View Full Version : Definitely not suckage: Another court with common sense.
Its nice to see yet another court used its head in reaching the right decision. Here's a bit from the news article:
Calif. court: Gunmaker not liable in killing spree (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/08/06/gunsuit.htm)
"Victims cannot sue gunmakers when criminals use their products illegally, California's top court ruled Monday, rejecting a suit stemming from the 1993 massacre of eight people in a skyscraper.
The 5-1 decision by the California Supreme Court kept in step with other courts in insulating weapons manufacturers from liability.
Every state high court and federal appellate court in the nation to consider such lawsuits has ruled that makers of legal, non-defective guns cannot be sued for their criminal misuse."
Here's another court from 2 months ago that also came to the correct decision: N.Y. court: Gun makers not to blame (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001-04-27-gun.htm)
----------
Yep. Criminals are the ones who should be held responsible for their crimes.
[Edited by sbp on 08-06-2001 at 04:16 PM]
topane
08-06-2001, 03:56 PM
About time someone with a brain made these judgements
zenbooty
08-06-2001, 08:14 PM
Glad we can agree on something, sbp.
TheLoneGunman
08-06-2001, 10:42 PM
The argument FOR the suit was that the gun shouldn't have been marketed to civilians as it was a gun made to shoot PEOPLE.
One judge agreed with this.
The claim was NOT that the gun was defective, but rather that it wasn't suited to ANY legitimate purpose for law abiding civilians.
What about "Brass Knuckles"? Do they have a "purpose" that is legal? Is their purpose "knuckle protection" for kuckle draggers?
What about bong manufacturers? Head shops? Does anyone seriously smoke tobacco out of a bong? Why is a head shop decorated in psychadelic fashion is the purpose is tobacco? Why doesn't it look like a cigar or tobacco shop?
Who are you trying to kid? Guns kill people. No one ever shoots a deer with an automatic pistol and needs "cop killer" bullets to do it. I mean, have you ever seen a deer with a flak jacket??
Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
The claim was NOT that the gun was defective, but rather that it wasn't suited to ANY legitimate purpose for law abiding civilians.
How about protection? Self-defense?
Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
Who are you trying to kid? Guns kill people. No one ever shoots a deer with an automatic pistol and needs "cop killer" bullets to do it. I mean, have you ever seen a deer with a flak jacket??
Nope, never seen a deer with a flak jacket. Never seen a civilian marketed automatic pistol either.
Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
and needs "cop killer" bullets to do it.
What's a "cop killer" bullet? Are you refering to hollow points or teflon coated bullets? Hollow points are made to expand in body to prevent over-penetration. This is so the bullet doesn't through the person and hit any innocent bystanders. Teflon coatings were made to protect the barrel from the bullet, sort of like a dry lubricant.
There are no "cop-killer" bullets. That whole thing was a media publicity stunt. http://www.webnexus.com/users/pactive/library/copkill.htm
topane
08-07-2001, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
The argument FOR the suit was that the gun shouldn't have been marketed to civilians as it was a gun made to shoot PEOPLE.
One judge agreed with this.
The claim was NOT that the gun was defective, but rather that it wasn't suited to ANY legitimate purpose for law abiding civilians.
<SNIP>
Who are you trying to kid? Guns kill people. No one ever shoots a deer with an automatic pistol and needs "cop killer" bullets to do it. I mean, have you ever seen a deer with a flak jacket?? Hmmm....next time a drunk driver hits and kills someone should we sue the beer (or whatever) maker because they market and sell stuff which impairs judgement? Should we sue the creators of the internet for lost office productivity? And yes, guns do kill people, but if I wanted to kill someone (like a couple of hundred lawyers or something), what makes you think that the lack of a firearm would make it not happen?
TheLoneGunman
08-07-2001, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by topane
Hmmm....next time a drunk driver hits and kills someone should we sue the beer (or whatever) maker because they market and sell stuff which impairs judgement?
We do. Actually, we don't sue the "maker", we sue the distributor (i.e. bar and bartender) who the courts have established ARE responsible. One beer, in some circumstances is fine. However, if someone has had 5 and then they are allowed to drive, the bar was negligent in both not cutting them off earlier and not calling them a cab.
Should we sue the creators of the internet for lost office productivity?
Once again, precautions are taken. Office managers BLOCK access to internet sites and certain types of content. If a company didn't take all available steps to prevent viewing or distribution of certain materials, then, yes, they could be held liable for what happens (ex. Sexual harrassment)
And yes, guns do kill people, but if I wanted to kill someone (like a couple of hundred lawyers or something), what makes you think that the lack of a firearm would make it not happen?
Interesting that you raise that issue in that way. This case was specifically about someone who went into a law office and slaughtered a bunch of people. Most were not lawyers (who were in their offices) but instead support staff who were on the floor in cubes and at desks.
---
When I defend someone who is caught with a "silencer" (federal mandatory ADDITIONAL 5 years if they are a felon or certain misdemeanants), we always call it a "flash suppressor" or "barrel extender," both of which are "legal". The argument is similar to how you explained away the bullets.
---
With the proper word rearrangement and deletion (like gun activists do to the 2nd Amendment), we can claim that Presidents have absolute power, Senators have life terms, babies can vote when they are less than 2 years old and various other absurdities.
If you are trained and are of the proper mental attitude and are a member of a "regulated militia" you should be able to have a firearm for that purpose. Otherwise, it will likely be misused in some way
Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
When I defend someone who is caught with a "silencer" (federal mandatory ADDITIONAL 5 years if they are a felon or certain misdemeanants), we always call it a "flash suppressor" or "barrel extender," both of which are "legal". The argument is similar to how you explained away the bullets.
Did you read the article? Teflon coating has little or no effect in enhancing the armor-piercing properties of the bullet. Hollow points are even worst against body armor. I'm saying that "cop-killers" don't exist. It's a catch phrase the media invented. However, there are differences between silencers, flash suppressors, and barrel extenders. And they do exist.
Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
With the proper word rearrangement and deletion (like gun activists do to the 2nd Amendment), we can claim that Presidents have absolute power, Senators have life terms, babies can vote when they are less than 2 years old and various other absurdities.
If you are trained and are of the proper mental attitude and are a member of a "regulated militia" you should be able to have a firearm for that purpose. Otherwise, it will likely be misused in some way
Turn it around.
With the proper word rearrangement and deletion (like anti-gun activist do to the 2nd Amendment), we can claim that Presidents do not have absolute power, Senators don't have life terms, babies can not vote when they are less than 2 years old and various other absurdities.
If you are a an adult and are not a criminal and a citizen of the United States of America you should be able to have a firearm. Otherwise, those in high government positions will likely abuse their power in some way.
topane
08-07-2001, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
Originally posted by topane
Hmmm....next time a drunk driver hits and kills someone should we sue the beer (or whatever) maker because they market and sell stuff which impairs judgement?
We do. Actually, we don't sue the "maker", we sue the distributor (i.e. bar and bartender) who the courts have established ARE responsible. One beer, in some circumstances is fine. However, if someone has had 5 and then they are allowed to drive, the bar was negligent in both not cutting them off earlier and not calling them a cab.In this case, they were trying to sue the gun maker, and not the distributor. Yes, we hold the bartender or establishment responsible for allowing someone to go out and drive impaired. My point was that suing Seagram's for misuse of vodka is stupid and frivolous, as is suing a gun manufacturer for misuse of a firearm.
Interesting that you raise that issue in that way. This case was specifically about someone who went into a law office and slaughtered a bunch of people. Most were not lawyers (who were in their offices) but instead support staff who were on the floor in cubes and at desks. It's a shame that those people died like that, but what makes you think that they would not have been killed if the murderer did not have a gun? It's easy to walk in and mow a few folks down, I'm sure, but what about other ways of doing it? Light a fire, poison the office drinking water, walk in with a sword and hack a few people up, or even set off a bomb. If you are determined to off someone, you're going to do it whether the method is convenient or not.[/b]
With the proper word rearrangement and deletion (like gun activists do to the 2nd Amendment), we can claim that Presidents have absolute power, Senators have life terms, babies can vote when they are less than 2 years old and various other absurdities.
If you are trained and are of the proper mental attitude and are a member of a "regulated militia" you should be able to have a firearm for that purpose. Otherwise, it will likely be misused in some waySecond Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's a little ambiguous I'll agree, but now everyone's got a gun. What can you do about it? Nothing. You'll never outlaw guns unless you do it all at once, and that's not happening.
Jeffbx
08-07-2001, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by Leon
If you are a an adult and are not a criminal and a citizen of the United States of America you should be able to have a firearm. Otherwise, those in high government positions will likely abuse their power in some way.
All right, let's be serious for a minute. Do you actually believe that high ranking government officials don't abuse their power because a bunch of average joes have assult rifles?
Little late for that, don't you think? Last time I looked, high level government officials do whatever the hell they please.
At least call it like it is. The law protects your right to own and in some cases carry a lethal weapon designed to kill other people. If that makes you feel important or powerful, or if you compete in the biathalon or hunt wild turkeys, I don't care. Carry your weapon and stockpile ammo if you want. Just don't spout out the silly NRA crap about how the government is going to become a Nazi state if we don't defend ourselves against them.
pennypinch
08-07-2001, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Leon
With the proper word rearrangement and deletion (like anti-gun activist do to the 2nd Amendment), we can claim that Presidents do not have absolute power, Senators don't have life terms, babies cannot vote when they are less than 2 years old and various other absurdities.
I hate to be a stickler, but I don't see too much absurd about the above whatsoever.
Grimm
08-07-2001, 10:35 AM
Why you can't sue a gun manufacturer:
The right to keep and bear arms so we can form a regulated militia is constitutionaly protected. Therefore there MUST be a means for producing and obtaining arms. This means that the right for an arms manufacturer to exist and do business is constitutionaly protected. Putting them out of business by littigation would be a violation of the constitution. This is basicaly the same as the ruling protecting newspaper. You can't bring frivilous suits against a newspaper, you will lose. Even justified suits are hard to press.
There is no comparison with bongs, headshops or tobbaco. These are not constitutionaly protected and can not be compared. The only valid comparison is that of free speech.
There was a "cop killer" bullet. It was a ceramic bullet that was never produced, except for a small quantity for development and testing. Law enforcement organizations failed to get an injunction preventing the ammo from being manufactured. However, the evil arms corperation decided that it would be irresponsible to produce the ammunition despite a high demand for it. They gave up the profit and took the high road. The stuff was nasty. Tests showed that when it hit a kevlar vest it shattered, and kept going. The fragments pierced the vest and turned the meat on the other side into hamburger. The fragments cut like glass, you know how glass cuts bleed. It was believed that even a hit in the arm or leg would kill as the person hit would bleed out in a minute or two. The only purpose of this ammo was to kill people, not wound, kill.
Anyone who believes that we do not need the right to keep and bear arms to maintain a free country, please e-mail me. I have a bridge I want to sell you.
pennypinch
08-07-2001, 11:10 AM
Please point out the other countries in the G-9, or any other Western democracy for that matter, that have gun control laws and consequently have lost their ability to "maintain a free country".
Until 1943-44, the German government published its laws and regulations in the 'Reichsgesetzblatt,' roughly the equivalent of the U.S. Federal Register. Carefully shelved by law librarians, the 1938 issues of this German government publication had gathered a lot of dust. In the 'Reichsgesetzblatt' issue for the week of March 21, 1938, was the official text of the Weapons Law (March 18, 1938). It gave Hitler's Nazi party a stranglehold on the Germans, many of whom did not support the Nazis. We found that the Nazis did not invent "gun control" in Germany. The Nazis inherited gun control and then perfected it: they invented handgun control.
The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb "gang activity," violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? "Gun control" did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.
The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they 'lawfully' took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not "reliable." Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.
In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other "reliable" people.
The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10. 1938 -- one day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS) savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish businesses throughout Germany -- new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.
http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm
Originally posted by pennypinch
Originally posted by Leon
With the proper word rearrangement and deletion (like anti-gun activist do to the 2nd Amendment), we can claim that Presidents do not have absolute power, Senators don't have life terms, babies cannot vote when they are less than 2 years old and various other absurdities.
I hate to be a stickler, but I don't see too much absurd about the above whatsoever.
My point was that you can rearrange words to support anything you want.
Originally posted by Jeffbx
At least call it like it is. The law protects your right to own and in some cases carry a lethal weapon designed to kill other people. If that makes you feel important or powerful, or if you compete in the biathalon or hunt wild turkeys, I don't care. Carry your weapon and stockpile ammo if you want. Just don't spout out the silly NRA crap about how the government is going to become a Nazi state if we don't defend ourselves against them.
It protects your right to self-defense. Sometimes that means killing, sometimes it doesn't. It doesn't make me feel powerful or important, but it does make me feel a little safer because I would be on the same playing field. If guns didn't exist, then I would have a sword or a crossbow at home.
Right now there are three types of people groups with guns - law abiding citizens, criminals, and the Gov't (Law Enforcement and Armed Services). If guns are outlawed, the playing field becomes uneven. Now, only the criminals and Gov't have the guns because criminals aren't going to obey the laws. Do you trust the Gov't to protect you 24/7? They're not always going to be there on time.
I don't think that saying the Gov't becoming a Nazi state is that far off. Now, it may not happen in our lifetime or even in our great-grandchildren's lifetime, but it could happen. Firearm ownership needs to be preserved.
---
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
-Thomas Jefferson
pennypinch
08-07-2001, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Leon
Until 1943-44, the German government published its laws and regulations in the 'Reichsgesetzblatt,' roughly the equivalent of the U.S. Federal Register. Carefully shelved by law librarians, the 1938 issues of this German government publication had gathered a lot of dust. In the 'Reichsgesetzblatt' issue for the week of March 21, 1938, was the official text of the Weapons Law (March 18, 1938). It gave Hitler's Nazi party a stranglehold on the Germans, many of whom did not support the Nazis. We found that the Nazis did not invent "gun control" in Germany. The Nazis inherited gun control and then perfected it: they invented handgun control.
The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb "gang activity," violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? "Gun control" did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.
The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they 'lawfully' took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not "reliable." Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.
In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other "reliable" people.
The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10. 1938 -- one day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS) savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish businesses throughout Germany -- new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.
http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm
Oh, come on. You honestly believe that a lack of guns pushed the Nazi's to power?
There is ample evidence that the Nazi's had the explicit and implicit consent and support of a large contingent of Germans. Of course, it is difficult to guage precisely how popular they were, but I've seen enough evidence to suggest that it was not simply a small crew of rabid anti-Semites that crushed a quiet majority of opponents. I don't think for a second it was because of a lack of guns for "unreliables" will lead to a police and/or totalitarian state.
The gun lobby has been trained to invoke the name of the Nazi's at the first sign of some organized anti-gun resistance. We are supposed to instinctively shudder. Yet I submit that pre-WWII Germany is the exception, and not any sort of predictor of doom and gloom. It's one outlier in a relative galaxy of contrary data points (Canada, Sweden, GB, etc.).
Grimm
08-07-2001, 02:26 PM
Pennypinch,
Talk about knee jerking. You are being unreasonable and there is no point in arguing with an unreasonable person. Leon answered the question with historical facts that can be verified. You asked this question and discredit him with your oppinions, not facts, for his troubles. That's just not cool. He didn't say it was the only factor, just one of the things they did. Could they have done what they did without gun control? Probably not, maybe, by my opinion is that they couldn't. You can argue with that, it's just an opinion. But I will be ignoring on this thread you until you present facts.
Jihforce
08-07-2001, 02:27 PM
If you don't have it, don't drink, don't own a gun, don't drive, etc...
I don't own a gun and I don't really plan to either. However, I do support the fact that people should have the right to own them. People who are responsible, will use them for the right reasons. And you will always have those who don't, but you can't limit the freedom of people who are responsible because someone else isn't.
Suing manufactures does absolutely nothing to solve the problem, it just makes lawyers wealthier. As stated before, you can't blame Seagrams for a drunk driver driving over people, nor can you blame automakers because some idiot decided to use their vehicle as a weapon. So how can you blame gun makers when some irresponsible person decided to use innocent people as target practice?
I guess we should be suing companies that make kitchen knives too if someone gets stabbed huh? I am sure you get my point.
pennypinch
08-07-2001, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Jihforce
If you don't have it, don't drink, don't own a gun, don't drive, etc...
I don't own a gun and I don't really plan to either. However, I do support the fact that people should have the right to own them. People who are responsible, will use them for the right reasons. And you will always have those who don't, but you can't limit the freedom of people who are responsible because someone else isn't.
Suing manufactures does absolutely nothing to solve the problem, it just makes lawyers wealthier. As stated before, you can't blame Seagrams for a drunk driver driving over people, nor can you blame automakers because some idiot decided to use their vehicle as a weapon. So how can you blame gun makers when some irresponsible person decided to use innocent people as target practice?
I guess we should be suing companies that make kitchen knives too if someone gets stabbed huh? I am sure you get my point.
Throughout this, I've been trying to rationalize the point of the lawsuit, and I've given up. I see a VERY tenuous and amorphous connection to perhaps cigarette liability, but beyond that, I just don't get it. This is about as frivolous as it gets. Talk about going for the guys with the deepest pockets!
pennypinch
08-07-2001, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by evilcyclops
Pennypinch,
Talk about knee jerking. You are being unreasonable and there is no point in arguing with an unreasonable person. Leon answered the question with historical facts that can be verified. You asked this question and discredit him with your oppinions, not facts, for his troubles. That's just not cool. He didn't say it was the only factor, just one of the things they did. Could they have done what they did without gun control? Probably not, maybe, by my opinion is that they couldn't. You can argue with that, it's just an opinion. But I will be ignoring on this thread you until you present facts.
Here's fact. Every single other Western democracy with gun control has both lower levels of violent crime and still has a pretty decent hold over the "freedom of their own country". Explain. By Leon's rationale, they should all be well on their way to marching around in brown shirts.
Originally posted by pennypinch
Here's fact. Every single other Western democracy with gun control has both lower levels of violent crime and still has a pretty decent hold over the "freedom of their own country". Explain. By Leon's rationale, they should all be well on their way to marching around in brown shirts.
Where are your facts? Do you have any evidence? Here are my facts:
Australia:
- Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
- Assaults are up 8.6 percent.
- Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent.
- In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent.
- In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily.
- There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.
England:
-The percentage of the population that suffered "contact crime" in England and Wales was 3.6 percent, compared with 1.9 percent in the United States and 0.4 percent in Japan.
-England and Wales also led in automobile thefts. More than 2.5 percent of the population had been victimized by car theft, followed by 2.1 percent in Australia and 1.9 percent in France. Again, the U.S. was not listed among the "top 10" nations.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/01/2/23/ncrim123.gif
Strangely enough, the UK and Australia have some of the strictest gun control laws.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=003489802464778&rtmo=aCq4dK4J&atmo=rrrrrrvs&pg=/et/01/2/23/ncrim123.html
More about "Cop-Killer" Bullets:
- In an October of 1996 campaign stop, Bill Clinton met with the widow of Police Officer Jerome Harrison Seaberry. Later at a political rally, Bill Clinton cited Officer Seaberry's death as a reason to outlaw armor piercing bullets.
- Officer Seaberry died in a car crash. No guns or bullets were involved.
- Armor piercing bullets have been referred to in the media as "cop killers."
- As of 1998, no law enforcement officer has ever been killed because an armor-piercing bullet defeated a bulletproof vest.
http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm
The western democracies New Zealand and Switzerland have high rates of gun ownership with low levels of violent crime. Explain. South Africa has gun control and a super high level of crime. Explain.
Originally posted by pennypinch
Throughout this, I've been trying to rationalize the point of the lawsuit, and I've given up. I see a VERY tenuous and amorphous connection to perhaps cigarette liability, but beyond that, I just don't get it. This is about as frivolous as it gets. Talk about going for the guys with the deepest pockets!Yes this was a frivolous lawsuit being pushed by lawyers and groups with agenda's preying off the tragedies of others. :disa:
Oh, come on. You honestly believe that a lack of guns pushed the Nazi's to power?It made it easier for the Nazi's and Communists to slaughter defendless people when engaging in their sickening agenda's.
Originally posted by Jeffbx
All right, let's be serious for a minute. Do you actually believe that high ranking government officials don't abuse their power because a bunch of average joes have assult rifles?It will pause them for a moment. Just like it gives criminals cause for concern.
Little late for that, don't you think? Last time I looked, high level government officials do whatever the hell they please.So why should do they do whatever the hell they want to in this case? Isn't enough, enough? Seeing how government has acted, we shouldn't be so inclined to give up any more freedom.
At least call it like it is. The law protects your right to own and in some cases carry a lethal weapon designed to kill other people. If that makes you feel important or powerful, or if you compete in the biathalon or hunt wild turkeys, I don't care. Carry your weapon and stockpile ammo if you want. Just don't spout out the silly NRA crap about how the government is going to become a Nazi state if we don't defend ourselves against them.Don't you find some of the propaganda being spouted by gun grabbers silly?
MisterTenchi
08-07-2001, 04:17 PM
The right to purchase and own a gun is a right protected by the US Constitution, though many people may disagree with that interpretation. This Constitutional right is one of many things that make America unique among all industrialized democracies. But this freedom also comes at a price. America pays a great price for this freedom. Nationally there were 18,500 unintentional injuries, 1,400 unintentional deaths, and 17,566 suicides caused by firearms in 1997, not including intentional homicides. Gun-related morbidity and mortality is so serious now that even the American Medical Association now made the gun issue it's platform. Heck, I even had to learn how to counsel patients on gun safety as part of my medical curriculum!
So we as a society have to ask ourselves, is the price we pay too high? Is it worth having kids shot accidentally by a playmate who found daddy's gun in a drawer? I believe that we can have laws to that protect misuse of firearms while protecting the Constitutional freedom to own guns. We have laws protecting people against slander and defamation of character - these laws protect us from the misuse of the 1st. Amendment and thereby ensuring its continued importance. In the same way, we CAN have rational gun legislation without bleaching out the 2nd amendment. We can if proponents and opponents stop insisting on being on opposite sides of the fence.
MisterTenchi
08-07-2001, 05:14 PM
For those of you who think my earlier ramblings are not a complete waste of your time, here's more!
I enjoy squeezing off a few rounds at the range and I also support gun control. Conflicted aren't I? Not really. I wear my goggles, ear muffs, observe the safety etiquette and enjoys shooting at paper targets. I don't shoot out of anger or frustration. And I certainly don't drink before shooting. So you can say I am peeved when people suggest that the government should take away my Constitutional right while I have done nothing wrong. But everytime I read or hear about another shooting, especially kids, I can't help but think about what this freedom is costing us as a society. That is why I support gun control.
With that said, I believe the California court made the correct decision. The argument by the plaintiff is a pretty convincing one at first glance:
"The argument FOR the suit was that the gun shouldn't have been marketed to civilians as it was a gun made to shoot PEOPLE." (Borrowing TheLoneGunman's words)
Things that lack a legitimate or socially acceptable civilian use should not be marketed and made available to the public. If someone bought a fully functional F16 jet fighter and crashed into my apartment because it was marketed to civilians , I believe I have the legal grounds to sue General Dynamics. But if the plane were a private jet (assuming pilot error, not a firestone tires thing), I would lack the legal grounds to sue the manufacturer of that plane (I could sue the pilot, but he would most likely not have survived the crash). The difference between the F16 and the private jet is that the F16 Falcon is not suited to legitimate use for the general public.
The plaintiff in this case brought forth a good argument - but with a flaw in its premise. Unlike the F16, guns do have legitimate civilian purposes. And I would expand the definition of "legitimate" to include socially acceptable. My going to the shooting range is a legitimate purpose. Hunting is a legitimate purpose. Even just collecting firearms and putting them behind glass is a legitimate purpose. These activities have been accepted by the American society as legitimate. This is why the Justices made the legally sound decision - even if I support gun control. The Judicial branch's job is to interpret existing law (Enacting new laws is the job of the Legislature). And our laws say that shooting ranges, hunting, etc. are legal and acceptable civilian activities. Therefore, despite my support for gun control, I readily admit that the Justices made the legally sound decision. (Note: I did not read the Court's opinions, so I don't know what arguments the Justices used, including the dissenting Judge.)
For the Justices to rule in favor of the plainiff despite the false premise in its argument would be a case judicial activism, and we've all seen judicial activism rear its ugly head in the Florida Supreme Court during the presidential election recount debacle.
zenbooty
08-07-2001, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by MisterTenchi
But everytime I read or hear about another shooting, especially kids, I can't help but think about what this freedom is costing us as a society. That is why I support gun control.
Every time I see "the innocent children" bandied about to evoke public sympathy, I can't help but think about what this society is costing us in terms of freedom.
For the Justices to rule in favor of the plainiff despite the false premise in its argument would be a case judicial activism, and we've all seen judicial activism rear its ugly head in the Florida Supreme Court during the presidential election recount debacle.
Hey and let's not forget the Federal Supreme Court's activism throughout it, as well.
billxp
08-07-2001, 07:38 PM
Interesting thread to say the least.
So I'll throw this on the fire.
What if everybody in that office had been trained in and carried a hangun. Might have saved some lives.
The problem seems to me that they make it hard for the law abiding citizen to get a gun legally that some just get them anyway possible. Those people don't receive the proper training in use and storage. This also causes fatal accidents.
Grimm
08-08-2001, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by MisterTenchi
The right to purchase and own a gun is a right protected by the US Constitution, though many people may disagree with that interpretation. This Constitutional right is one of many things that make America unique among all industrialized democracies. But this freedom also comes at a price. America pays a great price for this freedom. Nationally there were 18,500 unintentional injuries, 1,400 unintentional deaths, and 17,566 suicides caused by firearms in 1997, not including intentional homicides.
Exactly how does a gun CAUSE a suicide? Does a person become so depressed about the existance of guns that they kill themselves? Face it if a person is going to kill themselves, they are just going to do it. Them shooting themselves is much safer for the rest of us than other methods. It would really suck to have a jumper land on you crippling or killing you (we could just make the maximum building height 2 stories, get rid of all those skyscrapers and multi story malls). Carbon Monoxide poisoning from a car? Great it can leak into the house and kill the kids too, or whoever finds them. Or how about plowing your car into a wall, another car, or a cliff? Some people have tried this and taken their kids with them, not to mention other drivers or a hiker at the bottom of that cliff. We should just get rid of cars too. Let's see, bridges can go to since we don't have cars. Need to get rid of trains too, they can run over people that jump in front of them. Electricity is used by some people in tubs, got to get rid of electricity too. Don't forget pills, got to stop making them, too many pill suicides.
Look, people will find a way to do themselves in with or without guns. To add them into any statistics as a "danger of guns" is pointless. Automobiles are much more dangerous than guns. Why don't we get rid of those first?
gear02
08-08-2001, 10:36 AM
What I don't understand is why Americans are so obsessed with guns. I mean, guns are designed for killing. Period. There's NO DOUBT about that. I just don't mean killing people, but anything that you point the gun at. If you say guns are for protection, you're only kidding yourself. You're being protected because you have be ability to kill. Now why would you love something that kills? Why not love the electric chair? I don't see people hoarding those things. How about guillotines? How about bombs? I don't hear people saying "Hey Bob, come take a look at my new bomb. Can't wait to try this baby out sometime."
Basically, it's not a toy. It's a killing machine. Don't say that guns don't kill people, people do. That's bullsh*t. Guns kill people. End of question. You're more likely to shoot a family member than you are at a criminal. If you want to protect your family, don't own a gun, or you might end up killing one of your own kids.
This is NOT about the right to bear arms. It's about a bunch of people who want to keep their guns because they like them. I like crack, but doesn't mean I can use it all I want (I really don't like crack, just an example).
I agree that gun control doesn't work, because though it may prevent accidental shootings, it won't curve gun violence because there are so many guns you can by on the black market and the criminals have access to guns. But why the hell did a gun maker build and sell a machine gun to the public? So you can kill a lot of deer? That's f*cking bullsh*t. They sell machine guns to make more money. They don't care who gets killed with them. That's not a right, that's irresponsibility.
Can someone explain to me this selfish desire to keep guns?
Jihforce
08-08-2001, 10:55 AM
don't own a gun, don't plan to. But i feel people reserve the right to own them if they choose to.
I guess I just disproved your theory huh?
raimin
08-08-2001, 11:12 AM
I live in san francisco and i have been hearing the news about this case. The main argument the lawyers wanted to show was that these guns that the killer used, are designed for war, and have no place for civillian use. They wanted to sue the manufactures of the weapon, because they had advertised these weapons to civilians.
I never could understand, whenever gun controls are talked about, they usually are talking about military weapons being sold to ordinary people, and the nra and other people, talk about how the government is gonna take away all the guns from them. I also like guns, and like to go to the shooting range, but does the general public need a semi automatic weapon for protecting their house???
gear02
08-08-2001, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by raimin
I also like guns, and like to go to the shooting range, but does the general public need a semi automatic weapon for protecting their house???
My point exactly. I play video games with guns, so I guess I like them a bit. But owning one is totally different. BASIC handguns I can see for personal use. But a machine gun? Silencer? Armor Piercing bullets? That's over the edge.
zenbooty
08-08-2001, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by gear02
Originally posted by raimin
I also like guns, and like to go to the shooting range, but does the general public need a semi automatic weapon for protecting their house???
My point exactly. I play video games with guns, so I guess I like them a bit. But owning one is totally different. BASIC handguns I can see for personal use. But a machine gun? Silencer? Armor Piercing bullets? That's over the edge.
In a land that claims every person is free, why shouldn't a law abiding citizen be able to own any kind of gun he or she wants? Who's going to determine what guns are OK, and which aren't? You?
It wasn't so long ago that you could own military-style weapons. Even tanks and such, if you could get your hands on one. Did that mean people were out warring with their neighbors? Of course not.
I trust the people in my community far more than I trust any regulatory beurocracy that claims to know "what's best for the people."
LPMiller
08-08-2001, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by zenbooty
Originally posted by gear02
Originally posted by raimin
I also like guns, and like to go to the shooting range, but does the general public need a semi automatic weapon for protecting their house???
My point exactly. I play video games with guns, so I guess I like them a bit. But owning one is totally different. BASIC handguns I can see for personal use. But a machine gun? Silencer? Armor Piercing bullets? That's over the edge.
In a land that claims every person is free, why shouldn't a law abiding citizen be able to own any kind of gun he or she wants? Who's going to determine what guns are OK, and which aren't? You?
It wasn't so long ago that you could own military-style weapons. Even tanks and such, if you could get your hands on one. Did that mean people were out warring with their neighbors? Of course not.
I trust the people in my community far more than I trust any regulatory beurocracy that claims to know "what's best for the people."
I say we go with what our founding fathers would have thought.
They legalized guns in an era of ball loading muskets and in some cases, swords.
So I say, the realistic intent of the 2nd amendment is that we all have the right to wear swords and carry muskets.
Now, I see this as being good for 2 reasons. 1, because no matter how good you are, you'll never go on a killing spree of more then 1 with a good musket.
And 2, because I would look damn, damn cool with a sword.
Butch
08-08-2001, 12:19 PM
Frankly, I find this whole fascination with guns pretty silly. In their most basic sense, what are guns? They are simply tools designed to propel a hard object faster than we can throw it . . . fast enough that it will do serious damage . . . at it's essence, it is quite archaic. It's not like there is any special, cool technology involved, it's just a miniature cannon. Given how quickly computer chips are miniaturized, it's no miracle that canons have been miniaturized to hand guns in the past few centuries. I do not understand how people can find guns "cool" except in marveling at the destructive capabilities of them - and those are the people who should not be owning guns. Guns are tools. If used as a tool . . . fine . . . but this childlike fascination I see people have with guns is just silly . . . but oh hell . . .what was my point? Bah - back to my mind-numbing day of work - OOOHHH I get to drink on the company dime in 10 mins . . . WOOHOO!
Grimm
08-08-2001, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by LPM
[QUOTE]
So I say, the realistic intent of the 2nd amendment is that we all have the right to wear swords and carry muskets.
Now, I see this as being good for 2 reasons. 1, because no matter how good you are, you'll never go on a killing spree of more then 1 with a good musket.
Actualy I believe the intent was to have the populace armed as well as the military to prevent the government from becoming tyranical. Read the writings of Thomas Jefferson and you will see. See back then the best weapons the military had were muskets and cannon. The cannon weren't exactly portable or safe.
I also believe that if the founding fathers could have seen into the future and what was going to become of this great country, they would have all said "Stuff it", went home and paid their taxes.
Grimm
08-08-2001, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Butch
Frankly, I find this whole fascination with guns pretty silly. In their most basic sense, what are guns? They are simply tools designed to propel a hard object faster than we can throw it . . . fast enough that it will do serious damage . . . at it's essence, it is quite archaic. It's not like there is any special, cool technology involved, it's just a miniature cannon. Given how quickly computer chips are miniaturized, it's no miracle that canons have been miniaturized to hand guns in the past few centuries. I do not understand how people can find guns "cool" except in marveling at the destructive capabilities of them - and those are the people who should not be owning guns. Guns are tools. If used as a tool . . . fine . . . but this childlike fascination I see people have with guns is just silly . . . but oh hell . . .what was my point? Bah - back to my mind-numbing day of work - OOOHHH I get to drink on the company dime in 10 mins . . . WOOHOO!
Then again we should consider that some people don't deserve the freedoms they are given.
If you are not willing to fight, struggle, and sacrifice for your freedom, you don't deserve it.
gear02
08-08-2001, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by zenbooty
I trust the people in my community far more than I trust any regulatory beurocracy that claims to know "what's best for the people." [/B]
And what if your neighborhood was in the middle of the tenements in LA? Or the slums or Chicago? Just because you might come from a well to do neighborhood doesn't mean that everyone else does. What if you come from a neighborhood that had people who believed that violence was the only way to solve things? Look at Columbine. Those kids seemed like your "neighborhood" type of guys, but they went on a shooting spree.
It's not the law abiding citizens we should care about. It's those that don't care about the law, and those types of people can get machine guns and stuff. Hell, I bet you could arm yourselves better in the US than you could in other country's army.
I'm not against the freedom to own a gun. I'm just saying there should be reasonable limits to what kind of gun. Are you saying that if people wanted, they could own a rocket launcher? How about nerve gas grenades? What's stopping that?
topane
08-08-2001, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by gear02
<SNIP> Are you saying that if people wanted, they could own a rocket launcher? How about nerve gas grenades? What's stopping that? If you have enough cash and enough determination, you can get anything, legal or not.
zenbooty
08-08-2001, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by gear02
And what if your neighborhood was in the middle of the tenements in LA? Or the slums or Chicago? Just because you might come from a well to do neighborhood doesn't mean that everyone else does.
Me? In a "well to do" neighborhood? I'll tell that to the junkies who sleep in their cars outside my apt, or in the park across the street when the weather's nice. They'll get a hoot out of that. If I lived in South Central L.A., you're damn right I would want access to all the firepower I can get! Its dangerous in dem 'thar hills!
What if you come from a neighborhood that had people who believed that violence was the only way to solve things? Look at Columbine. Those kids seemed like your "neighborhood" type of guys, but they went on a shooting spree.
You watch too much T.V. It's got you scared, thinking crazy psychopaths are all around you. Fear is no basis upon which to build a community. There are already gun laws that make it illegal for children and felons to obtain firearms. Obviously they didn't do the job in this case. What makes you think creating yet more gun laws will change any of that?
It's not the law abiding citizens we should care about. It's those that don't care about the law, and those types of people can get machine guns and stuff.
Aaaggghhh! Those types of people already have machine guns anyway!!!! Criminals will always be able to get whatever guns they want and can pay for, no matter what laws are out there. That's why their called criminals. Are you saying that it would be best for civilians to defend themselves from criminal arsenals with non-automatic handguns and rifles? Why not just give 'em popguns? I'm sure they'd be just as effective!
Hell, I bet you could arm yourselves better in the US than you could in other country's army.
Good, it'll help me sleep better at night knowing no other country would dare f*** with us, since we're so armed to the teeth.
I'm not against the freedom to own a gun.
Yes you are! You are arguing to abridge that freedom by putting restrictions on who can own which kinds of guns.
I'm just saying there should be reasonable limits to what kind of gun. Are you saying that if people wanted, they could own a rocket launcher? How about nerve gas grenades? What's stopping that?
And again I ask, who has the right to determine what is "reasonable?" If someone wants a rocket launcher, fine. As long as they don't shoot it at innocent people or their property. As to nerve gas, there are international laws against chemical weapons. Plus, it could be argued that it is not possible to use chemical weapons in a defensive capacity (if they're close enough to attack you, there not far enough away for you to use such a weapon without killing yourself). You seem to want to judge people before the fact that they are not to be trusted with weaponry. That is not freedom, that is an Authoritarian state.
Originally posted by gear02
What I don't understand is why Americans are so obsessed with guns. I mean, guns are designed for killing. Period. There's NO DOUBT about that. I just don't mean killing people, but anything that you point the gun at. If you say guns are for protection, you're only kidding yourself. You're being protected because you have be ability to kill. Now why would you love something that kills? Why not love the electric chair? I don't see people hoarding those things. How about guillotines? How about bombs? I don't hear people saying "Hey Bob, come take a look at my new bomb. Can't wait to try this baby out sometime."
I suppose we like guns because we are the only ones in the world that are guarenteed the right to own them. Of course guns are designed to kill. So are crossbows and swords. What if I liked collecting antique Spanish swords? Those were designed for killing. Yes, guns are also for protection because they have the ability to kill. They wouldn't be much of a deterant if they didn't, would they? Would I be looked down upon if I had a fantastic collection of ancient swords and crossbows? No? Why not? Those were designed to kill.
Electric chairs? Guillotines? Bombs? Sorry, those don't protect people. Those are for executions and mass, indiscriminate killings.
Originally posted by gear02
Basically, it's not a toy. It's a killing machine. Don't say that guns don't kill people, people do. That's bullsh*t. Guns kill people. End of question. You're more likely to shoot a family member than you are at a criminal. If you want to protect your family, don't own a gun, or you might end up killing one of your own kids.
No one said it was a toy. Gun owners don't think of them as toys. They are tools. Guns don't kill people. I've never seen a gun pull it's own trigger.
Please give some numbers for your statements. Of course if you have a gun your CHANCES of shooting a family member goes up. Just like if you have a swimming pool, your CHANCES of having a family member drowning increases.
Originally posted by gear02
This is NOT about the right to bear arms. It's about a bunch of people who want to keep their guns because they like them. I like crack, but doesn't mean I can use it all I want (I really don't like crack, just an example).
Yes, it is all about the right to bear arms. It it also our right to keep guns if they like to. Crack isn't guarenteed in the Constition, nor is it even partially beneficial.
Originally posted by gear02
I agree that gun control doesn't work, because though it may prevent accidental shootings, it won't curve gun violence because there are so many guns you can by on the black market and the criminals have access to guns. But why the hell did a gun maker build and sell a machine gun to the public? So you can kill a lot of deer? That's f*cking bullsh*t. They sell machine guns to make more money. They don't care who gets killed with them. That's not a right, that's irresponsibility.
Can someone explain to me this selfish desire to keep guns?
I suppose the same reason why Ferrari sells cars that go over 200MPH. People want to buy them and it is their right to have a car that they can't legally drive to its fullest potential while sucking up natural resources.
Please explain why you think it is a selfish desire. It's it also selfish to want to ban the rights of millions of Americans just because some people aren't comfortable around them.
Originally posted by raimin
I live in san francisco and i have been hearing the news about this case. The main argument the lawyers wanted to show was that these guns that the killer used, are designed for war, and have no place for civillian use. They wanted to sue the manufactures of the weapon, because they had advertised these weapons to civilians.
I never could understand, whenever gun controls are talked about, they usually are talking about military weapons being sold to ordinary people, and the nra and other people, talk about how the government is gonna take away all the guns from them. I also like guns, and like to go to the shooting range, but does the general public need a semi automatic weapon for protecting their house???
The thing is, there there really isn't too much difference between civilian and military rifles.
- Officer William McGrath: "These [assault rifles] are little different than the semi-automatic hunting rifles that have been on the market since before World War II. The main difference between an assault rifle and a semi-automatic hunting rifle is that the assault rifle looks more military.'"
- "The term 'assault' rifle is really a misnomer as a true assault rifle is a selective fire weapon capable of switching from fully automatic to semi-automatic and back with the flip of a lever."
- "The charge that the assault rifle holds more rounds than a 'legitimate' hunting rifle shows either a lack of knowledge or a deliberate twisting of the facts, as 10, 20 and 30 round magazines for 'legitimate' hunting rifles have been on the market for decades without the world coming to an end."
BTW, you meant to say fully-automatic weapons, right? Semi-automatics are your typical pistols and rifles. ;)
Originally posted by gear02
My point exactly. I play video games with guns, so I guess I like them a bit. But owning one is totally different. BASIC handguns I can see for personal use. But a machine gun? Silencer? Armor Piercing bullets? That's over the edge.
Machine guns, silencers, and armor piercing bullets are already illegal.
gear02
08-08-2001, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by zenbooty
That is not freedom, that is an Authoritarian state. [/B]
Who ever said this country was free? It's not. It has more freedom than all the countries in the world, but it's not totally free.
Why can't I express my freedom by burning a flag? Why can't I enjoy the freedom to drive 110 MPH? Why can't I just go and take a flat panel display from best buy? Isn't this a free country?
I'm basically saying that selling machine guns and high powered weapons is unnecessary and totally wrong. Handguns? Fine, I can tolerate that. An AK47? Hell no.
And again I ask, who has the right to determine what is "reasonable?" If someone wants a rocket launcher, fine. As long as they don't shoot it at innocent people or their property. As to nerve gas, there are international laws against chemical weapons. Plus, it could be argued that it is not possible to use chemical weapons in a defensive capacity
How is having a rocket launcher or a machine gun be used in a defensive capacity. Handgun, you can shoot once and disable a person. With a machine gun, you're going to make more holes in a guy before he even drops to the ground. That's not defensive.
Good, it'll help me sleep better at night knowing no other country would dare f*** with us, since we're so armed to the teeth.
What do you think the army's for? Do you feel you should take the law into your own hands? Are you afraid that Canada will invade your home? Maybe you should keep those guns just in case an alien decides to shove a probe up your ass. Being a country that's armed to the teeth isn't something you should be proud of. Are you proud that our country is drugged up?
You seem to want to judge people before the fact that they are not to be trusted with weaponry.
Well, I've seen nothing that would disprove the fact that guns are dangerous.
I will repeat again. I'm not against owning a gun. You can own whatever handgun you want. I'm against you owning an AK or an UZI.
With that said, I wouldn't mind guns if they had more safety features. The only one they have now is just the safety lock. That's like making a car with only brakes, no APS, airbag, advanced materials, etc. If they had a way that the gun could ID the user, that would be better.
I guess after all this talk, I'm just not comfortable with the fact that guns are not safe. It's just like relying on drivers to drive well, only on a much different scale. At least car companies have tried to reduce the number of deaths. I don't see gun makers trying to do the same thing. All they do is make deadlier weapons and scream the 2nd amendment.
gear02
08-08-2001, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by Leon
Originally posted by gear02
My point exactly. I play video games with guns, so I guess I like them a bit. But owning one is totally different. BASIC handguns I can see for personal use. But a machine gun? Silencer? Armor Piercing bullets? That's over the edge.
Machine guns, silencers, and armor piercing bullets are already illegal.
Illegal but they're still being made, and the public seem to be getting their hands on them.
Originally posted by gear02
And what if your neighborhood was in the middle of the tenements in LA? Or the slums or Chicago? Just because you might come from a well to do neighborhood doesn't mean that everyone else does. What if you come from a neighborhood that had people who believed that violence was the only way to solve things? Look at Columbine. Those kids seemed like your "neighborhood" type of guys, but they went on a shooting spree.
I believe that LA and Chicago have pretty much outlawed handguns already. I'm sure their crime rates just plummetted after that. Yeah, right. It didn't do anything for the crime rate. First, they banned Saturday Night Specials so that even the poor cannot protect themselves, then they restrict handguns altogether, so now only criminals have them. Great...
Those kids were not typical. They had emotional problems. And everything about that shooting are already illegal. It is illegal for a minor to obtain a firearm. It is illegal to bring firearms to school property, and it is illegal to shoot people.
Originally posted by gear02
It's not the law abiding citizens we should care about. It's those that don't care about the law, and those types of people can get machine guns and stuff. Hell, I bet you could arm yourselves better in the US than you could in other country's army.
Well, at least we can agree on that.
Originally posted by gear02
I'm not against the freedom to own a gun. I'm just saying there should be reasonable limits to what kind of gun. Are you saying that if people wanted, they could own a rocket launcher? How about nerve gas grenades? What's stopping that?
Explosives and chemical weapons are very different from the topic at hand. They aren't even the issue because they are already illegal.
Originally posted by gear02
Illegal but they're still being made, and the public seem to be getting their hands on them.
The issue here is what to outlaw. Those items are already illegal and criminals are still getting their hands on them. I haven't seen an ad for silencers, AP bullets, or machine guns lately.
gear02
08-08-2001, 02:59 PM
I suck at debating so here's my point in simple terms.
I think gun ownership is ok. My problem is that the gun makers aren't taking the responsibility to make their guns safer. Rather, they are trying to make the guns more efficient and more deadly. That's my problem.
Originally posted by gear02
I suck at debating so here's my point in simple terms.
I think gun ownership is ok. My problem is that the gun makers aren't taking the responsibility to make their guns safer. Rather, they are trying to make the guns more efficient and more deadly. That's my problem.
Hey dude, please don't think I'm attacking you personally. This is just friendly discussion. :D
Anyhow, the problem is that guns are already pretty safe. They only fire if you pull the trigger. Gun makers already include gun lock and cases with ever firearm sale. They are even making gun that you use a little allen wrench to lock up when not in use.
I say that I want to keep guns for protection, I just wonder how effectively I would actually be able to protect my family. Our guns are locked up downstairs away from the kids in a seperate place from the ammo. In an emergency is that really going to help? Will I be able to get the keys, get downstairs, get loaded, etc. in enough time to warrant having them? I guess just the thought of them being there gives some comfort. (Sorry, I'm just rambling...I love reading these debates. It gives me lots to think about.) Kim
Originally posted by gear02
Why can't I express my freedom by burning a flag? Why can't I enjoy the freedom to drive 110 MPH? Why can't I just go and take a flat panel display from best buy? Isn't this a free country?
I'm basically saying that selling machine guns and high powered weapons is unnecessary and totally wrong. Handguns? Fine, I can tolerate that. An AK47? Hell no.
You can't do those things because they are illegal and there isn't a 2nd amendment to guarantee that. Although, I do think that flag burning is a freedom of speech issue.
You know what? Outlawing fully automatic weapons like AKs probably won't affect me all that much. I don't really think I would buy one if they were legal. It's the precedence it sets. It's like a chain reaction. If this goes on unchecked, then the only legal firearms will be single-shot .22 caliber rifles.
Originally posted by gear02
What do you think the army's for? Do you feel you should take the law into your own hands? Are you afraid that Canada will invade your home? Maybe you should keep those guns just in case an alien decides to shove a probe up your ass. Being a country that's armed to the teeth isn't something you should be proud of. Are you proud that our country is drugged up?
If the battle takes place in America, you better believe I'm going to help my country in any way possible.
"You can not invade mainland America. There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass." -Admiral Yamamoto (1941)
Originally posted by gear02
I will repeat again. I'm not against owning a gun. You can own whatever handgun you want. I'm against you owning an AK or an UZI.
Just thought I'd throw out this pic. This is an Israeli mom (9 months pregnant) with an UZI picking her kids at school.
https://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/israeliwoman.jpg
Reminds me of an article I read:
Way back in 1973 - '74 I lived in a Kibbutz in Northern Israel, called Ramat Yochanan. During Passover week in '74 we in Galilee experienced the first of a number of specific PLO attacks targeting specifically schools and children houses, kindergartens, school buses and the like. It started with an infiltration in Quiriat Schmoneh on the Passover weekend, where the perpetrators found the school empty and locked (of course during the holidays!) and took over a nearby residential building, shooting people and in the end blowing themselves up. A few weeks later the worst of this series of incidents took place in Maalot on May 15th: Three PLO gunmen, after making their way through the border fence, first shot up a van load full of workers returning from a tobacco factory (incidentally these people happened to be Galilee Arabs, not Jews), then they entered the school compound of Maalot. First they murdered the housekeeper, his wife and one of their kids, then they took a whole group of nearly 100 kids and their teachers hostage. These were staying overnight at the school, as they were on a hiking trip. In the end, the deadline ran out, and the army's special unit assaulted the building. During the rescue attempt, the gunmen blew their explosive charges and sprayed the kids with machine-gun fire. 25 people died, 66 wounded.
Of course that is an extreme example, but you cannot discount that something may just happen in the future and you're going to want that UZI.
Originally posted by Kim
I say that I want to keep guns for protection, I just wonder how effectively I would actually be able to protect my family. Our guns are locked up downstairs away from the kids in a seperate place from the ammo. In an emergency is that really going to help? Will I be able to get the keys, get downstairs, get loaded, etc. in enough time to warrant having them? I guess just the thought of them being there gives some comfort. (Sorry, I'm just rambling...I love reading these debates. It gives me lots to think about.) Kim
You know they sell lock boxes with button combos. Very fast if you memorize the sequence.
yippiekiyeh
08-08-2001, 03:35 PM
What it boils down to when it comes to nowadays is responsbility.
People don't want to take responsiblity for their actions. Someone kills someone with a gun, we don't blame the person doing the killing, we blame the company for producing it.
When an elderly lady spills her hot coffee on herself we don't blame her for lack of common sense, we blame the restaurant for serving her what she ordered HOTcoffee.
The point when it comes to guns, you'll have people saying we should get rid of them. Which is ironic, when you think about it, those who don't follow the laws aren't going to be affected. Only those who are law abiding. Heck take prohibition for example, that really worked! Keeping alcohol off the streets did wonders for our society. Yeah right all that did was give rise to Mafia.
The point is even if I drink to the point of puking, I'm still going to know better than to get into a car and drive. So I know that my gun can and might be used for evil, but it doesn't do that by itself. So companies don't make these guns with the intention of you commiting crimes and they shouldn't be liable for what happens.
Jenny
08-08-2001, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Kim
I say that I want to keep guns for protection, I just wonder how effectively I would actually be able to protect my family. Our guns are locked up downstairs away from the kids in a seperate place from the ammo. In an emergency is that really going to help? Will I be able to get the keys, get downstairs, get loaded, etc. in enough time to warrant having them? I guess just the thought of them being there gives some comfort. (Sorry, I'm just rambling...I love reading these debates. It gives me lots to think about.) Kim
Kim, I totally agree with you. I am not sure how effective a gun would be, locked up, far away from where you are and away from the ammo. BUT! I also feel safer knowing that if we needed one, it IS there.
Also, here's my take on something. If, God forbid, my son SOMEHOW got ahold of the gun we have, figured out how to get the bullets, how to load it, take off the safety, and fire it, and injured or killed himself or someone else, who's fault would that be? He's 3. Not really his fault, and CERTAINLY not the gun manufacturer's or government's fault. That fault would lie on my shoulders and my husband's. That is why (& this may spark some other debate lol) I feel like some of the blame in the school shootings should hit the parents. If you are so out of touch with your kid/s that you don't know they have an arsenal of weapons (stolen, most of them) under their bed and a plan on top of their desk for mowing down their school, then YOU should be taken out and shot. (Okay, not really, but you should certainly be held partially accountable, on possible charges of child neglect or SOMETHING!) Anyway... :)
gear02
08-09-2001, 06:15 AM
Originally posted by Leon
Anyhow, the problem is that guns are already pretty safe. They only fire if you pull the trigger. Gun makers already include gun lock and cases with ever firearm sale. They are even making gun that you use a little allen wrench to lock up when not in use. [/B]
But still it's just one pull of the trigger. Plus a lot of people don't put that safety on. Why not have like fingerprint identifiers (like that movie judge dredd, bad movie, but cool guns). How about making stun guns instead of bullet guns? You know, a bit more to prevent accidental shootings.
Jenny, your son may not be able to load the gun and shoot, but older kids (6-9) can probably figure out how to load the gun and shoot it. Also, a lot of people don't bother with safety. They just keep the guns loaded and ready for shooting. Now that's bad.
Originally posted by gear02
But still it's just one pull of the trigger. Plus a lot of people don't put that safety on. Why not have like fingerprint identifiers (like that movie judge dredd, bad movie, but cool guns). How about making stun guns instead of bullet guns? You know, a bit more to prevent accidental shootings.
Jenny, your son may not be able to load the gun and shoot, but older kids (6-9) can probably figure out how to load the gun and shoot it. Also, a lot of people don't bother with safety. They just keep the guns loaded and ready for shooting. Now that's bad.
For now, it's best they can do. Why not have Judge Dredd guns? I would love to have a Judge Dredd gun. Gunmakers like Smith and Wesson are working on guns with identifiers, but so far the prototypes have been too fragile. The amount of circuitry in the firearm does not allow it to be fired. Basically, after one shot the gun becomes useless. They're working on it, but it may be a while before we see them.
Stun guns? Do you mean Tazers? Those have limited range, limited shots, and they don't always work. Plus, they're pretty bulky and you also have a battery to worry about.
People who don't bother with safety should be shot! (kidding, just kidding). Safety should be the number one concern, and most people do follow basic precautions. It's the ones that don't that give us all a bad rap.
gear02
08-09-2001, 09:27 AM
Here's my point (i think). Gun makers aren't spending nearly enough money on safety. If you look at how much car makers spend to make cars as safe as possible, it puts gun makers to shame.
It's amazing to thing with the kind of technology we have now, they can't make a simple identifier. I saw that prototype that you were talking about. It uses a transmitter on a person so if the gun was aimed at the transmitter, it wouldn't fire. That's a very lame attempt at safety. You could make a lot of safety features, more than I listed since I'm not very creative, but gun makers don't spend enough money on research and design for safety. They only care about making deadiler weapons.
zenbooty
08-09-2001, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by gear02
Here's my point (i think). Gun makers aren't spending nearly enough money on safety. If you look at how much car makers spend to make cars as safe as possible, it puts gun makers to shame.
It's amazing to thing with the kind of technology we have now, they can't make a simple identifier. I saw that prototype that you were talking about. It uses a transmitter on a person so if the gun was aimed at the transmitter, it wouldn't fire. That's a very lame attempt at safety. You could make a lot of safety features, more than I listed since I'm not very creative, but gun makers don't spend enough money on research and design for safety. They only care about making deadiler weapons.
Uh, you have some real facts to back up these statements? Do you know exactly how much money gun makers spend on what kind of research? What gun is "safe enough" for you? I'm guessing one that can't fire.
Two Cents
08-09-2001, 10:42 AM
I think what gear2 (sp?) is saying is if you compare the number of safety features that have been introduced in others areas and compare them to guns, there's a big difference. Think of all the safety features of cars, seats, tools, etc. An average of five kids die every day in gun accidents, and what new features have we for the gun? I believe the safety has been on the gun for a while now. I can't think of any other safty feature introduced.
And then when people try to introduce gun locks and make them required, the gun industry fights tooth and nail to have that defeated. When they finally are required to sell the gun locks, lo and behold they are defective and are easily circumvented (see news on recall).
The industry can do this because anytime anyone brings any kind of gun control issues, even safety issues, people (like on this thread) instantly talk about the 2nd amendment and how even the hint of making the gun industry acknowledge any kind of responsibility would violate their rights. The industry exists only because our society exists, and I think making them be more responsible for what they sell to us is not unreasonable.
For those of you who say the companies are not at fault for selling military class EQ to civilians because criminals have them already, consider this: How did the criminals get the EQ? Did they design and manufacture millions of those automatic guns, or import them from poor countries? Even if they were imported, they most likely originated from the same manufacturers in the first place.
So these manufacters sell these guns to non-civilians, then come back and tell civilians they need this military EQ to protect themselves from these other folks? I not sure they can be sued because of this, but they need to take some responsibility.
Sounds like the caller ID/caller ID blocker scam to me...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.