provided that ability(ie the gun) to me.

Manufacturerers do not pay for the social cost of the products they produce. This is the problem. They should be held responsible for the misuse of their products or else they should be forced to go out of business. If I make a knife, then I have to make sure my children dont use it in the wrong way. And if they do, then I am partly held responsible for there wrong use of it.

 

[Milkman]

Yes, exactly, people are the problem. Hence, if a product is made, which the 'people' can not use properly, then the manufacturer that creates the product that people cannot use properly, will go out of buisness, hence the prodcut ceases to exist.

What part of this do you not understand?

I am saying that the manufacturers are PARTLY liable. Hence, if I kill you with the gun without the intention of defending myself, then I am liable, and so is the person who provided that ability(ie the gun) to me.

Manufacturerers do not pay for the social cost of the products they produce. This is the problem. They should be held responsible for the misuse of their products or else they should be forced to go out of business. If I make a knife, then I have to make sure my children dont use it in the wrong way. And if they do, then I am partly held responsible for there wrong use of it.

You are holding manufacturers accountable to what is essensially out of their control. The only way a manufacturer can control misuse of weapons is by not making them, and this is self defeating.
Companies should only be held accountable for defects or features that lead to misuse. An example in the gun manufacturing industry would be the TEC machine pistols. Although only semi-automatic, these guns were rediculously easy to make fully automatic, and 45 round magazines were sold. The TEC-9 has no hunting or personal defense capabilities, it was clearly intended for misuse. Something like this should be held accountable.
I understand what you are saying about liability, that is that by making a weapon they are making it possible for misuse to be done, but the weapon itself is not possible to hold accountable, only the user can be.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Hence, if I kill you with the gun without the intention of defending myself, then I am liable, and so is the person who provided that ability(ie the gun) to me.

No, they are not. They only are if they provided it to you while knowing that you and were aware that you were going to use it to unlawfully kill someone (in which case it would be the DEALER in any scenerio)

If you want to buy a combat knife from me, and I sell it to you assuming you're using it for legitimate purposes, and you go out and kill someone with it, I am in NO way liable or responsibly for that. How you think someone would be I have no clue.

 

[bliink]

Its all about whats reasonably foreseeable (Under australian and UK law anyway).

If a gun shop knew (or should have known) that you were planning to shoot someone out of anger, and they sold you the weapon, then they are liable.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Its all about whats reasonably foreseeable (Under australian and UK law anyway).

If a gun shop knew (or should have known) that you were planning to shoot someone out of anger, and they sold you the weapon, then they are liable.

Exactly. Knowingly aiding a criminal act

 

[bliink]

Exactly. Knowingly aiding a criminal act

Knowingly is not the only qualifier though.

"Knowing" is not applied the the person in the case but rather a "reasonable person"

eg, Gun shop owner Smith sells guns. concurrently, Mr evil breaks out of prison and his mugshots are sent to all gun shops.
Smith has his fax turned off on the day the mugs are sent.

Now, if he sold a gun to Mr evil, and evil shot someone.. then Smith would most likely be found negligent because a reasonable person would not have sold a weapon to him.

"not knowing" is no defence for negligence.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Knowingly is not the only qualifier though.

"Knowing" is not applied the the person in the case but rather a "reasonable person"

eg, Gun shop owner Smith sells guns. concurrently, Mr evil breaks out of prison and his mugshots are sent to all gun shops.
Smith has his fax turned off on the day the mugs are sent.

Now, if he sold a gun to Mr evil, and evil shot someone.. then Smith would most likely be found negligent because a reasonable person would not have sold a weapon to him.

"not knowing" is no defence for negligence.

Felons can't buy guns here so in that case it's taken care of, but I know what you're getting at. We also have 5 day waiting period for handguns.

But that's also a dealer issue too, and dealers need to be held accountable when they are doing such. Manufacturer's are in no way responsible, though.