Lawsuits against the companies that make assault rifles.

[Jarlaxle]

You're kidding, right? That ad (which was key to the Sandy Hook suit against Remington where Remington paid out 73 million) is not for sane people. Anyone who thinks a gun is going to restore his "Manliness" has serious issues.

That's a lie. Remington did not do anything...because Remington Arms DID NOT EXIST when the case was settled. Remington had gone bankrupt, the case was settled (by the insurers) so the bankruptcy could go ahead.

OK, Göbbels.

He is more like Beria, with a dash of Vasily Blohkin.

That would include flintlocks and muskets.

And bolt-actions, and single-shot breechloaders. (Like the Trapdoor Springfield.) Amusingly, it would NOT include many semiautomatic rifles-the first one-the Remington Autoloading Rifle (later the Remington Model 8) was strictly designed for civilian use.

 

[JoeB131]

They make the definitions, not Wikipedia.

Really, who elected them to make definitions.

Of course the FBI is going to downplay the crisis. Someone might ask why they aren't doing their job otherwise.

If you insist on using words and phrases to mean something other than what everyone else understand them to mean, then all you are doing is corrupting the use of language, and making any useful conversation very difficult, if not impossible.

Except that everyone understands a mass shooting to mean exactly that. More than one person shot. Turn on the local news when a couple people are wounded, the talking head will still call it a 'mass shooting" even if the requisite four people didn't die.

Why four people? Because that makes it easier to downplay it, and because it usually takes that many for the national news to pay attention. That's how fucking numb we've gotten to this.

Having been in the Army, you have no excuse at all for not understanding that any good deer-hunting rifle is far deadlier than any “assault weapon”.

A common deer round, like the larger 30-06 pictured below, is much deadlier than the smaller round pictured below, which is the 5.56mm/.223 round used by an AR-15.

It's not the size of the round that's the issue, dummy, it's the utility of the weapon.

The AR-15/M-16 was designed to have a SMALLER bullet than the 7.62MM used in the M-14 that preceded it. The weapon was designed to be more portable, and allow the soldier to carry more rounds on long patrols. Mostly, it was idealized for use in Vietnam with its thick jungles.

There's a reason why mass shooters don't use Deer Rifles... they take longer to reload and they aren't as portable. They are good for shooting a target at a distance. An AR-15 is good for close quarters fighting.

 

[JoeB131]

It's hard to understand how any state can sue any manufacturing company (arms or otherwise) for the misuse of it's product. I don't see how the SCOTUS could allow that, cuz then the affected companies could be forced out of business by frivolous lawsuits that the plaintiffs can't win. And should the time ever come where such a case could and did win, that's when you'll know this country is well and truly fucked.

I am not a constitutional scholar by any means, but I don't believe states have the power to enact laws that influence inter-state commerce. IOW, I don't think a state can enact a law that interferes with businesses in another state.

Actually, the precedent was already set with the tobacco lawsuits.

What the states are suing over is the conduct of the gun sellers, not the effectiveness of the product. The Tobacco makers were deliberately marketing to children to get them hooked. The gun stores are deliberately selling to unstable people to cause more crime. this isn't complicated at all.

The reason why Remington settled as quickly as it did was they didn't want the plaintiffs combing through their internal memos.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Really, who elected them to make definitions.

Of course the FBI is going to downplay the crisis. Someone might ask why they aren't doing their job otherwise.



Except that everyone understands a mass shooting to mean exactly that. More than one person shot. Turn on the local news when a couple people are wounded, the talking head will still call it a 'mass shooting" even if the requisite four people didn't die.

Why four people? Because that makes it easier to downplay it, and because it usually takes that many for the national news to pay attention. That's how fucking numb we've gotten to this.



It's not the size of the round that's the issue, dummy, it's the utility of the weapon.

The AR-15/M-16 was designed to have a SMALLER bullet than the 7.62MM used in the M-14 that preceded it. The weapon was designed to be more portable, and allow the soldier to carry more rounds on long patrols. Mostly, it was idealized for use in Vietnam with its thick jungles.

There's a reason why mass shooters don't use Deer Rifles... they take longer to reload and they aren't as portable. They are good for shooting a target at a distance. An AR-15 is good for close quarters fighting.

Most shooters use pistols dumb ass.

 

[Dadoalex]

If I get in my car, and drive into a crowd of people, killing several of them, should Stellantis be sued for having manufactured that car?

Did you buy the car with the intent of killing people?
Did Stellantis know of your intent when selling you the car?

Replace car with gun and Stellantis with "Gun Manufacturer" for your answer.

 

[Dadoalex]

Serial killers most often stab, strangle and bludgeon their victims to death. Should we now make knife makers and hammer makers liable for those murders? Phone cords, curtain cords, etc are used for strangling should those manufacturers be liable as well? No, this makes 0 sense. Arsenic is often use to kill people should the chemical manufacturer be held liabel? After all, arsenic IS a poison.

Are any of those items sold with specific knowledge that the intent of the purchase is to kill?
No?
There's your answer.

 

[Dadoalex]

Gun manufactures don’t sell guns to the public. They sell to licensed dealers. Just like Ford doesn’t sell cars to the public, it sells to dealers. The manufacturer of a legal product has no responsibility for anything done by someone two steps away.

The Ford Pinto begs to differ.

 

[Dadoalex]

If the design purpose of guns is to kill people, then how is it that the overwhelming vast majority of guns are never used for any such purpose? The engineers who design guns must be doing an extraordinarily poor job of it, if any of your logic is at all sound.

The point is that it is unjustifiable to hold the manufacturer of a legitimate product, sold and used for legit9imate purposes; for the results of someone abusing that product.

An incredibly stupid argument.
You're claiming gun manufacturers are purposely selling defective products.
That's a loser in court.

 

[Dadoalex]

Nor is the gun designed to kill either. My guns have never killed a single person.

A firearm's specific design function is to kill people.
People buy cars and stick them in a garage never driving them.
That doesn't change the cars' intended purpose.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A firearm's specific design function is to kill people.
People buy cars and stick them in a garage never driving them.
That doesn't change the cars' intended purpose.

a firearm is designed to shoot a projectile at any target living or inanimate the owner chooses. Only military weapons are designed to kill humans.

 

[westwall]

A firearm's specific design function is to kill people.
People buy cars and stick them in a garage never driving them.
That doesn't change the cars' intended purpose.

No, it isn't. It is designed to propel a bullet to a TARGET.

PEOPLE, determine what that target is.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Actually, the precedent was already set with the tobacco lawsuits.

What the states are suing over is the conduct of the gun sellers, not the effectiveness of the product. The Tobacco makers were deliberately marketing to children to get them hooked. The gun stores are deliberately selling to unstable people to cause more crime. this isn't complicated at all.

The reason why Remington settled as quickly as it did was they didn't want the plaintiffs combing through their internal memos.

Meanwhile in Israel

 

[Grau]

It is notable that most of those who use this line, to argue against the rights to keep and bear arm, also support the right to murder innocent children in cold blood via abortion; which results in at least an order or two of magnitude more innocent children dying than can be attributed to any causes that involve guns.

Anyone who defends abortion completely forfeits any and all credibility in claiming any concern at all for human life, especially for the lives of children.

I've noticed the same thing.
A lot of people who are anti gun are pro choice.
I didn't say "pro abortion" because no one can enjoy having an abortion.

I worked in the Juvenile Justice system and saw what happens when unfit parents. have children.
At the same time, I lived in an inner city neighborhood and saw what happens when children who can not care for themselves have children.

Perhaps it's because of the pain and misery I've seen in children who were unplanned and unwanted that I'm on the fence about abortion but lean toward allowing women to decide for themselves.

Also, as a man, I don't feel that I have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. After all, I'm not going to have morning sickness, and all the other miserable things that pregnant women go through.

It's just me, but I feel like I'd be hypocritical if I opposed abortion since I fully support the entire Bill of Rights and, as a man don't feel that I have a right to tell women how they manage their lives.

Thanks,

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I've noticed the same thing.
A lot of people who are anti gun are pro choice.
I didn't say "pro abortion" because no one can enjoy having an abortion.

I worked in the Juvenile Justice system and saw what happens when unfit parents. have children.
At the same time, I lived in an inner city neighborhood and saw what happens when children who can not care for themselves have children.

Perhaps it's because of the pain and misery I've seen in children who were unplanned and unwanted that I'm on the fence about abortion but lean toward allowing women to decide for themselves.

Also, as a man, I don't feel that I have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. After all, I'm not going to have morning sickness, and all the other miserable things that pregnant women go through.

It's just me, but I feel like I'd be hypocritical if I opposed abortion since I fully support the entire Bill of Rights and, as a man don't feel that I have a right to tell women how they manage their lives.

Thanks,

So the solution to people who live substandard lives is to just kill them in cold blood?

Also, as a man, I don't feel that I have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

If it was about what she does with her own body, then she would be the one to die from an abortion, instead of her innocent child.

One again, anyone who defends the savage practice of abortio0n has no credibility whatsoever in expressing any concern for any human life. If you defend the “right” to murder the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings, then you are a hypocrite if you oppose any other violence.


It certainly makes you a horrendous hypocrite, if you oppose the rights of law-abiding human beings to legitimately keep and bars arms, on the basis that someone “might” use those arms unjustly to take a life.


The overwhelming vast majority of those who own firearms never use them to commit any act of violence against anyone.

100% of those who have abortions have willfully taken the life of an innocent human being.

 

[Grau]

Um, actually, you guys are the ones who are afraid of talking about it, because you don't want to see these images.
THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE VOTING FOR. The ability of a crazy person to buy a gun, walk into a school and mow down a bunch of kids.



You are right. Other countries have figured this out. You don't hear about preschool massacres in Japan. Why? Japan banned privately owned guns after the Meiji Restoration of the 1870's. You don't hear about these preschool massacres in the UK, Why? They banned guns in the 1980's. You don't hear about these kinds of massacres in Germany. Why? Because after the Allies (not Hitler) confiscated most of the privately owned weapons after WWII, Germany developed a sensible gun law that keeps guns out of the hands of crazies.

See, Objective and Rational Thought.


Quite right... funny thing, the "Right to bear Arms" doesn't include Napalm, Explosives, etc. Because that would be some crazy shit right there.

I mean, if you accept the crazy argument, that we needs our guns to fights our government, why can't the average citizen have Napalm?

That would scare the government a lot more than your pea-shooter.


So you had to go back 33 years to find an example of mass deaths without guns? (which was just as much because the club owners locked all the exit doors than the effectiveness of the firebomb)

We can't go a day without a mass shooting in this country, to the point where the gun Fetishists try to up the number to qualify as a mass shooting so it doesn't look so bad.



Really, going back 96 years? Really? You are grasping, bud.

Look, no law is going to stop the determined terrorist with a plan and resources.
But it would do a lot to stop a Lanza, a Holmes or a Cruz from getting a gun before people realize they are crazy.

You've made it pretty clear that you would like to do away with the 2nd Amendment altogether; is that accurate?

You keep repeating the falsehood that anyone who doesn't want gun bans supports mass murder by the "crazies"
Basically, you're claiming that anyone who doesn't think like you is " one of those crazies".

I was a Psychiatric Case Worker on an inner city Emergency Psychiatric Unit. One of the most common complaints among the most delusional patients was being around "all of these crazies."

America already has laws prohibiting felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms and they apparently don't work.

Why do more of something that doesn't work since one of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

Next, you mention how much less violence exists in those "developed countries" that are in no way like the US. (1)

(1). "The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries"

The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries | Mises Institute

Much of the political thinking about violence in the United States comes from unfavorable comparisons between the United States and a series of cherry-picked

mises.org

EXCERPT " Note, however, that these comparisons always employ a carefully selected list of countries, most of which are very unlike the United States. They are countries that were settled long ago by the dominant ethnic group, they are ethnically non-diverse today, they are frequently very small countries (such as Norway, with a population of 5 million) with very locally based democracies (again, unlike the US with an immense population and far fewer representatives in government per voter). Politically, historically, and demographically, the US has little in common with Europe or Japan.

The US has the highest murder rate in the "developed world" — presumably because of its lax guns laws —we are told again and again.

Few people who repeat this mantra have any standard in their heads of what exactly is the "developed" world. They just repeat the phrase because they have learned to do so." CONTINUED


-------------------------------------------I'LL FINISH THIS COMMENT IN A MOMENT--------------

 

[Orangecat]

A firearm's specific design function is to kill people.

Incorrect. They are designed to fire projectiles as accurately as possible. Only the end user decides what said projectiles are aimed at.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You've made it pretty clear that you would like to do away with the 2nd Amendment altogether; is that accurate?

You keep repeating the falsehood that anyone who doesn't want gun bans supports mass murder by the "crazies"
Basically, you're claiming that anyone who doesn't think like you is " one of those crazies".

I was a Psychiatric Case Worker on an inner city Emergency Psychiatric Unit. One of the most common complaints among the most delusional patients was being around "all of these crazies."

America already has laws prohibiting felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms and they apparently don't work.

Why do more of something that doesn't work since one of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

Next, you mention how much less violence exists in those "developed countries" that are in no way like the US. (1)

(1). "The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries"

The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries | Mises Institute

Much of the political thinking about violence in the United States comes from unfavorable comparisons between the United States and a series of cherry-picked

mises.org

EXCERPT " Note, however, that these comparisons always employ a carefully selected list of countries, most of which are very unlike the United States. They are countries that were settled long ago by the dominant ethnic group, they are ethnically non-diverse today, they are frequently very small countries (such as Norway, with a population of 5 million) with very locally based democracies (again, unlike the US with an immense population and far fewer representatives in government per voter). Politically, historically, and demographically, the US has little in common with Europe or Japan.

The US has the highest murder rate in the "developed world" — presumably because of its lax guns laws —we are told again and again.

Few people who repeat this mantra have any standard in their heads of what exactly is the "developed" world. They just repeat the phrase because they have learned to do so." CONTINUED


-------------------------------------------I'LL FINISH THIS COMMENT IN A MOMENT--------------

Joey is a disciple of Stalin. He dreams of secret police with unlimited power...with, of course, himself as head of the NKVD.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Joey is a disciple of Stalin. He dreams of secret police with unlimited power...with, of course, himself as head of the NKVD.

Based on his admitted heritage, he's closer to Hitler than to Stalin. Literally descended from Nazi stock.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Based on his admitted heritage, he's closer to Hitler than to Stalin. Literally descended from Nazi stock.

Are you baked?

 

[westwall]

Are you baked?

No, he is stating a fact.