blatantly stupid... got to love the NY Times choice for op ed writers

tekkychick said:
it's a logical fallacy to say "X number of people die in autos and therefore we shouldn't control guns".
Click to expand...

no it's not. It's completely relevant when someone tries to paint something as an epidemic when there are many more things that cause exponentially more deaths a year and no one bats an eye. It shows the concern is less about the deaths and more about promoting a taker agenda.

If death was the number 1 concern of people against guns, they would be more productive and could focus on saving more lives in a number of other areas.
 
tekkychick said:
So back to the initial post. The gun industry is the only one we DON'T allow to be sued; all the others can be sued.

Why should the gun industry get special protection from lawsuits?
Click to expand...

Because they are the ones that lobbied for it. If you have people start trying to sue GM for drunk driving accidents, you are going to see them do the same friggin thing.

The reason the gun industry did it, was they saw the writing on the wall. It is easy for the gun grabbers to paint a scene to the knee jerk reactionaries of how awful guns are etc... etc.. and poor little johnny would still be alive today if not for the gun manufacturers. Of course the liars (I mean lawyers) will neglect to mention the drive by shooting that took Johnny's life. They will just lament on how if guns didn't exist, this wouldn't have happened. Etc... etc...

Lawsuits, as I posted earlier from the Time article, cause companies to take more care about making their products. Oh, Time said it better:
Click to expand...

Gun manufacturers DO take care in how they make their products. They are very safe to use IF you use them as they tell you to. But there is nothing and I do mean NOTHING the manufacturers can do to stop idiots from doing stupid things with the guns. Just as there is nothing GM can do to stop drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel. That is not a product defect... it is the persons defect.

So why do you want the gun industry to continue to get special treatment?
Click to expand...

I don't. I want every industry to be protected from frivolous suits. Sue the companies for defective products. But suing them for the stupidity of the person using their products is blatantly stupid.
 
Pete Campbell said:
no it's not. It's completely relevant when someone tries to paint something as an epidemic when there are many more things that cause exponentially more deaths a year and no one bats an eye. It shows the concern is less about the deaths and more about promoting a taker agenda.

If death was the number 1 concern of people against guns, they would be more productive and could focus on saving more lives in a number of other areas.
Click to expand...
You're making their point for them with that example Grind. 31,000 people died in gun related deaths n the US in 2010 and 32,000 people died in traffic related deaths in the same year. That's a 20,000 person per year decrease in traffic deaths since 1980 due to public concerns about safety. Point being, the difference isn't exponential. They're comparable, the public concern is just as great and therefore it's a valid point.

You're arguing from a false premise. That those who wish to implements common sense gun controls laws in order to reduced the staggering number of gun deaths in this nation are out to grab your guns and take them away from you.

That's just absolutist fanaticism.
 
Dungheap said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

exactly... they are not allowed

Actually, you did say something about people filing a suit. You may not have meant to, but you did. You asked "Do we allow people to sue . . . " A separate question is whether the claims are meritorious. We allow people to sue GM and Coors and whoever and have their claims resolved on the merits. Not so for gun manufacturers.
Click to expand...

LOL... ok Mr. Semantics... I meant do we allow such cases into the system... do they get in front of a judge and/or jury? NO.

We also do not allow people to sue GM and Coors because of the actions people took while using their products. They sue GM and Coors for defective products. Not defective people.


$2.5 million is not nuisance value. I agree that it's much easier to get your friends in Congress to grant you immunity than it is to win on the merits of a lawsuit, but let's not pretend that the defendants paid out $2.5 million without any fear that they might lose.
Click to expand...

I did not say it was a nuisance value. I stated the $550k was. The other $2mm was from the gun store. A store that surveillance showed lost the damn gun the sniper used. That is negligence.

I'd take you slightly more seriously if you just admitted the basic fact that guns are designed to be efficient killing machines. That's what they are. Yes, you can use them to do other things (like shooting at inanimte objects (that often are facsimiles of animate objects -- like people)) but killing is what they are designed to do.
Click to expand...

I would take you more seriously if you showed that you understood guns at even the most basic of levels. You clearly do not. You continue spouting the nonsense your gun grabbing masters have told you to parrot.



Oh, I'm aware of this. I just wasn't sure that you were since you said that guns aren't designed to kill innocent people as though gun manufacturers designe the firearms to discriminate amongst the innocent and guilty.
Click to expand...

No, you clearly are not aware of it. Hence your nonsense. Guns were never designed to run around killing innocent people, that is not their intent. Just like autos are not designed to be driven by drunks. Yet innocent people die from the use of both in the inappropriate manner. A point you clearly do not understand.

Another smart take. I don't see how its "gun grabber" for someone to oppose gun manufacturers being granted special immunity from liability in civil lawsuits where plaintiffs might otherwise prevail on the merits of their claims. That strikes me as kinda fucked up and not really the way to get gun manufacturers to ensure that their products are as safe as possible.
Click to expand...

There is no merit to the cases, yet lawyers and gun grabbers would have a field day taking these cases to court and preying off the gullible knee jerk reactionaries like yourself. Hence the law.

You idiots keep saying they need to make the guns as 'safe as possible'... yet they ARE safe. But nothing is idiot proof. No matter what scenario you use, there is someone out there that will use the gun in a drive by. There is someone that will ignore all the safety measures and leave a loaded weapon around a kid etc... etc...

But I would be curious... what is it that you think they can do to make them 'safer'??? What are your suggestions for the manufacturers?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Point being, the difference isn't exponential.
Click to expand...

"Exponential" was hyperbole

They're comparable, the public concern is just as great and therefore it's a valid point.
Click to expand...

You are misunderstanding my argument. no one is concerned about 30k car deaths a year. No one rails about them on messageboards. the point is that people accept a level of death living in a free society. Nobody bats an eye at 30k people dying a year in car crashes. It's completely irrelevant to them. We need cars to get to where we are going, and 30k deaths per year (10 9/11's) is an acceptable cost for society.


That those who wish to implements common sense gun controls laws in order to reduced the staggering number of gun deaths in this nation are out to grab your guns and take them away from you.

That's just absolutist fanaticism.
Click to expand...

no it's not. That's why we have an assault rifles ban. Liberals have a history of being given an inch and taking a mile. Every other country that has enacted gun laws has eventually gone down the path of taking them from society. There is plenty of precedent for this all over the world.
 
Superfreak said:
exactly... they are not allowed

LOL... ok Mr. Semantics... I meant do we allow such cases into the system... do they get in front of a judge and/or jury? NO.
Click to expand...

Yes, we allow such cases into the system and yes, they get in front of a judge. I don't know whether they make it to a jury, but I haven't really looked into the matter.


Superfreak said:
We also do not allow people to sue GM and Coors because of the actions people took while using their products. They sue GM and Coors for defective products. Not defective people.
Click to expand...

But we do allow people to sue GM and Coors. Just like we allowed people to sue gun manufacturers before Congress granted them immunity.


Superfreak said:
I did not say it was a nuisance value. I stated the $550k was. The other $2mm was from the gun store. A store that surveillance showed lost the damn gun the sniper used. That is negligence.
Click to expand...

Well, like, I don't hear about GM or Coors paying even $50k, let alone $550k, so surely there is something different here than with respect to cars and beer, no?


Superfreak said:
I would take you more seriously if you showed that you understood guns at even the most basic of levels. You clearly do not. You continue spouting the nonsense your gun grabbing masters have told you to parrot.
Click to expand...

At least the fucking revolutionary type gun nuts acknowledge that guns are weapons designed to kill. I think they're fucking bats, but at least they're honest. This shit is just stupid.


Superfreak said:
No, you clearly are not aware of it. Hence your nonsense. Guns were never designed to run around killing innocent people, that is not their intent. Just like autos are not designed to be driven by drunks. Yet innocent people die from the use of both in the inappropriate manner. A point you clearly do not understand.
Click to expand...

Guns are designed to kill. Period. Full stop. That's my point. Used in an appropriate and intended manner, guns kill. Autos are designed to transport people and goods. Used in an appropriate manner, they usually don't kill.


Superfreak said:
There is no merit to the cases, yet lawyers and gun grabbers would have a field day taking these cases to court and preying off the gullible knee jerk reactionaries like yourself. Hence the law.
Click to expand...

Alternatively, it was a gift to the gun lobby from the Republican Party so that the gun manufacturers never have to have the mertis of the cases actually tested in a court of law.


Superfreak said:
You idiots keep saying they need to make the guns as 'safe as possible'... yet they ARE safe. But nothing is idiot proof. No matter what scenario you use, there is someone out there that will use the gun in a drive by. There is someone that will ignore all the safety measures and leave a loaded weapon around a kid etc... etc...

But I would be curious... what is it that you think they can do to make them 'safer'??? What are your suggestions for the manufacturers?
Click to expand...


That's not my job. Start slapping liability (or the threat of liabiity) on gun manufacturers and I'm sure their engineers could come up with an idea or three.
 
Pete Campbell said:
"Exponential" was hyperbole
Click to expand...
I believe I was pointing that out and that it didn't help your argument.



You are misunderstanding my argument. no one is concerned about 30k car deaths a year. No one rails about them on messageboards. the point is that people accept a level of death living in a free society. Nobody bats an eye at 30k people dying a year in car crashes. It's completely irrelevant to them. We need cars to get to where we are going, and 30k deaths per year (10 9/11's) is an acceptable cost for society.
Click to expand...
I'm not misunderstanding your argument I'm telling you're wrong. The public does care about public transportation safety and there have been huge efforts to that affect in the last 20 years that have cut traffic fatalities by more than half on a per capita basis. You think that happened by accident? You don't think that's was a result of public pressure? You don't think that the public finds over 30,000 traffic fatalities a year as "acceptable"? You're delusional. The public pressure to improve transportation safety is huge and if you don't believe me you need to spend some time in the real world with the zillion regulations in regards to transportation safety. [/quote]




no it's not. That's why we have an assault rifles ban. Liberals have a history of being given an inch and taking a mile. Every other country that has enacted gun laws has eventually gone down the path of taking them from society. There is plenty of precedent for this all over the world.
Click to expand...
Really? Show me those precedents? Show me once in the country where they started beating on doors and taking guns away. You're talking non-sense. There's tons that can be done to improve public safety, reduce gun violence and preserve the constitutional right to bear arms. The argument that these are mutually exclusive is a nonsense argument.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Don't you need to pass a test to drive a car and have insurance hence all gun owners should pass a test and have public liability insurance.
Click to expand...

No you don't. You need to pass a test to drive on public roads. And you need to pass a test to get a CCW.
 
Dungheap said:
That strikes me as kinda fucked up and not really the way to get gun manufacturers to ensure that their products are as safe as possible.
Click to expand...

The law, as I read it years ago, says that they cannot be sued for wrongful use. If a product is unsafe (such as a recent production run of Remington firearms) they can still be sued, under the the 1964 GCA.
 
Dungheap said:
At least the fucking revolutionary type gun nuts acknowledge that guns are weapons designed to kill. I think they're fucking bats, but at least they're honest. This shit is just stupid.

Guns are designed to kill. Period. Full stop. That's my point. Used in an appropriate and intended manner, guns kill. Autos are designed to transport people and goods. Used in an appropriate manner, they usually don't kill.
Click to expand...
I'm still not understanding the relevance to this. yes, guns were designed to kill. so were swords, spears, cannons, grenades, etc. all of these are weapons of 'we the people'. wanting to limit, restrict, or even ban these is just stupid.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I'm still not understanding the relevance to this. yes, guns were designed to kill. so were swords, spears, cannons, grenades, etc. all of these are weapons of 'we the people'. wanting to limit, restrict, or even ban these is just stupid.
Click to expand...

No, it's not, but you'll never be convinced of that.

Do you have a lot of cannons in your neighborhood? You're not allowed to own grenades. As far as swords and spears, hard to kill 25 people in 5 minutes with those.

And back to topic - by all means, the makers of swords, spears, cannons, etc should not be protected from lawsuits.
 
tekkychick said:
No, it's not, but you'll never be convinced of that.
Click to expand...
see, the problem is you not understanding the whys and wherefores of the 2nd Amendment. It was to keep 'we the people' better armed than any standing military, unlike what some others think it's supposed to be for (which is moronic at it's base). so explain to me how it's stupid to limit, restrict, or ban something that the founders deemed necessary for us to maintain our freedom and independence.

tekkychick said:
Do you have a lot of cannons in your neighborhood? You're not allowed to own grenades. As far as swords and spears, hard to kill 25 people in 5 minutes with those.
Click to expand...
sigh, yes you can own grenades. they are classified by the ATF as destructive devices and with the administrative taxes paid, they can be legally owned.
 
Ah. this site said it wasn't legal, which is what I was going by.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/weapons-firearms/is-it-legal-own-hand-grenades

Hand grenades are regulated under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), a federal law first passed in 1934 and amended by the Crime Control Act of 1968. The 1968 amendments made it illegal to possess “destructive devices,” which includes grenades. (26 U.S.C. § 5801.) There’s no doubt that a live hand grenade designed for military combat fits within the law’s provisions—non-military people may not possess them.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top