Why do most people think gun control is a good idea?

[russ1943]

a 13-year-old Colorado Springs boy killed his 9 yr old brother and seriously injured his mother.
http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-springsshooting-guns-051909,0,7716108.story

[rwheeler31]

1. In most places it is.

[MercutioATC]

2. The first sentence of the linked article states a patent lie.

"The State of Colorado lacks laws which would allow the prosecution of whomever allowed a 13-year-old Colorado Springs boy to get his hands on a loaded weapon which, police say, he used to kill his 9-year-old brother and seriously injury his mother."

It's true that the state of Colorado doesn't have a specific law relating to a child's access to guns, but there ARE laws that allow prosecution of whomever allowed access in this case.

It's called criminally negligent homicide, and it's a felony in Colorado.

[rwheeler31]

3. I think your laws are weird that child is dead.

[MercutioATC]

4. Why would a charge of criminally negligent homicide be "weird"??

...and it's not my law, it's Colorado criminal code.

[Ginny from the Block]

109. Too Bad Illegal Possession doesn't translate into Illegal Acquisition!

Colorado definitely needs to tighten up its laws to avoid future tragedies. Prevention is the key and can be done without limiting law-abiding citizens' access to guns. The state of Colorado should be able to put a lien on this family's assets to reimburse Colorado taxpayers for police and court costs related to the killing. Only when gun owners are held financially responsible for their possessions will we see real change in the responsible handling of firearms. See my blog posting on gun possession myths at
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/ginnystognermcdavid/gGxnSr.

[Euromutt]

110. It does, actually: 18 USC 922 (d)

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));
(6) who <2> has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
(B)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
This subsection shall not apply with respect to the sale or disposition of a firearm or ammunition to a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector who pursuant to subsection (b) of section 925 of this chapter is not precluded from dealing in firearms or ammunition, or to a person who has been granted relief from disabilities pursuant to subsection (c) of section 925 of this chapter.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html

So it is not "perfectly legal for you to sale {sic} your gun to someone without the legal right to carry a firearm" (to quote your blog entry). On the one occasion I have purchased a firearm (a Soviet m1895 Nagant revolver made in 1933) from a private seller, the seller would not sell it to me unless I could show him a valid state-issued resident Concealed Pistol License in order to assure himself that he would not be breaking Washington state and federal law by selling it me, and in the event that I ever decided to sell any of my guns (including long guns), I would make the same request of the buyer.

Similarly, when you claim that:

The Mexican drug wars are spilling their violence in the U.S., using guns legally purchased here in America by straw purchasers hard up on their luck.

(emphasis mine) you ignore the fact that "straw purchasing" is by definition not legal; doing so requires lying in response to question 12.a. on the ATF form 4473:

Are you the actual buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.

(bolding original)
Stating that you are the actual buyer when you are in fact a straw purchaser is a federal felony.

So I'm frankly unimpressed by your lack of research before making assertions (and that's leaving aside the fact that the overwhelming majority of narcotraficantes' guns--and all of their military-grade hardware--do not come from the US private market). You rather appear to have been so enamored of the soundbite you cooked up ("Illegal 'possession' is meaningless without illegal 'acquisition'.") that you neglected to verify whether it was actually true.

Also from your blog entry:

For every 10 people in this country, there is a gun for 9 of them. Maybe I’m just traveling in the wrong circles, but it seems to me that more than 10 % of the people in this country are under 18, mentally ill, or a convicted felon.

I don't know a single person who owns one firearm; every gun owner I know owns at least four, and I own nine myself. So gun ownership is not distributed evenly across the population, as you disingenuously imply. I say disingenuously because you state that "My husband and I own guns, both for self defense and sport," which sounds to me like you each own more than one firearm yourselves.

While I sympathize with many of the sentiments expressed in your blog entry, it is so riddled with factual inaccuracies that it loses much of any persuasive argument it has.

Oh yes, it's "martial law", not "Marshal(l) law."

[Ginny from the Block]

112. I serously doubt this little boy will be prosecuted for illegally "acquiring" this gun.......

There's unquestionably laws on the books to prosecute persons wrongfully obtaining firearms, but this law won't bring this little boy's brother back. It's a shame that households with firearms don't all take the necessary precautions to keep their homes safe, as I'm sure you do.

Thanks for your comments on my essay and I'll correct that typo!

[friendly_iconoclast]

114. Your blog is full of inaccuracies

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/ginnystognermcdavid/gGxnSr

The difficulty in affording and obtaining firearms during the 18th and 19th centuries contrasts sharply with the ability to obtain cheap firearms made in China like they were toys.

There *are* no 'cheap' firearms anymore, and Chinese imports were banned years ago.

Myth # 4: The Government will confiscate your guns if you register them.

It's already happened in California to SKS rifles. Not a myth

If we want to instill true responsibility with gun ownership and ensure that guns aren’t sold to those with no legal right to carry them, then transferring legal “title” to the gun upon transfer, much like transferring title to your car, which can also be a deadly weapon, will help protect you from liability upon sale as well as the public. Sure registration carries risks. But so does sex. Does that stop people from risky behavior?

1. You can't "ensure guns aren't sold to those with no legal right to carry them" as there is a large black market in guns already.

2. Glock has already been sued for selling guns to a police department which later ended up in the
hands of a criminal. So- no, issuing 'titles' for guns will not "help protect you from liability upon sale as well as the public."

Also, without legal title to the guns, burglars and drug addicts won’t be able to sell the weapons to pawn shops, etc.

They'll just sell them out of the trunk of a car like they already do. No gun dealer with an IQ above room
temperature buys stolen guns, as this is the Fast Lane to federal prison

You claim to be a gun owner, yet your blog displays no awareness of BATF procedures, form 4473, or the history
of gun laws.

In all candor you come across like one of the trainees in this movie:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097314/

or one of those asshole Trotskyites I occasionally run into who wear blue denim shirts to show
'solidarity with the proles'....

Added on edit:

I cached the blog in case it gets scrubbed later

[friendly_iconoclast]

115. Too bad about your regressive approach to gun control

I liked a lot of your platform. Fortunately, there are a lot of Democrats who support universal health care
AND the Second Amendment.

[imdjh]

5. There is a bit more to this story- the kid was apparently psycho

Police: Boy kills brother and stabs mother
Posted: May 19, 2009 04:20 PM
Updated: May 19, 2009 05:01 PM
Video Gallery <1>

13 year old accused of killing his 9 year old brother
0:16
Posted by Sarah Harlan - email

COLORADO SPRINGS, CO (NBC) - A 13-year-old Colorado boy is accused of killing his nine-year-old brother and attacking his mother.

Colorado Springs police said the teen shot and killed his younger brother and shot and stabbed his mother in their home Monday morning.

The nine-year-old was killed and his mother is recovering in a hospital.

Police have not released a motive and there's no word if the teen will be tried as an adult or a juvenile.

[aquart]

10. They kept a gun handy for a psycho? Smart.

[jgraz]

6. If only 9-year-olds were allowed concealed carry permits.

:eyes:

[Merchant Marine]

7. Goalposts in motion

You're saying it buddy, not me.

That said, this is one of those reasons secure storage is a good idea for any gun owner. Crazy kids, crazy visitors, crazy people in general. I keep my Makarov in a biometric safe, as well as the ready ammunition for my Mossberg. Everything else is locked up in a proper safe or hidden and trigger locked. (Except for the shotgun, but all of its ammo is secured.)

Undoubtedly this is another case of a mentally disturbed youth, criminally negligent parents and unsecured firearms. Seeing as the youth was perfectly willing to stab his mother, I don't see how gun control could have stopped this.

Unless you are talking about the magical "Make all guns go away" option, in which case we should make a quick return to reality.

So yeah, what gun control law should we believe in? Which one would have stopped this incident? Ball is in OP's court.

[jgraz]

8. It's a very simple question: do more guns in the hands of more people equal more dead children?

That's pretty much it. If you think more guns in the hands of more people equals fewer dead children, then explain how.

[Euromutt]

11. The question is fallacious

Mostly, it's a fallacy of many questions (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#manyq), along with a dash of false dichotomy (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#bifurcation) as well as a violation of audiatur et altera pars (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#alterapars).

It's entirely possible that if there were fewer guns in the hands of fewer people, homicidally inclined minors would find other ways to kill other kids. Try Googling "Damilola Taylor," "Paul Erhahon," "James (or Jamie) Bulger" and "Lyle Tulloch," all murdered using means other than guns. Then there was Rhys Jones, whose death in a bicycle-by shooting by a teenager was not prevented by private possession of handguns being completely illegal in the UK (but "if guns are outlawed...").

It's not an "either/or" proposition, because there are many factors other than the legality of private ownership of firearms alone that determine the answer to this question. The problem, as ever with gun control, is that the people most likely to give up any guns they own are the people least likely to use them for unlawful purposes. If we have fewer guns in the hands of fewer people, but the only people who are left with guns are all puericidal sociopaths, then we might all too readily end with more dead kids as result.

[jgraz]

13. As much as I like the page you linked to, your use of fallacies is fallacious

Mostly. My subject is most definitely not fallacious but in deference to your first critique, I'll word the body of my post a bit more carefully: If you think that more guns in the hands of more people do not necessarily lead to more dead children, then explain why.

Your second critique (false dichotomy) is not applicable, since there is an actual dichotomy being proposed. Either there is a causal relationship or there isn't. No one is creating a false pair of choices from a larger collection of possibilities. (The plurium interrogationum and false dichotomy fallacies are actually mutually exclusive.)

And audiatur et altera pars makes no sense whatsoever. I am asking about a simple link between two conditions. How is that a case of failing to state assumptions? In fact, until I start arguing for a particular conclusion, audiatur is not even possible.

However, it was nice of you to include your own set of logical fallacies in your answer. Let's take a look:

It's entirely possible that if there were fewer guns in the hands of fewer people, homicidally inclined minors would find other ways to kill other kids.

This is a clear case of ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion). Just because some people may find other ways to kill kids, that does not support the assertion that an equal or greater number of children will be killed by other methods.

Try Googling "Damilola Taylor," "Paul Erhahon," "James (or Jamie) Bulger" and "Lyle Tulloch," all murdered using means other than guns. Then there was Rhys Jones, whose death in a bicycle-by shooting by a teenager was not prevented by private possession of handguns being completely illegal in the UK (but "if guns are outlawed...").

Do I even need to point out the use of anecdotal evidence?

It's not an "either/or" proposition, because there are many factors other than the legality of private ownership of firearms alone that determine the answer to this question.

Straw man. I never mentioned making private ownership of firearms illegal. Also, a bit of your own audiatur et altera pars since you never state any of your alleged "many factors".

The problem, as ever with gun control, is that the people most likely to give up any guns they own are the people least likely to use them for unlawful purposes.

Here's a real example of a false dichotomy. You're implying that the only way to reduce the number of guns is for people to give up guns they currently own.

Also, you state that law-abiding gun owners would be the first in line to hand in their guns. That's a logical fallacy I like to call "bullshit". Are you really saying that Cletus with his gun rack and his "cold dead hands" bumper sticker is going to happily hand in his weapons when asked to by the government? And if Cletus doesn't want to turn in his guns, does that mean that he was planning on using them for some unlawful purpose?

If we have fewer guns in the hands of fewer people, but the only people who are left with guns are all puericidal sociopaths, then we might all too readily end with more dead kids as result.

And finally, you treat us to a classic example of petitio principii (begging the question) by basing your argument on the fallacious assumption that fewer guns means that only puericidal sociopaths will own guns.


So, the bad news is that none of your arguments make sense, but the good news is that we're both now ready to kick the ass of the next creationist we run into. ;)

[Euromutt]

94. Let me review

Your second critique (false dichotomy) is not applicable, since there is an actual dichotomy being proposed. Either there is a causal relationship or there isn't.

That wasn't the false dichotomy. The false dichotomy was that the only two options are that either more guns in the hands of more people will result in more dead kids, or more guns in the hands of more people will lead to fewer dead kids.

The question whether or not there is a causal relationship between the prevalence of firearm ownership and the number of children who die violent deaths would indeed be a valid dichotomy. However, that was not the dichotomy you originally posited. Both the plurium interrogationum and the violation of audiatur et altera pars are driven by the unstated premise in your part that such a causal relationship does indeed exist, the original (false) dichotomy being in which way the correlation runs; positive (higher prevalence of firearms => more dead kids) or negative (higher prevalence => fewer dead kids). Another unstated premise is that this is the only possible causal factor in determining the number of violent deaths of children.

This is a clear case of ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion). Just because some people may find other ways to kill kids, that does not support the assertion that an equal or greater number of children will be killed by other methods.

On the contrary; it's relevant for the purpose of illustrating that, in the event that prevalence of firearms were reduced, method substitution might result in the number of violent deaths of minors remaining unchanged, which would form evidence that prevalence of firearms is not the only, or even the primary, determining factor in the number of violent deaths of minors.

Do I even need to point out the use of anecdotal evidence?

First, tell russ1943 that; he started this thread on the premise that proponents of gun control are justified in their opinions because of a single anecdotal incident.

Even so, that's not to say anecdotal evidence doesn't have a legitimate purpose to serve. Anecdotal evidence (e.g. in the form of medical case studies) form the basis of hypotheses which in turn form the basis of further study. Moreover, a single anecdotal example may serve to falsify a hypothesis ("the exception that disproves the rule"). In this instance, the examples I've cited serve to illustrate that despite H.M Government's best efforts to eliminate all handguns, and most other firearms, from British soil, children in the UK continue to die violent deaths; possibly in larger numbers than prior to the implementation of increased restrictions on firearms ownership following the Hungerford and Dunblane incidents, in spite of those restrictions. Therefore, it's reasonable to hypothesize that crime isn't caused by the legal availability of firearms (or lack of it) but by something else.

Straw man. I never mentioned making private ownership of firearms illegal.

So enlighten me: what are you driving at with your "simple question" as to whether "more guns in more hands equal more dead children"? I'd say it's a reasonable assumption that you consider dead children to be an undesirable thing, and that you assume that any decent person shares that view (and that any person pretending to be decent would feign holding that view); and that therefore, if "more guns in more hands" does indeed result in "more dead children," it is therefore desirable to limit the prevalence of firearms, as this will lead to a marked reduction in the number of children dying violent deaths. Am I jumping to any unwarranted conclusions so far?

So even if you don't advocate criminalizing the private ownership of firearms entirely, you do presumably advocate the criminalization of certain aspects of firearms ownership that are, at present, legal in certain states of the Union. If not, what is your point?

Also, a bit of your own audiatur et altera pars since you never state any of your alleged "many factors".

Hogwash. The fact I haven't bothered to specify other factors doesn't mean I have failed to state that those factors form part of my reasoning. The very fact that you can use quote marks around the phrase "many factors" is sufficient evidence of that.

Why don't you just ask me for some examples of these "many factors" I've mentioned?

Here's a real example of a false dichotomy. You're implying that the only way to reduce the number of guns is for people to give up guns they currently own.

First, where's the dichotomy? Second, how else would you envisage reducing the number of firearms currently in private hands in the US so as to effect a reduction in the number of violent deaths among minors within any meaningful timeframe? Guns take an awfully long time to wear out.

Also, you state that law-abiding gun owners would be the first in line to hand in their guns. That's a logical fallacy I like to call "bullshit". Are you really saying that Cletus with his gun rack and his "cold dead hands" bumper sticker is going to happily hand in his weapons when asked to by the government?

Now that is a straw man. I said "most likely," i.e. more likely than anyone else; relative statements do not necessarily reflect absolute assessment. Hypothetically, I can say "Cheyenne is the most exciting city in Wyoming," but that doesn't necessarily mean I would consider Cheyenne (est. pop. < 60,000) to be bustling and dynamic. Similarly, the fact that a certain type of gun owner is the most likely to comply with a law requiring them to hand in some or all of their firearms doesn't mean they're going to be eager or happy to comply. But practically by definition, it's the most law-abiding gun owner who is the most likely (i.e. more likely than other gun owner) to comply with any law that bans some or all firearms. Substitute "least unlikely" for "most likely" if that helps.

And finally, you treat us to a classic example of petitio principii (begging the question) by basing your argument on the fallacious assumption that fewer guns means that only puericidal sociopaths will own guns.

Did my use of the words "if" and "might" escape your notice? It was meant as a hypothetical scenario whereby reducing the prevalence of firearms might fail to result in reducing the number of violent deaths among minors.

[Merchant Marine]

12. Corellation is not causation

You're trying to reduce a complex issue to a simple number ratio. In my opinion we can achieve a goal of fewer dead children through other means than confiscation. Methods like firearms safety education in public schools, efforts to make gun safes more generally affordable and encouraging a culture of safe, secure and responsible firearms ownership goes a hell of a lot farther than throwing your hands up and going after my right to self defense.

This kid was obviously mentally ill. He used a gun and a knife in his murder spree. He could have perpetuated the entire thing without the firearm. People that decide to kill will find a way, as the British and their newly formed "Mothers against Knife Violence" group have found.

[jgraz]

14. Again, you're using a strawman argument. I never mentioned "confiscation".

There are plenty of ways to reduce the number of guns in society besides forcibly taking them from current gun owners.

For example, you can strictly limit the number and type of guns that can be manufactured in the US. You can go after dealers and manufacturers that over-produce guns that they know are headed for the black market. You can institute generous gun buy-back programs. And, you can allow liability suits against gun manufacturers when their products are used in the commission of a crime.

All of these methods will reduce the number of available guns without restricting gun ownership in the least, let alone going after the weapons that people currently own.

[oneshooter]

17. Sue em all!

"And, you can allow liability suits against gun manufacturers when their products are used in the commission of a crime."
:sarcasm:
Substitute for "gun manufacturers"

Car manufacturers

Golf club manufacturers

Knife manufacturers

Ski mask manufacturers

2X4 manufacturers

Gasoline companies

Alcohol manufacturers

Tape manufacturers

Feel free to add your own manufacturer of objects used in the commission of a crime.
I don't know how you can sue a rock or branch, but our legal system will find a way!! After all of these manufacturers are sued out of existence then we should all be SAFE!!!!:sarcasm:

[jgraz]

22. And, of course, we get the GOP talking points on another issue

How surprising :eyes:

[inkool]

18. How can...

strictly limiting the number and type of guns manufactured not restrict gun ownership in the least?

Also what type of guns do you purpose being limited?

[jgraz]

23. The alleged RKBA says nothing about manufacturing

Corporations, include gun manufacturers, have zero rights. They can be regulated out of existence if we choose.

Or... is this another issue in which the pro-gun crowd sides with the GOP?

[inkool]

27. That is all well and good.

Now could you answer the question?

You purposed limited manufacture. Now can you explain what you would like to see limited and how it would not restrict gun ownership.

[jgraz]

29. Let's start with limiting overproduction for street sales

That's been talked about for years and is the motivation for many of the liability suits against the gun corporations. They manufacture more weapons than are necessary for the legal market, knowing that the excess will be sold to criminals.

But the point I'm making is bigger than one specific policy: I'm saying that we can debate your RKBA. But you have NO right to have a weapon manufactured for you. If it were possible, we could legally eliminate US gun manufacturing without violating your right to keep and bear the weapons that are already in existence.

[inkool]

30. Is there any evidence that...

firearm manufactures over produce in hopes of selling to the criminal market? I honestly ask because I have not seen any, and if there were I would agree with you completely.

The government eliminating the manufacture of new firearms may not limit the rights of people who already own firearms, but it would violate the right to keep and bear arms by anyone who does not already own a firearm.

[jgraz]

32. Yes, there is.

In fact, a jury verdict in '99 was one of the major motivations for the lobbying effort to remove the rights of Americans to sue gun corporations. As you can imagine, it's not easy to find news articles on 10-year-old court cases, but here's one link just to show I'm not making it up: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-5635575_ITM

But again, the bigger point is that the gun corporations have no rights under the 2nd Amendment. Think about how we deal with the First Amendment: we can say or print whatever we want, but the FCC and FTC can still strictly regulate the business of broadcasting and newspapers.

Your argument is the equivalent of saying that, because you have free speech under the First Amendment, the government should allow unlicensed radio stations to start up wherever they want.

[Euromutt]

98. Because juries never make mistakes, right?

That's why nobody has ever been exonerated after being found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" by a jury. Oh, wait...

And I will point out here, as elsewhere, that that article fails to identify the plaintiffs, the defendants, or the venue in the trial in question, which means we can't actually review the evidence for ourselves, or check to see whether maybe that case got overturned on appeal. Hell, you might not be making it up, for all we can tell, the reporter (also unidentified) from the Charlotte Observer was.

[sl8]

101. I'm pretty sure that the article excerpt is about Hamilton ...

and it was vacated by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

NY Court of Appeals:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I01_0040.htm

2nd Circuit Court of Appeals:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/264/264.F3d.21.html

Googling "Hamilton v. Accu-tek" and "Hamilton v. Beretta" will turn up lots of references.

[Euromutt]

104. I think you're right.

From the documents, all the salient points seem to match, particularly the massive number of defendants. Good job!

So from what I can make out, both the New York Court of Appeals and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the jury's opinion regarding the defendants' alleged negligence. So there goes that particular piece of evidence.

[inkool]

105. Some industrious members...

have already refuted the lawsuit in the link you provided. So the question is back to you. Is there any evidence of over production with the intent to sell to the illegal market?

Now to the bigger bigger bigger point. How would the government eliminating all commercial production of firearms not limit a persons second amendment rights?

[patriotvoice]

106. The FCC permits unlicensed radio stations, provided they broadcast with extremely low power.

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/lowpwr.html#UNLICENSED

So yes, because you do have free speech, you can start up your own station. As soon as you exceed the power threshold, however, the FCC swoops in.
And yes, because you do have the RKBA, you may keep weapons for your own defense. As soon as you use the weapon aggressively, however, the police swoop in on you.

In both cases, your misuse of your rights and responsibilities causes the appropriate machinery to come into motion against you, for the benefit of society.

[imdjh]

19. Objection

#1 objection - it is not the role of government to reduce the number of guns, to restrict the manufacture of guns, or to buy guns across the board for the purpose of lowering the number of guns in the possession of the public.

BTW- I don't think that the purpose of buyback programs is to reduce the number of guns on the street. The effect of these programs is to search thousands of homes without a warrant, which is perfectly legal except for the misuse of government funds.

[jgraz]

24. Wow...

Once again, this is why so many progressives are uncomfortable with the pro-gun positions. Apparently, you can't just be pro-self-defense. You also have to be pro-corporate and anti-government.

Why is that?

[imdjh]

26. Pro-corporate and anti-government?

Pro second amendment.
Pro fourth amendment.
Pro first, third, fifth, sixth, etc...

[jgraz]

28. Not really.

Not unless you can show me were in the second amendment they wrote in protections for corporate gun manufacturers.

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. "Anti-government"? What makes you think you represent the interests of government?

The Federal government changed the law to prevent bullshit product liability lawsuits like the
ones you've been touting on this thread.

I take it you approve of this because the "government" did it, correct?

[jgraz]

42. We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure

domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Are you sure you're on the right board?

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. Yep. If the government does something I don't like, I'll seek to change it by democratic means.

Since our democratically elected government changed product liabilty laws to protect people and organizations
you don't like, feel free to attempt to reverse it. By democratic means, of course.

Our democraticly elected (and mostly Democratic) representatives in Congress passed,
and our democraticly elected (and undoubtedly Democratic) President signed into law a bill that will allow
the concealed carriage of handguns in some national parks, forest and monuments.

It would be rather churlish (and undemocratic) of you to oppose this law.

[jgraz]

53. What in hell are you talking about?

It's now undemocratic to oppose a law? Are you fucking serious?

Let's say Congress passed a law banning handguns. Would it be "undemocratic" of you to voice your opposition to that? Really, I'm more than willing to have a debate, but let's try to stay within the bounds of reason.

[friendly_iconoclast]

57. You claimed I (and others) are anti-government

I gave you examples of things the government has done that you might not approve of, and stated that
you are free to attempt to change them by peaceful means, as are all Americans.

You came into this with a whole luggage set full of prejudiced opinions about gun owners, and proceeded
to state said opinions as fact.

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. Should we allow liability suits against the manufacturers of hooded sweatshirts?

They are quite popular amongst armed robbers for the purpose of concealing their faces while
committing crimes. Of course, some will say:

"If hoodies are outlawed, only outlaws will have hoodies."

Don't look at me like that, I'm just using your logic...

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. Next up: Lawsuits against Dell, HP, Apple, etc.

Those computer manufacturers are just enabling most child pornographers to
store and dissemate their filth!

[jgraz]

25. Next up: more specious right-wing arguments

:eyes:

[X_Digger]

35. That's three times you've avoided the point.. n/t

[jgraz]

39. Wait .. there's a point?

Cuz from here it looks like the same old tactic of throwing out NRA/GOP talking points whenever you feel like your binky is threatened.

[X_Digger]

44. And you're regurgitiating the

'RW / GOP talking point' schtick.

Can you actually address the point?

[jgraz]

45. Are you incapable of opening other posts on this thread?

I've addressed the alleged "point" several times. Maybe you should try reading for a bit.

[X_Digger]

50. Do you even know the terms of the law that you're railing against?

It still allows for suits due to negligent advertising / marketing practices, or the other points you _tried_ to make.

(5) QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTION-

(A) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified civil liability action' means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include--

(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;

(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;

(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including--

(I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product, or aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or

(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code;

(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product;

(v) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or

(vi) an action or proceeding commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of title 18 or chapter 53 of title 26, United States Code.

(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- As used in subparagraph (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment' means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.

[jgraz]

58. Yes. Do you?

Do you understand what kind of suits fall under the "qualified civil liability action"? For example, this law would have voided the liability judgment for the victims of the DC sniper. The gun dealer was shown to have engaged in criminal negligence, but the law would have required the plaintiffs to show that the negligence applied directly to the sale of the exact weapon used in the shootings. That's the equivalent of requiring victims of Ford Pinto explosions to prove that Ford's negligent manufacturing process was directly applied to the exact car they were driving -- a legal hurdle almost impossible to overcome.

The law also specifically prohibits the kind of industry-wide legal action that caused the tobacco companies to shape up, and explicitly expands Fourteenth Amendment protections to corporate gun manufacturers. (How does that sit with your support for individual civil liberties?) Most importantly, it makes it impossible to sue a gun maker unless they knowingly violated a law -- a standard not required for any other civil suit. Before this law, plaintiffs simply had to show negligence, and that the defendant did not act with "reasonable care".


The question still remains: are you in favor of civil liberties for all, or just for gun owners? Would you tolerate a similar set of restrictions on your alleged right to keep and bear arms? Let's say, for example, the federal government passed a law banning all gun ownership, save for a few very specific exceptions. How would you feel about that?

[X_Digger]

61. *snort* Hip deep in BS

There was no liability judgment in that case. They settled out of court.

"Bushmaster made the weapon used in the shootings, which the pair reportedly stole from Bull's Eye. The families' lawsuit alleged that the shop's owners were negligent in allowing that gun and others to disappear, and that Bushmaster was at fault for shipping the gun to an irresponsible dealer."

Neither Bushmaster nor Bullseye admitted any wrongdoing.

How would you feel about suing Toyota because Joe's Used Cars didn't properly secure their keys (to your standard) and then someone steals a prius and gets drunk, then mows down a kid? Toyota's fault for selling to an 'irresponsible dealer'?

That's the equivalent of requiring victims of Ford Pinto explosions to prove that Ford's negligent manufacturing process was directly applied to the exact car they were driving -- a legal hurdle almost impossible to overcome.

No, it doesn't- see 'proximate cause'.

The law also specifically prohibits the kind of industry-wide legal action that caused the tobacco companies to shape up

Wrong again. See the section of the _law_ I quoted above.

Poor poor VPC & jgraz.. can't get laws passed that you like, and now you can't subvert the judicial branch to achieve what you failed to do with the legislative. You're sounding as shrill as Josh Sugarman.

[jgraz]

64. Are you familiar with the American legal system? At all?

With the new law, the lawsuit would have been DISMISSED. No settlement. Get it?


My God, man, this is basic stuff.




You also can't quote a section of the law -- especially a blanket prohibition like this bill -- and pretend it represents the entire law.

Here's what you apparently didn't read or understand:

(b) Purposes- The purposes of this Act are as follows:

(1) To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.

(2) To preserve a citizen's access to a supply of firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting.

(3) To guarantee a citizen's rights, privileges, and immunities, as applied to the States, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to section 5 of that Amendment.

(4) To prevent the use of such lawsuits to impose unreasonable burdens on interstate and foreign commerce.

(5) To protect the right, under the First Amendment to the Constitution, of manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and trade associations, to speak freely, to assemble peaceably, and to petition the Government for a redress of their grievances.

(6) To preserve and protect the Separation of Powers doctrine and important principles of federalism, State sovereignty and comity between sister States.

(7) To exercise congressional power under article IV, section 1 (the Full Faith and Credit Clause) of the United States Constitution.

Again, you can no longer bring suit against a manufacturer for failure to show "reasonable care" in preventing the criminal use of their product. Something that does not apply to any other industry.

[X_Digger]

67. *sigh* facts just don't matter, do they..

There have been cases _after_ this law, that _did_ go to court.

Do you have access to a document research service? the albany law review? See Vol 70, Regulating litigation under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act: economic activity or regulatory nullity?

It goes deep into this subject and cites cases _after_ the law was enacted as well as those dismissed under it (ie, Ileto v Glock). No, it's not specifically about this subject, but it will provide lots of cases for you to check out.

[jgraz]

69. three words: negligence per se

:rofl:

[X_Digger]

71. Squeal, Sugarman-lite. n/t

[jgraz]

72. Ahhh.. this one's gonna last all weekend.

My work here is done. Have fun :hi:

[friendly_iconoclast]

96. I venture to say he'd change his tune if *his* company was sued...

...for the manufacturing practices of *their* subcontractors.

The electronics industry is known for its environmentally damaging practices in China and elsewhere.

Sure different when its your ox geting gored, innit?

[jgraz]

108. Dude, I used to work for Apple. We got sued on a daily basis.

We usually won, but every once in a while we got nailed for a negligent practice. Y'know what? I was fine with that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

117. So, if Apple gets sued because someone has child porn,malware, or a pirated movie on an Ipod...

...and Apple has deep pockets, they'll just gracefully acknowledge fault under the "joint and several liabilty" idea, and just fork over?

Or fight it, or seek regulatory relief? Sauce for goose, meet gander.

[paulsby]

73. every time he can't address an argument, he uses ad hominem

"it's a right wing argument"

typical

[jgraz]

74. Wow, you really need to read all the way to the end.

Also, you need to learn what "ad hominem" means. If you attack someone's argument, it can't be an "argumentum ad hominem".

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

77. He usually just runs away crying actually.

[jgraz]

79. More little-boy macho posturing

Y'know, I thought that overcompensation thing was just a stereotype. I guess stereotypes have to come from somewhere, don't they little guy?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

81. Never miss an opportunity to turn someone's tragedy into your personal political soapbox.

Yep you are a real brave hypocrite.

David

[jgraz]

83. Well, if I bought I gun I could be just as brave as you, couldn't I?

Too bad you can't buy anything to help your ... shortcoming.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

85. How about you just stop being a hypocrite? We'll work on your bravery later.

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. 'Specious' to you because *you* don't disapprove of hoodies or computers.

Like I said, I'm just applying your own logic.

Why should gun manufacturers and dealers be singled out for product liability lawsuits when
other items are used in the commission of crimes?

Robbers sometimes wear hoods to avoid recogntion and apprehension later,
thus helping them commit their crimes.

By your metric, some shop owner has a whopper of a case against (for example) Russell Athletic.

And Old Navy or Kohls are accessories before the fact to numerous armed robberies....

[jgraz]

40. So let's see if I have this straight...

You're in favor of civil liberties when it means you can buy as many cool action-hero weapons as possible, but not when it involves a citizen's access to the courts.

If someone wants to sue about hoodies, let them. How much do you think they'll get?

Now, let's say, someone sues your precious gun corporations for intentionally supplying criminals with weapons. Oh wait, they already did. And they won. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-5635575_ITM

Which is why the NRA/GOP has been methodically programming you with knee-jerk reactions against citizen access to civil courts. Looks like they got the job done nicely.

[friendly_iconoclast]

46. Let's start with your strawman, and proceed onward from there...

You're in favor of civil liberties when it means you can buy as many cool action-hero weapons as possible...

Don't know my real feelings in regard to gun control laws, do you?

Either that, or you couldn't be bothered to do a search. I've stated for the record here at DU
that I was (mostly) cool with my state (Massachusetts) gun laws, which are more strict than most, BTW.

Before you get researching that, you might want to read this and explain away how this is happening
in an overwhelmingly Democratic state:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x222478

.... but not when it involves a citizen's access to the courts

I gave you a real example (the TJX credit card hack) of people using legally sold computer equipment
to commit a massive crime.

Why not extend the theory of 'non-defective' product liability to other items
known to have been used in the commission of a crime?

Is it because something you don't disapprove of was used?

Now, let's say, someone sues your precious gun corporations for intentionally supplying criminals with weapons. Oh wait, they already did. And they won. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-56355...

This proves...they lost a court case.
Did the result of the Scopes trial thereby "prove" evolution was false?

Which is why the NRA/GOP has been methodically programming you with knee-jerk reactions against citizen access to civil courts. Looks like they got the job done nicely.

Once again, you misrepresent my political views:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x223057#223155

Ah yes, the old "Protocols of The Elders of The NRA":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=222480&mesg_id=222480

Before you wear yourself out looking for something that doesn't exist, have a gander at these DU threads:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=222564&mesg_id=222564

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x223057

[jgraz]

47. You'll forgive me if your stellar reasoning didn't make a friendly_iconoclast completist

Maybe you should try posting responses that don't require knowledge of your entire oeuvre to understand. :eyes:

[friendly_iconoclast]

56. Hey, you just "knew" how I felt and where I was coming from

I was setting the record straight. Sometimes a fisking is in order.

Shows that when you proceed from erroneous assumptions, disaster often results.

To give an example from your own industry:

Digital just "knew" the Alpha chip was going to vault them ahead of Intel and Motorola...

"Ah, that a mans' reach should exceed his grasp. Or, what's a heaven for..."

[jgraz]

59. And you're trying to make this about you personally,

rather than the fact that your reasoning in this case is completely bogus.

Nice try. Now let's see if you can deliver a non-passive-aggressive defense of your ridiculous "hoodies" analogy.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

88. More hypocrisy, you never make anything personal do you.

[jgraz]

90. Y'know, this thread has been over for a while

Tomorrow, maybe you can talk mom into letting you use the computer a little earlier.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

91. A fine example of running away crying.

That's what hypocrites and republicans usually do when they get called on things.

David

[jgraz]

92. Whatever, big guy

Don't you have an ex you can drunk-dial?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

93. The hypocrisy never ceases with you does it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. I'll even give you a concrete example of computers used in crime...

...and you can tell us if you think the victim(s) have a case against the manufacturer. Nobody
will put words in your mouth:

Back a couple of years ago, TJX Corporation (Marshall's and T.J. Maxx stores) was the victim -along with
thousands of their customers- of a massive data breach, where tens of thousands of credit card records
were stolen via a Wi-Fi connection at one of their stores. Someone sat outside the store and did some
(very profitable) war driving.

Now the question for you, jgraz:

Does TJX and/or the customers whose credit information was stolen have a reasonable case against the
makers of the Wi-Fi equipment used to commit the crime?

Do tell..

[jgraz]

43. You're only succeeding in giving me concrete examples of your lack of critical thinking skills

I used to work for a large computer maker. We got sued ALL THE TIME over security problems in our systems. If we ever knowingly shipped a product that was vulnerable to the sort of crime you described, you bet your ass we'd get sued. And we'd lose.

We also got sued by the defense department for shipping computers to "unfriendly" countries. You may remember the commercial a few years back boasting about our chips being declared deadly weapons. If we persisted in those sales, we would have faced serious civil, if not criminal, penalties.

Yet, gun corporations continue to intentionally sell deadly weapons to "unfriendlies" in this country. Weapons that are continually used in the commission of crimes. And, somehow, you think that citizens should be denied their right to sue when they become victims of this type of predatory corporate criminality. Why is that?

[Merchant Marine]

48. Bleh

Security problems in computers are equivalent to manufacturing errors in firearms. Firearms Manufacturers can be and are successfully sued for manufacturing errors and defects. They can not be sued for intentional misuse of their product, much like those guys that sell knives on the infomercial channel can't be sued for criminal misuse of their products in a fatal stabbing.

Gee, I'm pretty sure the DOD and BATF tightly control the export of firearms.

You keep talking like gun manufacturers intentionally sell guns to criminals. If you've got evidence of illegal sales than you need to contact the BATF. FBI statistics say otherwise, showing most criminals get their guns via theft or other criminals.

[jgraz]

51. I bet you're wondering what made that wooshing sound over your head

The '99 suit found ample evidence that gun manufacturers were negligent. If you feel there's no evidence now, then let the lawsuits go forward. Hey, the corporate gunmakers may actually win. Stranger things have happened.

[X_Digger]

52. And hey, look, they can _still_ sue for that.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-397

Whoosh, indeed.

[friendly_iconoclast]

55. And some have been successfully sued- Remington, for example,...

...used defective steel in some of its shotguns. Needless to say, this can be a Very Bad Thing.

Google "burst breech" for an example

[jgraz]

60. NO THEY CAN NOT

Seriously, if you want to have a discussion, at least get your basic facts straight. You can no longer sue a gunmaker for negligence unless you can show that they knowingly violated the law. The "negligence" clause of the exceptions is a red herring, since negligence is defined below as "the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others."

In other words, you have to show that the defendant knowingly supplied a gun to someone with the knowledge (or reasonable expectation) that they would use that specific gun against you. In other words, unless the seller is engaged in a criminal conspiracy, you have no case.

[X_Digger]

63. Quite a leap in logic..

.. conflating negligent entrustment and negligence..

"(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;"

[jgraz]

66. And my trip through remedial English class continues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence_per_se

Negligence per se

Negligence per se is the legal doctrine whereby an act is considered negligent because it violates a statute (or regulation). In order to prove negligence per se, the plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant violated the statute, (2) the statute is a safety statute, (3) the act caused the kind of harm the statute was designed to prevent, and (4) the plaintiff was within the zone of risk. In some jurisdictions, negligence per se creates merely a presumption of negligence.


Admit it, you went through this entire discussion without knowing the difference between simple negligence and "negligence per se". Didn't you?

[X_Digger]

68. Not at all..

I just like watching you flail around :)

[jgraz]

70. That's OK. I can be magnanimous in victory.

Well, sort of ...

[Euromutt]

100. You keep telling yourself that

Well, I guess you can "win" any argument by avoiding addressing the points your opponents actually make, burning down a bunch of straw men and scattering ad hominems over a wide area, and declaring yourself victorious. But the only person you're fooling is yourself.

[friendly_iconoclast]

54. The wi-fi equipment was not defective. It was used improperly

Some lazy IT person or manager somewhere forgot to use (or chose not to use) strong encryption, and the bad guys
used this hole to break into TJX's network.

Is your company responsible for vetting all possible end users of its products?

Is your company liable for an end users' criminal misuse of one of its products if it is not defective?

If not, you are holding them to a lesser standard than you are gun manufacturers.

I'd venture to say because A) You don't like guns, and B) Suits against gun manufacturers and dealers
don't affect *your* paycheck...

[jgraz]

62. If the company can be shown to be negligent, they can be held liable

You do not have to prove that they shipped a defective product, and you do not have to prove that they violated any law. You just have to show that they did not use "reasonable care" in distributing their product.

In other words, you get a lawyer and you take them to court as is your right under the law.

Unless, of course, they're a gun manufacturer.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

78. Gun corporations don't usually sell weapons directly, when they do it's not to criminals.

You really need to get a grasp on reality.

David

[jgraz]

80. Just a tiny bit of independent thought is all I ask.

Just a little. Go on, you can do it.

Now ask yourself, did my computer company sell their products directly into the hands of terrorists? No? Then how could the government hold them liable?

My, my, my, that is a puzzler...

Do you want me to give you the evening to think it over? Do you think the extra time would help?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

82. Your quote, "gun corporations continue to intentionally sell deadly weapons to "unfriendlies"

If you can't defend your own quotes then I can't help you.

David

[jgraz]

84. Aw, I guess it was too much to ask.

Too bad it didn't involve shooting something. All that fancy figgerin's gotta tire you out.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

86. As I thought you can't back up your lies.

[jgraz]

87. Wait... you *thought*?

:wow:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

89. I would say you *lie* but we all know how good you are at that.

[Euromutt]

99. No, you don't

I've already lost count of the number of times you've employed the "guilt by association" fallacy in this thread, dismissing (without actually bothering to refute) points made by other posters on the basis that they are GOP or NRA talking points. Where's the independent thought in knee-jerk rejections of arguments because they're espoused by "them" instead of considering the arguments on their own merits? Frankly, that's an attitude I see plenty of from conservatives, thank you very much; "oh, well, that's just a typical liberal point of view" as if that were enough to explain why it's wrong. You're so well versed in rhetoric, try looking up argumentum ad hominem some time.

[Spoonman]

31. "when their products are used in the commission of a crime"

Say goodbye to EVERY brewery and distillery, auto manufacturer, baseball bat producer and knife maker, etc.
...and hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Great Idea!
:eyes:

[jgraz]

34. When I'm held up by a beer can, then we'll talk

In the case of the gun corporations, they've been found liable in court for overproducing and targeting the criminal market. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-5635575_ITM

Why do you think it was such a priority for the NRA to rally their members against manufacturer lawsuits? Did you really think it was because they were against "frivolous" claims? Haven't you figured out yet that when a corporation tries to remove your right to sue, it's because they're afraid of legitimate lawsuits against them?

[Euromutt]

97. How about if you're hit by a drunk driver?

Were you planning to sue the distillery, the car manufacturer, or both? I mean, clearly the manufacturers of both alcohol beverages and motor vehicles must be aware that their products end up being sold to people who combine the two, and I'm sure somebody would be willing to make a case (and convince a jury) that the manufacturers "make no reasonable attempt" to prevent their respective products from being used by consumers of the other product.

Indeed, given that I quite frequently see billboards advertising alcoholic beverages along county roads and freeways, it seems to me that brewers and distillers are deliberately aiming their publicity at people who drive motor vehicles! Isn't that willfully irresponsible of them?

And "overproduction"? Car manufacturers know all about that. Are you familiar with what a "limited edition" model is? When the new year's models are about to come out, manufacturers try to sell the remainder of this year's models by throwing in some extra features at no extra cost, in the hopes that a prospective customer would rather buy that than wait a month for the new model.
But why do manufacturers have cars from this year left over? Could it be that they are--gasp!--overproducing?

The fact is, of course, that overproduction is simply a side effect of market competition. Manufacturers of any class of product--be it cars, guns, dishwashers, vacuum cleaners, furniture, chewing gum, fizzy drinks, you name it--are constantly jockeying for market share, which means they collectively end up creating a supply that exceeds demand. That's good for the consumer, because when supply exceeds demand, prices go down. (I have long maintained that the law of supply and demand is the only thing in economics for which there is empirical evidence, and everything that makes sense is a variation on that theme. But I digress.) We even have a word--"remaindered"--that specifically denotes copies of a particular book left over in the publisher's hands after the book has ceased to sell. I.e. overproduction; it happens in every industry.

Theoretically, it might be possible for the gun manufacturers (or anyone else) to get together, assess what market demand is likely to be, and coordinate their production so that they collectively don't make more than they can sell. The thing is, that would be a violation of anti-trust law.

From the Charlotte Observer article:

The jury's finding for the plaintiffs is historic.

Well, it would be, if the article had bothered to identify the plaintiffs, the defendants, or the venue. Oddly, it does none of those things. For all I know, this one got overturned on appeal, but we'll never know since the Observer writer didn't think it was necessary to actually provide any information that would identify the case in question.

Why do you think it was such a priority for the NRA to rally their members against manufacturer lawsuits? Did you really think it was because they were against "frivolous" claims? Haven't you figured out yet that when a corporation tries to remove your right to sue, it's because they're afraid of legitimate lawsuits against them?

I've got news for you: the NRA doesn't represent firearm manufacturers, it represent its members. Yes, firearm manufacturers support the NRA (mainly by offering partial or complete payment of a year's membership with every firearm), but that can be readily explained that by doing so, they secure their customer base. The reason the NRA agitates for measures like the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is that the firearms manufacturing industry operates on fairly thin profit margins, and given that civil suits can take years to resolve, even if the manufacturers won every case, the legal costs would bankrupt them before they could be reimbursed (which is precisely the objective). And if every gun manufacturer were systematically driven out of business, the NRA's members wouldn't be able to buy new guns or get spare parts to replace the worn parts on guns they already own.

AS the Charlotte Observer article points out:

Note that some of the developing flurry of anti-gun lawsuits is coming from a consortium of lawyers formed for the specific purpose of seeking actions to file.

Much or all of the balance being mounted by local governments in pursuit of some elected official's personal agenda (at the taxpayers' expense), rather than by private citizens.

[jgraz]

102. Once again, you're arguing for the obliteration of a civil right

Fuck yeah, sue the distillery and the car makers. If your case has merit, you'll win (or, more likely, you'll be crushed under a team of corporate lawyers. But that's another discussion). Just how careful do you think automakers or distilleries would be if we preemptively banned people from suing them?

The problem with the corporate gunmakers is not that they want to avoid frivolous suits. They want to ban the suits that have merit so they can continue their negligent (but highly profitable) practices.

This is why we have the right to sue in civil court. And this is why corporations are so desperate to eliminate this right. What I don't get is why the alleged civil libertarians on this forum think that's just fine and dandy.

[Euromutt]

107. Well, you missed the point

The point being that we can plausibly argue that brewers, distillers, and car manufacturers have about as much control over who their products end up getting sold to as gun manufacturers do. In the case of car manufacturers, they actually have more control over sales, since they have direct franchise agreements with their dealers, whereas firearms retailers (aka FFLs) generally do business with distributors (like Lipsey's and Davidson's), who in turn do business with the manufacturers.

Many of the allegations made in court against gun manufacturers could be just as readily leveled brewers and distillers: they ""knowingly participate in and facilitate the secondary market where persons who are illegal purchasers <...> obtain their alcohol," that "secondary market" occurring when a person over 21 buys alcohol and then transfers it to one or more persons under 21. They continue to do business with distributors even when there are indication that a disproportionate amount of the stock that distributor sells on ends up in the hands of people prohibited by law from possessing it; i.e. every supermarket and liquor store in every college town in America. And they have to know they're over-saturating the market, producing more than is needed to satisfy the legal market, since we some alcohol does end up in the hands of underage drinkers.

Hell, manufacturers of cars, knives, baggies and plastic vials have to know that some of their products are going to end up being used for illegal purposes, but to what efforts can we reasonably expect them to go to in order to prevent that? As it is, the firearms industry is extremely heavily regulated, and there exists a federal agency--the ATF--that is dedicated almost exclusively to policing it. Neither liquor stores nor car dealerships are legally required to keep permanent records of every sale they make, or run background checks on every customer. And note that the PLCAA doesn't prevent anyone from suing a firearms manufacturer if that company does something that is actually illegal (and that offense forms a proximate cause of the tort), or if their products are mechanically deficient (e.g. they discharge as a result of any other action than the shooter pulling the trigger).

But then, there isn't a political movement afoot with the intent to in effect halt the production of alcoholic beverages or motor vehicles by driving the manufacturers out of business, after efforts to legislate against their products had failed. I wouldn't call these lawsuits "frivolous" myself; I'd call them politically motivated. The campaign has been described as attempted gun control through litigation rather than legislation.

Take Ileto v. Glock, which certainly managed to run for several years. After white supremacist Buford Furrow murdered Joseph Ileto, a Filipino American USPS mail carrier, with a 9mm Glock, Ileto's family sued Glock for negligent business practices. But the pistol had originally been sold to a police department in Washington state; after the department decided to replace 9mm with .40S&W as their duty ammo, they sold their stock of 9mm Glocks as surplus, and one of those pistols made it way through a series of intermediate steps into Furrow's hands. Now, do you seriously want me to believe that Glock was negligent because they sold pistols to a law enforcement agency?

It might be pointed out that the majority of the 9th Circuit court, in at long last throwing out Ileto v. Glock this month (after the case had been running for eight years, and Joseph Ileto had been dead for nearly ten), stated the following:

First, the PLCAA does not completely abolish Plaintiffs’ ability to seek redress. The PLCAA preempts certain categories of claims that meet specified requirements, but it also carves out several significant exceptions to that general rule. Some claims are preempted, but many are not.
<...>
Second, we do not doubt the constitutionality of the PLCAA, let alone have “grave doubts.” As discussed above, no decision by us, the Supreme Court, or any sister circuit has held that a statute violates substantive due process for the reasons asserted by Plaintiffs. To the contrary, scores of cases concerning very similar statutes have held that the statutes do not violate substantive due process principles.

The dissent finds, in a small number of sources, hints that there could be a lurking, serious constitutional question. <...> Those comments do not raise a serious constitutional question. The doctrine of constitutional avoidance requires “grave doubts,” not occasional statements by a justice or two.
<...>
The PLCAA contains numerous exceptions and comes nowhere near setting aside all common-law rules concerning firearm manufacturers.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/05/11/06-56872.pdf

The majority in that case consisted of Justices Susan Graber and Stephen Reinhardt, respectively a Clinton appointee and a Carter appointee.

Repeated assertions on your part that the firearms manufacturers are negligent to a degree bordering on the criminal, backed only by a single verdict that got overturned on appeal, really aren't compelling that these lawsuits are meritorious.

[krispos42]

113. Except that artificially depressing the market IS restricting gun ownership.

If, say, the US Deptartment of Agriculture was to limit the number of head of cattle that could be slaughered annually in the US, you could say that you are reducing the amount of red-meat consumption in the US without forcibly taking them from current meat-owners, but you could not say that that action would not restrict the ability of people to buy meat.


And why should gun makers be liable for misuse of their product? I don't understand this at all. Who else should we allow to sue? Can I sue the board of education of the guy that mugs me? Can I sue the parents of the guy that mugs me?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

75. Never miss an opportunity to turn someone's tragedy into your personal political soapbox.

[Euromutt]

9. Do most people think that?

Well, actually, I'll acknowledge most people do seem to think some measure of gun control is sensible. But if you just take the people who think we need more gun control than we presently have, and ask them what kind of measures they favor, you all too frequently find that they are unaware that many of the things they advocate are already law.

Illustrative example: following the 1997 shooting on the viewing platform of the Empire State Building, Representatives Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), Nita Lowel (D-NY), Eliot Engel (D-NY) and William Pascrell (D-NJ) sponsored legislation to ban the sale of guns to temporary visitors to the United States. What they had evidently not bothered to research is that under the Gun Control Act of 1968, it was already illegal to transfer a firearm to a foreign national present in the United States illegally or on a nonimmigrant visa.

[Indy Lurker]

15. Your question is vague.

There is a large range of laws that fall under gun control.

Nearly everyone agrees that felons and those judged to be mentally dangerous to themselves and others should be prohibited from possessing weapons.

The story is implying an additional law is needed to keep guns away from 13 year olds. This is not a job for law enforcement, but for parents. There are many dangerous things around the home that can lead to accidents and injuries if they are not used correctly. Swimming pools, ATV's and power tools come to mind. We can't legislate our way to good parenting.

In this particular case, the age of the shooter is a red herring. This was not an accident, it was a deliberate criminal act by a 13 year old.

[Statistical]

16. They don't.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/Support-Gun-Control-Laws-Time-Lows.aspx

[guardian]

33. Where is your evidence

that "most people think gun control is a good idea"? Just because YOU believe something doesn't mean "most people" also believe it.

[slackmaster]

36. Because they are afraid of a black President

:rofl:

[X_Digger]

65. msongs, is that you? *grin* n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

76. Never miss an opportunity to turn someone's tragedy into your personal political soapbox.

[friendly_iconoclast]

95. Meh, the OP is a Lovejoy

Dollars to doughnuts, the folks complaining about guns don't spend near as much energy seeking to
get healthcare for all as they do going "ZOMG, teh gunz will kill us all!!!"

[LAGC]

103. Gun control would have prevented this how?

The gun was legally owned. What do you suggest? Ban all private gun ownership?

As for a trigger-lock, I'm sure someone as determined as a 13-year-old boy intent on doing damage could easily find out where the key was kept and unlock it just the same. All trigger-locks are good for is making a gun hard to use in an emergency.

[proteus_lives]

111. Just more fear-mongering.

It's always blame the tool, not the user.

[slackmaster]

116. They're afraid of a black President

:nuke: