Guest

The debate over assault weapons

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, badlatitude said:

To be a taking, doesn't the government have two requirements? 1) Private property shall not be taken for public use. and, 2) without just compensation. A buyback conforms to both,

It's almost like grabbers are using "buyback" to mean "taking" isn't it?

7 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/123/623/

how about destruction instead of a sale?

I commented on that in the thread about New Jersey's ongoing confiscation program:

On 12/6/2018 at 4:02 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

The usual approach is to deem the previously-legal property a "public nuisance" and eliminating a public nuisance requires no compensation.

 

2 hours ago, frenchie said:

"assault weapons" is a bullshit distraction.

handguns are the issue.

Handguns are covered by "assault" weapons ban bills cosponsored by people like Harris, Beto, and Cory Booker, as I have noted repeatedly in this thread. I still want to get a S&W Victory. It's a .22 plinking pistol but has a threaded barrel, making it an assault weapon. Mine might some day look like this:

SWVictoryFlower.jpg

I've also considered putting a top hat on the thread protector, so it would be a "high cap" assault weapon. Or maybe a sombrero to make it a "large cap" assault weapon. I'd welcome your aesthetic input. Also your opinion, if any, on whether that's really a dreaded weapon of war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

It's almost like grabbers are using "buyback" to mean "taking" isn't it?

I commented on that in the thread about New Jersey's ongoing confiscation program:

 

Handguns are covered by "assault" weapons ban bills cosponsored by people like Harris, Beto, and Cory Booker, as I have noted repeatedly in this thread. I still want to get a S&W Victory. It's a .22 plinking pistol but has a threaded barrel, making it an assault weapon. Mine might some day look like this:

SWVictoryFlower.jpg

I've also considered putting a top hat on the thread protector, so it would be a "high cap" assault weapon. Or maybe a sombrero to make it a "large cap" assault weapon. I'd welcome your aesthetic input. Also your opinion, if any, on whether that's really a dreaded weapon of war.

Bullshit, and nonsense. ^^^ The organized, dedicated, generation... of worry.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

It's almost like grabbers are using "buyback" to mean "taking" isn't it?

I commented on that in the thread about New Jersey's ongoing confiscation program:

 

Handguns are covered by "assault" weapons ban bills cosponsored by people like Harris, Beto, and Cory Booker, as I have noted repeatedly in this thread. I still want to get a S&W Victory. It's a .22 plinking pistol but has a threaded barrel, making it an assault weapon. Mine might some day look like this:

SWVictoryFlower.jpg

I've also considered putting a top hat on the thread protector, so it would be a "high cap" assault weapon. Or maybe a sombrero to make it a "large cap" assault weapon. I'd welcome your aesthetic input. Also your opinion, if any, on whether that's really a dreaded weapon of war.

huh?  you feeling ok?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

I'd welcome your aesthetic input. Also your opinion, if any, on whether that's really a dreaded weapon of war.

I don't think "weapon of war" designation is relevant to anything useful.  I think it's a red herring.

 

We have a problem in the US.  Rifles are, statistically, pretty irrelevant to that problem (hattip to Jeff).  The problem is handguns, not rifles.

I don't see a reason to penalize those who fetishize assault-weapon-ish rifles, for something they have almost nothing to do with.  And I'd like to shoot a FAL again someday.

 

Back when I was a kid, in Canada, the gun laws were very, very simple:

  • no privately owned full auto 
  • no privately owned firearm shorter than 24".

 

Ignore rifles, outlaw handguns: most of the problem ends.  Not just criminal shootings, but also a lot of accidental or negligent shootings, impulsive suicides, and situations like Philando Castile's death (I spelled it right this time!).  The supply to criminals dries up: can't straw purchase, steal, or otherwise divert any "legal handguns", when no such category exists.

An in-between compromise position would be, all handguns have to be registered; so when one turns up in a crime, the diversion can be tracked down, and the diverter punished.

 

Legitimate government purpose: 

  • a concealable firearm is more useful to a criminal, than a not-concealable firearm.

Not in conflict with the 2nd:

  • a concealable firearm is NOT more useful to a militia member, than a not-concealable firearm.

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, frenchie said:

I don't think "weapon of war" designation is relevant to anything useful.  I think it's a red herring.

 

We have a problem in the US.  Rifles are, statistically, pretty irrelevant to that problem (hattip to Jeff).  The problem is handguns, not rifles.

I don't see a reason to penalize those who fetishize assault-weapon-ish rifles, for something they have almost nothing to do with.  And I'd like to shoot a FAL again someday.

 

Back when I was a kid, in Canada, the gun laws were very, very simple:

  • no privately owned full auto 
  • no privately owned firearm shorter than 24".

 

Ignore rifles, outlaw handguns: most of the problem ends.  Not just criminal shootings, but also a lot of accidental or negligent shootings, impulsive suicides, and situations like Philando Castile's death (I spelled it right this time!).  The supply to criminals dries up: can't straw purchase, steal, or otherwise divert any "legal handguns", when no such category exists.

An in-between compromise position would be, all handguns have to be registered; so when one turns up in a crime, the diversion can be tracked down, and the diverter punished.

 

Legitimate government purpose: 

  • a concealable firearm is more useful to a criminal, than a not-concealable firearm.

Not in conflict with the 2nd:

  • a concealable firearm is NOT more useful to a militia member, than a not-concealable firearm.

 

Thoughts?

Thoughts?

Outlaw any easy-to-conceal lethal weapon, like handguns. They're ridiculous ... the favored instrument of those law-abiders who are afraid of everything and law-violators who are afraid of nothing.

I wrote this years ago here, and the gun guys responded as if I just suggested that we should eat all panda bears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are both correct, but getting there is the actual issue. First, the collective consciousness of the people needs to either accept or reject gun confrontations in public.

We have active "mission creep" in play: first, self defense itself is confused with gun play, then LCM's add a factor of sloppy and extended gunplay. The partial Ninth Circuit rejected the LCM bans in California today.

This new gun confrontation philosophy itself was only invented in the seventies. FACT: In 1972, the NRA wanted only unloaded guns in cars, for the express purposes of being transported to ranges, to gunsmiths, or to hunting situations.

The consequences of the new philosophy are only now emerging...and not favorably. Time and consequences are working in favor of gun control, but proposing handgun bans on the same day LCM's are proliferated is  kinda beneath the two of you.

Big firepower is an active, emerging, hotbed issue, yes, as handguns feed the actual stats. Battle guns are a fucking issue, for cause, and they are vulnerable based on the demerits of the situation. Now.

I suggest that we crawl first and walk later.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, frenchie said:

I don't think "weapon of war" designation is relevant to anything useful.  I think it's a red herring.

 

We have a problem in the US.  Rifles are, statistically, pretty irrelevant to that problem (hattip to Jeff).  The problem is handguns, not rifles.

I don't see a reason to penalize those who fetishize assault-weapon-ish rifles, for something they have almost nothing to do with.  And I'd like to shoot a FAL again someday.

 

Back when I was a kid, in Canada, the gun laws were very, very simple:

  • no privately owned full auto 
  • no privately owned firearm shorter than 24".

 

Ignore rifles, outlaw handguns: most of the problem ends.  Not just criminal shootings, but also a lot of accidental or negligent shootings, impulsive suicides, and situations like Philando Castile's death (I spelled it right this time!).  The supply to criminals dries up: can't straw purchase, steal, or otherwise divert any "legal handguns", when no such category exists.

An in-between compromise position would be, all handguns have to be registered; so when one turns up in a crime, the diversion can be tracked down, and the diverter punished.

 

Legitimate government purpose: 

  • a concealable firearm is more useful to a criminal, than a not-concealable firearm.

Not in conflict with the 2nd:

  • a concealable firearm is NOT more useful to a militia member, than a not-concealable firearm.

 

Thoughts?

I think the "weapon of war" rhetoric that appears in "assault" weapons ban press releases and on this forum is just a bunch of BS designed to mislead people about the weapons targeted by the bans. Seems to work, too. Lots of people call me names and call me a liar when I point out that mainstream gun ban proposals treat ordinary .22's as "weapons of war." They're not.

Most of our "gun violence" problem comes in the form of suicides and rifles or shotguns work pretty well for that purpose.

A handgun prohibition program won't end that problem and won't even end what most people think of as gun violence, meaning acts directed against other people. People can and do steal legally owned handguns, even in places where they're registered. A heck of a lot of the violence surrounds the stupid drug war and the unsurprising fact is that people who make a living dealing in illegal things can get their hand on illegal things. They would still be able to do so if my handguns were registered, though making them a bit harder to acquire would make my guns more attractive theft targets.

A concealable firearm is useful, and is used, for legitimate self-defense.

I agree that something like an AR15 is more useful to a militia member, and sometimes to The People from whom militias are formed, than a 9 round .22 revolver like Dick Heller's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2020 at 10:12 PM, MR.CLEAN said:
On 8/13/2020 at 9:47 PM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

a government mandated sale is called a taking.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/123/623/

how about destruction instead of a sale?

I guess I should note that Kamala's "buyback" position is preferable to the usual approach of declaring gun ownership a public nuisance and simply taking the guns without any compensation.

But nuisance confiscations are uncompensated takings and thus are different from compensated takings. Or buybacks. Which is the legally correct term in your view?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jocal505 said:

The partial Ninth Circuit rejected the LCM bans in California today.

Becerra will move for en banc hearing on Monday, which will likely be granted with the same effect as the last en banc hearing we've heard about this week (i.e. to overturn a decision by two shitbag trump judges)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

 

But nuisance confiscations are uncompensated takings and thus are different from compensated takings. 

I have never seen your stated definition in a legal text or decision, but maybe I missed it.Can you cite where you found authority for the above?

I recall being taught that apparatuses of public nuisance have no legal value and therefore their destruction or confiscation requires no eminent domain analysis.  Has the law changed or is my recollection faulty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

(i.e. to overturn a decision by two shitbag trump judges)

So (D) judges have nothing but pure motives when they vote as a bloc, but, naturally, the opposite isn't true. Imagine.

But it is funny that someone who is proud of writing papers for laundering drug money would call a judge a shitbag.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:
11 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

 

But nuisance confiscations are uncompensated takings and thus are different from compensated takings. 

I have never seen your stated definition in a legal text or decision, but maybe I missed it.Can you cite where you found authority for the above?

I recall being taught that apparatuses of public nuisance have no legal value and therefore their destruction or confiscation requires no eminent domain analysis.  Has the law changed or is my recollection faulty?

I didn't define anything, just stated an obvious fact.

You're right that the usual approach of declaring gun ownership a public nuisance requires no eminent domain analysis. Another way of saying that is that no compensation is required, which is why confiscation programs like the ones in NJ, CA, CT, and the proposed one in FL offer no compensation. In other words, they're uncompensated takings. Or uncompensated confiscations, if you prefer. Or maybe uncompensated buybacks would be more comfortable for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2020 at 5:01 AM, hasher said:

I can walk in Rome in the middle of the night.  I can sit at a fountain and meet a stranger.

In the USA I will be robbed and shot.  Thanks for that.

No robbers in Rome?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rok Dog said:
On 7/6/2020 at 6:01 AM, hasher said:

I can walk in Rome in the middle of the night.  I can sit at a fountain and meet a stranger.

In the USA I will be robbed and shot.  Thanks for that.

No robbers in Rome?

Fairly low crime rate, and almost no violent crime. True of most major European cities compared to the US. Worry more about pick pockets and cons than muggers.

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He seems to me to be ignoring that all important prefatory clause in the second amendment, which is sometimes a bad thing to ignore.

I continue to think that an AR15 is better suited to militia service than something like Dick Heller's .22 revolver.

Not to suggest that his proposed point man on gun grabbing, Beto, would stop with the AR's. Like the rest of the Presidential contenders, he thinks ordinary .22's are "weapons of war."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2020 at 8:37 AM, Steam Flyer said:

I asked how many people had been killed with .22s, which the whole "weapons of war" bullshit is indeed irrelevant to.

I wonder why Joe is spouting irrelevant stuff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2020 at 12:52 AM, frenchie said:

"assault weapons" is a bullshit distraction.

handguns are the issue.

Tell that to your politicians!  I have been saying here for years that handguns are the issue and account for far far far more deaths that "assault weapons".  The later being <2% of all gun homicides.

The issue, as always, is that would be incredibly unpopular.  One or several of your elk actually admitted that here once during one of the many gun grabbing discussions.  Dem politicians know that is a non-starter because handgun ownership cuts across party lines.   So instead they go for low hanging fruit merely to be seen as "doing something".  It's a total joke.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2020 at 3:43 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

 

He is increasingly making it more and more difficult to vote for him.  If he keeps this shit up, I will stay home this time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

He is increasingly making it more and more difficult to vote for him.  If he keeps this shit up, I will stay home this time.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burning Man said:

He is increasingly making it more and more difficult to vote for him.  If he keeps this shit up, I will stay home this time.  

TeamD types have made it perfectly clear to me with the "you must like dead kids" crap that I'm an enemy to be vanquished. That's the kind of language humans have always used against enemies. Why would I lift a finger to help them? To the extent I want to lift a finger, it's the middle one.

Still, the ballot has more than one race. Even if you don't want to participate in the Presidential election, why not participate in Congressional, state, and local elections?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

Blah blah blah.  Why would I lift a finger to help them? To the extent I want to lift a finger, it's the middle one. More blah.

Yes, Tom is a single issue voter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burning Man said:

He is increasingly making it more and more difficult to vote for him.  If he keeps this shit up, I will stay home this time.  

:lol: like clockwork.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Yes, Tom is a single issue voter.

No, my post above, especially the parts you found inconvenient, are just further illustration that my views on gun control are the most important thing about me to grabbers. That doesn't mean it's the most important issue to me, that's just projection from people who are trapped in their TeamD bubble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

No, my post above, especially the parts you found inconvenient, are just further illustration that my views on gun control are the most important thing about me to grabbers. That doesn't mean it's the most important issue to me, that's just projection from people who are trapped in their TeamD bubble.

:lol: it’s our fault you are a frothing moron about guns? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burning Man said:

He is increasingly making it more and more difficult to vote for him.  If he keeps this shit up, I will stay home this time.  

Get real. You would never actually vote for any Democrat, ever.

Do you suppose the Trump and his minions have any more respect for the 2nd Amend't than they do for the rest of the Constitution?

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Get real. You would never actually vote for any Democrat, ever.

Do you suppose the Trump and his minions have any more respect for the 2nd Amend't than they do for the rest of the Constitution?

- DSK

I do. The 2A is just a bone tossed to the nutjobs. The trillion in tax breaks + stimulus given to the 1% is the meat. The nutjobs will never notice the lack of meat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Olsonist said:
21 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Do you suppose the Trump and his minions have any more respect for the 2nd Amend't than they do for the rest of the Constitution?

 

I do. The 2A is just a bone tossed to the nutjobs. The trillion in tax breaks + stimulus given to the 1% is the meat.

Uh huh

It's not the Constitution if it doesn't apply equally to all citizens. Do you suppose that King Donnie will decide black people can't have guns? Anyone accused of being AntiFa? Democrats? Not that I think Jeff will have a problem with this, but if history proves anything at all, it proves they'll get around to him sooner or later

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is there even a debate over private ownership of assault weapons? 

Piss on them and watch them rust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, just regulate, license and insure them the way we do with, you know, cars. A privilege rather than a right. If the nutjobs has to bear the true cost of guns they’d take up knitting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Get real. You would never actually vote for any Democrat, ever.

Do you suppose the Trump and his minions have any more respect for the 2nd Amend't than they do for the rest of the Constitution?

- DSK

I have done so and it's pretty likely I will again, but thanks for telling me all about myself.

I've already posted that I'm more an Obama fan than a Trump fan to the extent Trump has acted on gun issues. Trump hasn't adopted the TeamD position of trying to take away (assault weapons, ordinary .22's) but I think he'd do it in a heartbeat if he thought it would benefit him. For now, I have other reasons I'd never vote for Trump. 134 of them at last count, but still the most important thing about me to grabbers is the desire to keep owning (assault weapons, ordinary .22's) that they call "weapons of war."

6 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Nah, just regulate, license and insure them the way we do with, you know, cars. A privilege rather than a right. If the nutjobs has to bear the true cost of guns they’d take up knitting.

We've never closed a car registry and tried to take away cars. Good thing too, because it's a lot harder to explain how your car fell off a boat than your gun.

What do you think is the "true cost" of owning an (assault weapon, ordinary .22) anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Nah, just regulate, license and insure them the way we do with, you know, cars. A privilege rather than a right. If the nutjobs has to bear the true cost of guns they’d take up knitting.

How this works in practice in California, from a GA thread.

20 hours ago, Point Break said:

I cannot buy ammo on line or have it shipped in Cali. In fact, every time I buy it has to be in person and they run a state ammunition background check that costs a buck.  So essentially - in Cali - no ammo......anywhere. 


Do you have to have your drivers license checked each time you buy fuel for a car?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

I have done so and it's pretty likely I will again, but thanks for telling me all about myself.

...

Was I talking to you?

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2020 at 6:00 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

Also your opinion, if any, on whether that's really a dreaded weapon of war.

If at this very moment there was a ban on firearms of any type, and no one in this country owned a weapon, what weapons do you think the American people would, by majority, approve for being legally owned by private citizens?

Instead of continuing to perpetuate fear, we considered life in America without firearms, America just might actually be able to pass some sensible gun laws instead of continuing this insanity of having gun laws (or lack thereof) that benefit the gun manufacturers at the cost of thousands of lives a year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

No, my post above, especially the parts you found inconvenient, are just further illustration that my views on gun control are the most important thing about me to grabbers. That doesn't mean it's the most important issue to me, that's just projection from people who are trapped in their TeamD bubble.

you are suffering buddy and the symbol of your angst is the dogballs your status is prevalent 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

 

We've never closed a car registry and tried to take away cars.

Have we ever shielded car companies from products liability the way we do gun manufacturers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

 


Do you have to have your drivers license checked each time you buy fuel for a car?

No but you are required to show it to any cop who asks every time you are behind the wheel.  If you do not show it, you go to jail.  Sound like a good plan for gun licenses.  You like the sound of 'papers please?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jules said:

If at this very moment there was a ban on firearms of any type, and no one in this country owned a weapon, what weapons do you think the American people would, by majority, approve for being legally owned by private citizens?

It's easier to imagine a prohibition program than a prohibition program that actually works, but I'll try.

Given that the goalposts on the topic debate tend to shift from "is it a weapon of war" to "is it lethal" perhaps non-lethal weapons like stun guns might be tolerable? One would think, unless one knew that the Mass Supreme Court said "no, those are dangerous and unusual and weren't invented in the 18th century and thus are not covered by the second amendment."

This tells me that any absurd twisting of how we treat the Bill of Rights will be tolerated if the goal is to eliminate self-defense. So I'm guessing the answer to your question might be "butter knives."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:
23 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

 

We've never closed a car registry and tried to take away cars.

Have we ever shielded car companies from products liability the way we do gun manufacturers?

You didn't answer my question on this topic last time you brought it up, so I'll try again.

On 9/9/2020 at 10:00 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

Are you talking about this?

On 4/20/2015 at 9:34 PM, Jim M said:
Quote

The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does not protect them from suits for product defects. Just suits for things like suicides, which are the main topic of this thread.

 

 

"(5) 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

 

That definitely does protect them from lawsuits for product defects

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:
22 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

 


Do you have to have your drivers license checked each time you buy fuel for a car?

No but you are required to show it to any cop who asks every time you are behind the wheel.  If you do not show it, you go to jail.  Sound like a good plan for gun licenses.  You like the sound of 'papers please?'

I have no issue with having to show game wardens a license and any equipment when asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for years in Michigan we had to wear our hunting license in the middle of our back visible at all times.  If you were to put an overcoat on you had to put the license on the outside most layer even if the overcoat was hunter orange.  I am not sure why that changed but I am glad it did.  

I have hunted for 45 years and have yet to be asked to show my hunting license (except for having it displayed on my back for many years).  I have had to show my fishing license many times over the years.  I have had to pull lines when trolling 5 or more miles off shore lake Michigan to show the CO my license along with everyone else on the boat.  He did not care about life jackets or anything else except our fishing license and to verify each of us had a trout/salmon stamp even though he could not prove we were fishing for those species. 

I received a ticket for fishing without a license even though it was in my bill fold in my tackle box on the shore when I was on the end of a dock swimming on 1 side and fishing on the other.  The CO said I had to have in in my possession at all times and in my tackle box was not acceptable.  The judge threw it out after I showed him the purchase date/time stamp on the license was before the date/time the ticket was issued.  I had the license for over 2 months prior to the ticket.  After that I laminated my fishing license so I could keep it in my swim trunks when doing the fishing/swimming thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2020 at 12:36 PM, MR.CLEAN said:

Have we ever shielded car companies from products liability the way we do gun manufacturers?

Do we generally hold car manufacturers responsible for criminal actions of third parties?

And please quote where the PLCAA totally blocks any sort of product liability case. Try to not be like "Jim M" from 5 years ago and misquote the CRS summary of the bill.

15 USC § 7901-7903

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2020 at 9:36 AM, MR.CLEAN said:

Have we ever shielded car companies from products liability the way we do gun manufacturers?

If a gun blows up in someone's hands due to poor manufacturing or negligence, they would be just as liable as a car that blew up.

Is a car manufacturer or car dealer liable if someone buys and then proceeds to deliberately drive a perfectly functional vehicle into a crowd and kills 20, is that car maker or dealer liable for the illegal use of their product?  What do you say, counselor?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

If a gun blows up in someone's hands due to poor manufacturing or negligence, they would be just as liable as a car that blew up.

Is a car manufacturer or car dealer liable if someone buys and then proceeds to deliberately drive a perfectly functional vehicle into a crowd and kills 20, is that car maker or dealer liable for the illegal use of their product?  What do you say, counselor?  

You can't have it both ways. Cars are not made to kill people. Therefor (as night must follow day) it follows that when somebody is killed by a car, something went wrong.

You right-wing nutballs keep saying that guns are NOT made to kill people. Yet we can't sue gun manufacturers because nothing has gone wrong when people are killed by guns.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, F395 said:

for years in Michigan we had to wear our hunting license in the middle of our back visible at all times.  If you were to put an overcoat on you had to put the license on the outside most layer even if the overcoat was hunter orange.  I am not sure why that changed but I am glad it did.  

I have hunted for 45 years and have yet to be asked to show my hunting license (except for having it displayed on my back for many years).  I have had to show my fishing license many times over the years.  I have had to pull lines when trolling 5 or more miles off shore lake Michigan to show the CO my license along with everyone else on the boat.  He did not care about life jackets or anything else except our fishing license and to verify each of us had a trout/salmon stamp even though he could not prove we were fishing for those species. 

I received a ticket for fishing without a license even though it was in my bill fold in my tackle box on the shore when I was on the end of a dock swimming on 1 side and fishing on the other.  The CO said I had to have in in my possession at all times and in my tackle box was not acceptable.  The judge threw it out after I showed him the purchase date/time stamp on the license was before the date/time the ticket was issued.  I had the license for over 2 months prior to the ticket.  After that I laminated my fishing license so I could keep it in my swim trunks when doing the fishing/swimming thing. 

The stamp thing is not like that here. I always get a snook stamp but you don't have to have one unless you have landed a snook. You can fish in places and using methods likely to get a snook without a license, you just have to release any snook.

We can get our licenses on our phones now and show them to FWC officers through the app.

Back in the general direction of the thread topic, I've been asked to show my concealed weapons permit and hand over my gun during traffic stops. Some cops just want to know where the gun is and ask me to leave it there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

You can't have it both ways. Cars are not made to kill people. Therefor (as night must follow day) it follows that when somebody is killed by a car, something went wrong.

You right-wing nutballs keep saying that guns are NOT made to kill people. Yet we can't sue gun manufacturers because nothing has gone wrong when people are killed by guns.

- DSK

Actually, if a defective gun injures or kills someone, the manufacturer can be sued.

Your post makes me wonder about

On 11/26/2018 at 10:20 PM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

this:

On 11/24/2017 at 11:25 AM, Steam Flyer said:

As a gun-owning Southerner & veteran & capitalist, I'm not welcome in most libby-rull groups.

 

Did your guns do what they were made to do? If so, who did they kill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2020 at 4:55 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

I have no issue with having to show game wardens a license and any equipment when asked.

is hunting the only thing guns are used for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Burning Man said:

If a gun blows up in someone's hands due to poor manufacturing or negligence, they would be just as liable as a car that blew up.

Jeff, glad to see that you're joining the team! You obviously understand the inherent stupidity of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. If you're unfamiliar with that piece of nonsense, you can head over to the Giffords Center and educate yourself. A handy link is provided below.

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/other-laws-policies/gun-industry-immunity/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

The stamp thing is not like that here. I always get a snook stamp but you don't have to have one unless you have landed a snook. You can fish in places and using methods likely to get a snook without a license, you just have to release any snook.

It always impresses me just how much of a bullshitter tommie is.

Quote

Required, in addition to a saltwater fishing license, including shoreline fishing, when taking or attempting to take snook.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

 

Did your guns do what they were made to do? If so, who did they kill?

Do you stop reading all statutes halfway through, or just the gun ones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

You can't have it both ways. Cars are not made to kill people. Therefor (as night must follow day) it follows that when somebody is killed by a car, something went wrong.

You right-wing nutballs keep saying that guns are NOT made to kill people. Yet we can't sue gun manufacturers because nothing has gone wrong when people are killed by guns.

- DSK

Guns are made to fire a projectile of a certain mass at a certain velocity.  How that projectile is used is up to the user of the gun.  If can be used to put food on the table, punch holes in paper, or punch holes in people.  And ALL three of those things can be either completely legal or completely illegal depending on the context.  

So yes, a gun that "kills" someone in legal self-defense is an entirely legal activity with a tool that was specifically designed for that legal purpose.  

Guns are not sold or marketed to be used for illegal activities, any more than a Porsche 911 Turbo S is marketed and sold to be raced on the street.  That is an illegal activity.  So therefore the car manufacturer is not legally liable for the deliberate misuse of their products.  If someone doing 155 mph in their porsche hits a school bus full of small children, nuns and baby seals....... then Porsche is not liable for that accident assuming the car didn't have a manufacturing defect that caused it to accelerate against the driver's will and crash into the bus.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:
13 hours ago, Burning Man said:

If a gun blows up in someone's hands due to poor manufacturing or negligence, they would be just as liable as a car that blew up.

Jeff, glad to see that you're joining the team! You obviously understand the inherent stupidity of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. If you're unfamiliar with that piece of nonsense, you can head over to the Giffords Center and educate yourself. A handy link is provided below.

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/other-laws-policies/gun-industry-immunity/

I am well aware of that act.  And that act does not in anyway prohibit the litigation against a gun manufacturer if they produce a product that is defective and injured or killed someone.  If someone takes a perfectly functioning tool and deliberately uses it in an illegal way - then yes, that manufacturer is protected.  Just like a truck maker would be if someone rented a box truck and killed 70 people with it on a crowded street.  

Knives are used to kill people all the time.  Is Henckel or Benchmade or Leatherman on the legal chopping block if someone stabs and kills someone?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Guns are not sold or marketed to be used for illegal activities, any more than a Porsche 911 Turbo S is marketed and sold to be raced on the street.  That is an illegal activity.  So therefore the car manufacturer is not legally liable for the deliberate misuse of their products.  If someone doing 155 mph in their porsche hits a school bus full of small children, nuns and baby seals....... then Porsche is not liable for that accident assuming the car didn't have a manufacturing defect that caused it to accelerate against the driver's will and crash into the bus.  

:lol:
 

Porsche Carrera GT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I am well aware of that act.  And that act does not in anyway prohibit the litigation against a gun manufacturer if they produce a product that is defective and injured or killed someone.  If someone takes a perfectly functioning tool and deliberately uses it in an illegal way - then yes, that manufacturer is protected.  Just like a truck maker would be if someone rented a box truck and killed 70 people with it on a crowded street.  

Knives are used to kill people all the time.  Is Henckel or Benchmade or Leatherman on the legal chopping block if someone stabs and kills someone?  

It also absolves individuals of the LIABILITY FOR USE by others. So if your roommate steals your keys and bypasses your 'secure gun storage' and uses your gun to holdup a liquor store, you're totally good. But if your roommate steals your keys and runs over a little old lady with your car, well that's what you have liability insurance for.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Therefor (as night must follow day) it follows that when somebody is killed by a car, something went wrong.

"It was an ACCIDENT".. yep, those 36K+ deaths are acceptable.

What "went wrong" with the truck in France when 86 people died and 434 were injured?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Olsonist said:

But if your roommate steals your keys and runs over a little old lady with your car, well that's what you have liability insurance for.

Except that Owner Liability For Damage Caused By Stolen Vehicles doesn't work that way.
 

Quote

 

...Finding independent negligence by and liability on the owner of a stolen vehicle usually means the existence of liability insurance, and a subrogation recovery. However, like negligent entrustment, such liability is usually not automatic or vicarious. Some states have vicarious liability laws or statutes which make a vehicle owner liable for injuries or property damage that are caused by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle by a permissive user. But, what if the vehicle is stolen?

The majority common law rule among the 50 states is that the owner of a stolen vehicle will not be held liable for damages when the vehicle is stolen and then involved in an accident that causes injury or property damage. This is because the vehicle was taken without the consent of the owner, who did not cause the accident. Under the “permissive use doctrine”, an owner is liable for personal injury or property damage resulting from negligence in the operation of a vehicle by any person using the vehicle with the permission of the owner. Liability is dependent on the express or implied permission of the owner. ...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:
On 9/17/2020 at 4:55 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

I have no issue with having to show game wardens a license and any equipment when asked.

is hunting the only thing guns are used for?

Do you stop reading all threads halfway through, or just the gun ones?

On 9/18/2020 at 4:12 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

I've been asked to show my concealed weapons permit and hand over my gun during traffic stops. Some cops just want to know where the gun is and ask me to leave it there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
On 9/18/2020 at 4:12 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

The stamp thing is not like that here. I always get a snook stamp but you don't have to have one unless you have landed a snook. You can fish in places and using methods likely to get a snook without a license, you just have to release any snook.

It always impresses me just how much of a bullshitter tommie is.

Quote

Required, in addition to a saltwater fishing license, including shoreline fishing, when taking or attempting to take snook.  

 

I know the rules and my statement was right. If you provided a source, people could see that, so I will.

Quote

 

However, when you get into estuarine type areas where salt and fresh water commingle and fish of both types can be found the issue becomes less clear. The interpretation of the rule is:

  1. You need either a freshwater, saltwater or combination license (or appropriate exemption) to take fish (take is legally defined as taking, attempting to take, pursuing, molesting, capturing, or killing any fish, or their nests or eggs by any means whether or not such actions result in obtaining possession of such fish or their nests or eggs).
  2. If you are using species specific gear, your license should be appropriate (e.g., freshwater or saltwater) to the species you are targeting, and
  3. Otherwise you need an appropriate type license to keep your catch and must immediately release any species for which you are not licensed. License requirements follow the species of fish, regardless of where they are caught. In other words, if you only have a freshwater license and are primarily fishing for largemouth bass or bream (freshwater species) in a river, but happen to catch a red drum (a saltwater species), you must immediately release the red drum.

 

I live on just such an estuary and have caught bass when attempting to catch snook. I don't have a freshwater license, so back it went. There is no "species-specific gear" that I know about for snook, and the bass fishermen that come up here might catch a snook when trying to catch bass. That's not a violation of the law, they just have to release any snook, as I said.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Do you stop reading all statutes halfway through, or just the gun ones?

Which do you think reflects a more thorough reading of the PLCAA? This:

On 4/20/2015 at 9:34 PM, Jim M said:
Quote

 

Cite or it didn't happen. The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does not protect them from suits for product defects. Just suits for things like suicides, which are the main topic of this thread.

 

 

"(5) 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

 

That definitely does protect them from lawsuits for product defects


Or the more complete version I posted in response?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arguably illegal picture from the GA fishing thread. I was trying to catch snapper and got this little snook instead. Holding it for a few seconds while my wife took a picture was not an "immediate" release but the fish swam away just fine moments later. Accidentally catching it during the current moratorium was not illegal.

On 9/17/2020 at 6:48 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

2020-09-16wilysnook.jpg

Too small to keep even without the moratorium but they were nice looking healthy fish.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Olsonist said:

It also absolves individuals of the LIABILITY FOR USE by others. So if your roommate steals your keys and bypasses your 'secure gun storage' and uses your gun to holdup a liquor store, you're totally good. But if your roommate steals your keys and runs over a little old lady with your car, well that's what you have liability insurance for.

Which states hold the owner of the car liable for negligence committed in their car by a roommate that steals the owner's keys?

Which states would hold the owner liable if the roommate stole the keys and intentionally drove over an old lady? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

Except that Owner Liability For Damage Caused By Stolen Vehicles doesn't work that way.
 

Quote

 

...Finding independent negligence by and liability on the owner of a stolen vehicle usually means the existence of liability insurance, and a subrogation recovery. However, like negligent entrustment, such liability is usually not automatic or vicarious. Some states have vicarious liability laws or statutes which make a vehicle owner liable for injuries or property damage that are caused by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle by a permissive user. But, what if the vehicle is stolen?

The majority common law rule among the 50 states is that the owner of a stolen vehicle will not be held liable for damages when the vehicle is stolen and then involved in an accident that causes injury or property damage. This is because the vehicle was taken without the consent of the owner, who did not cause the accident. Under the “permissive use doctrine”, an owner is liable for personal injury or property damage resulting from negligence in the operation of a vehicle by any person using the vehicle with the permission of the owner. Liability is dependent on the express or implied permission of the owner. ...

Oh Snap!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

Arguably illegal picture from the GA fishing thread. I was trying to catch snapper and got this little snook instead. Holding it for a few seconds while my wife took a picture was not an "immediate" release but the fish swam away just fine moments later. Accidentally catching it during the current moratorium was not illegal.

 

Wouldn’t be the first, won’t be the last, of the dumb old man bragging about breaking the law with a picture inPA. But no, he’s not a privileged cunt, he’s oppressed by the duopoly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Wouldn’t be the first, won’t be the last, of the dumb old man bragging about breaking the law.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Treat this thread like a house and walk away.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

Arguably illegal picture from the GA fishing thread. I was trying to catch snapper and got this little snook instead. Holding it for a few seconds while my wife took a picture was not an "immediate" release but the fish swam away just fine moments later. Accidentally catching it during the current moratorium was not illegal.

 

In Michigan when you catch an undersize lake trout you have to release it.  When the fish comes from really deep water it's swim bladder inflates on the way up and unless you puncture the fish's swim bladder to let the air out it will float on the surface and die - if you puncture the swim bladder it probably will die.  Letting go a fish you know will die or at least have it's eyes pecked out by seagulls is a tough thing to do but it is the way the law works.  If you get caught with an undersize fish no matter the possible negative outcomes for the fish it is a violation of the law.

Same thing for bird hunting.  If I buy pheasants for dog training I cannot shoot the birds I purchased unless it is pheasant season.  As soon as the bird is released into the air or on the ground it becomes property of the state and cannot be shot outside of the hunting seasons laws.  A pheasant is a native Michigan bird and even though I own them by purchasing them from a licensed bird farm I cannot do as I please with them.  The reason for this I was told is a CO cannot tell whether the pheasant was purchased or was a natural bird.  However, if I buy a chucker which it is a non-native bird, I can do as I please with it for dog training at any time of year.  The Chucker cannot  survive the winter so it cannot become an invasive species even though they are a non-native bird. 

laws have to be understood the way the CO that is going to write you a ticket does.  I have learned the hard way to get a CO's take on what is and is not legal instead of what I think is right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, F395 said:

laws have to be understood the way the CO that is going to write you a ticket does.  I have learned the hard way to get a CO's take on what is and is not legal instead of what I think is right

Yeah, I already know they're OK with pictures but for those who don't...

Quote

It is okay to take a picture of a fish that is not allowed to be harvested while it’s in the process of being released, but it still must be let go immediately after.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2020 at 6:12 PM, Burning Man said:

Tell that to your politicians!  I have been saying here for years that handguns are the issue and account for far far far more deaths that "assault weapons".  The later being <2% of all gun homicides.

The issue, as always, is that would be incredibly unpopular.  One or several of your elk actually admitted that here once during one of the many gun grabbing discussions.  Dem politicians know that is a non-starter because handgun ownership cuts across party lines.   So instead they go for low hanging fruit merely to be seen as "doing something".  It's a total joke.  

You ain't kidding.  Both "sides" hate that idea. 

I first said it in the PA-equivalent sub-forum of a construction forum, 15 years ago... the blow-back was so harsh, I stayed off the gun threads for a long time, after that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, frenchie said:
On 9/15/2020 at 3:12 PM, Burning Man said:

Tell that to your politicians!  I have been saying here for years that handguns are the issue and account for far far far more deaths that "assault weapons".  The later being <2% of all gun homicides.

The issue, as always, is that would be incredibly unpopular.  One or several of your elk actually admitted that here once during one of the many gun grabbing discussions.  Dem politicians know that is a non-starter because handgun ownership cuts across party lines.   So instead they go for low hanging fruit merely to be seen as "doing something".  It's a total joke.  

You ain't kidding.  Both "sides" hate that idea. 

I first said it in the PA-equivalent sub-forum of a construction forum, 15 years ago... the blow-back was so harsh, I stayed off the gun threads for a long time, after that.

Jeffie, I have corrected you TWICE, elsewhere. The more recent figures far exceed any 2% claim from the past.

Quote

(KOPER, 2017)

 This study investigates current levels of criminal activity with assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics in the USA using several local and national data sources including the following:

  •  (1) guns recovered by police in ten large cities,
  • (2) guns reported by police to federal authorities for investigative tracing,
  • (3) guns used in murders of police, and
  • (4) guns used in mass murders.

 

--Results suggest assault weapons (primarily assault-type rifles) account for 2–12% of guns used in crime in general (most estimates suggest less than 7%) and 13–16% of guns used in murders of police.

--Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics together generally account for 22 to 36% of crime guns, with some estimates upwards of 40% for cases involving serious violence including murders of police.

--Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics appear to be used in a higher share of firearm mass murders (up to 57% in total), though data on this issue are very limited.

--Trend analyses also indicate that high-capacity semiautomatics have grown from 33 to 112% as a share of crime guns since the expiration of the federal ban—a trend that has coincided with recent growth in shootings nationwide.

 

Further research seems warranted on how these weapons affect injuries and deaths from gun violence and how their regulation may impact public health.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-017-0205-7

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

--Results suggest assault weapons (primarily assault-type rifles) account for 2–12% of guns used in crime in general (most estimates suggest less than 7%) and 13–16% of guns used in murders of police.

--Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics together generally account for 22 to 36% of crime guns, with some estimates upwards of 40% for cases involving serious violence including murders of police.

--Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics appear to be used in a higher share of firearm mass murders (up to 57% in total), though data on this issue are very limited.

--Trend analyses also indicate that high-capacity semiautomatics have grown from 33 to 112% as a share of crime guns since the expiration of the federal ban—a trend that has coincided with recent growth in shootings nationwide.

 

Further research seems warranted on how these weapons affect injuries and deaths from gun violence and how their regulation may impact public health.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-017-0205-7

Hey Joe, you disingenuous cunt - "Other high capacity semi automatics" ARE fucking ordinary handguns.  If you add handguns into the mix, of course the numbers are going to go up.  An "assault weapon" is generally thought of as a long gun, i.e. rifle or shotgun.  Those are used in a tiny fraction of crimes according to the FBI.  That <2% number is likely even pretty librul since it includes ALL long guns, not just high capacity semi-auto rifles and shotguns.

Stop being such a douche joe.  You know better than this.  Go jump over some cars and pass out some cigs to the ghetto dwellers.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

Hey Joe, you disingenuous cunt - "Other high capacity semi automatics" ARE fucking ordinary handguns.  If you add handguns into the mix, of course the numbers are going to go up.  An "assault weapon" is generally thought of as a long gun, i.e. rifle or shotgun.  Those are used in a tiny fraction of crimes according to the FBI.  That <2% number is likely even pretty librul since it includes ALL long guns, not just high capacity semi-auto rifles and shotguns.

Stop being such a douche joe.  You know better than this.  Go jump over some cars and pass out some cigs to the ghetto dwellers.  

That's right, the AW problem is based on the LCM platform. You gun mentality idiots are no longer judicious with the gunfire,

Let's see your source for your 2% figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2020 at 11:00 AM, Olsonist said:

If you're unfamiliar with that piece of nonsense, you can head over to the Giffords Center and educate yourself.

Ah yes, the well known giffords group, the same group that would like muzzleloaders banned because many of them are .50 cal.

But feel free to tell us why the manufacturer should be held liable for the criminal actions of a third party.

Well, one that an adult might be persuaded by, not just cheerleading the idea of filing enough suits until the manufacturer goes broke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

:lol: buttplug 

What you do in your free time isn't my concern, r'iblet.

You could try to answer the question, but that might require a more then 4 word answer - and since you seem to get paid by the post, not by the word - why bother, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

What you do in your free time isn't my concern, r'iblet.

You could try to answer the question, but that might require a more then 4 word answer - and since you seem to get paid by the post, not by the word - why bother, right?

I laugh at your dumbass because you are too stubborn and too stupid to learn buttplug57, but if you think there can be no design liability for products used “illegally” you are as dumb as I thought. The recoil broke your brain buttplug57. Now go troll jocal you stupid fuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Burning Man said:
15 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

Except that Owner Liability For Damage Caused By Stolen Vehicles doesn't work that way.
 

Quote

 

...Finding independent negligence by and liability on the owner of a stolen vehicle usually means the existence of liability insurance, and a subrogation recovery. However, like negligent entrustment, such liability is usually not automatic or vicarious. Some states have vicarious liability laws or statutes which make a vehicle owner liable for injuries or property damage that are caused by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle by a permissive user. But, what if the vehicle is stolen?

The majority common law rule among the 50 states is that the owner of a stolen vehicle will not be held liable for damages when the vehicle is stolen and then involved in an accident that causes injury or property damage. This is because the vehicle was taken without the consent of the owner, who did not cause the accident. Under the “permissive use doctrine”, an owner is liable for personal injury or property damage resulting from negligence in the operation of a vehicle by any person using the vehicle with the permission of the owner. Liability is dependent on the express or implied permission of the owner. ...

Oh Snap!

But I am warming up to Olsonist's idea of treating guns like cars. The immunity he mentioned, which applies to cars, is for handguns only and should be extended to guns in general.

We've never closed a car registry to new individuals. We shouldn't do it with gun registries either.

We've never banned possession of previously-legal cars. We shouldn't ban possession of legal guns either.

We don't make registration and licensing cost hundreds of dollars for cars and shouldn't be doing that for guns either.

We don't check on each driver when he buys fuel and should sell ammunition the same way.

How about it, Olsonist, when you get done posting misinformation about liability, you want to help me make sure we treat guns like cars?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://nypost.com/2020/09/19/rochester-shooting-kills-2-injures-14-more/

"Rochester shooting: 2 teens dead, 14 others injured in ‘tragedy of epic proportions’"

"The two who died were recent high school grads Jaquayla Young and state track champion Jarvis Alexander, both 19, the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle reported. Neither was an intended shooting target, authorities said."

 

So yes, your American gun culture just keeps killing people.

How sad.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Hey Joe, you disingenuous cunt - "Other high capacity semi automatics" ARE fucking ordinary handguns.  If you add handguns into the mix, of course the numbers are going to go up.  An "assault weapon" is generally thought of as a long gun, i.e. rifle or shotgun.  Those are used in a tiny fraction of crimes according to the FBI.  That <2% number is likely even pretty librul since it includes ALL long guns, not just high capacity semi-auto rifles and shotguns.

Stop being such a douche joe.  You know better than this.  Go jump over some cars and pass out some cigs to the ghetto dwellers.  

He's not wrong in the sense that the mainstream TeamD definition of "assault weapon" includes ordinary .22's in both handgun and rifle form, along with lots of other handguns and rifles. It's a nebulous term and the only concise definition that really captures what is covered is:

"Assault weapon" means "gun that TeamD wants to ban and take."

So I suspect the percentage of crimes committed using "assault" weapons approaches 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

We don't make registration and licensing cost hundreds of dollars for cars and shouldn't be doing that for guns either.

:lol: tommy, tommy, tommy, you really sound like an ignorant hick here. There are plenty of people that have paid vehicle license/registration costs of thousands of dollars, you dumb fuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

:lol: tommy, tommy, tommy, you really sound like an ignorant hick here. There are plenty of people that have paid vehicle license/registration costs of thousands of dollars, you dumb fuck.

I suspect you're talking about mostly sales taxes, not registration fees and certainly not driver license fees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Keith said:

https://nypost.com/2020/09/19/rochester-shooting-kills-2-injures-14-more/

"Rochester shooting: 2 teens dead, 14 others injured in ‘tragedy of epic proportions’"

"The two who died were recent high school grads Jaquayla Young and state track champion Jarvis Alexander, both 19, the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle reported. Neither was an intended shooting target, authorities said."

 

So yes, your American gun culture just keeps killing people.

How sad.

 

Terrible and preventable tragedies are caused by lead poisonings.  Maybe less lead will lead to more freedom.  Most families and friends of innocent victims would like the fucker with a gun to put it down and use his fists when violent urges overtake all sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites