The Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy

[PureX]

Gun makers would have no liability unless they deliberately made a gun that could be modified from semi auto to full auto. Aside from that, they have no more liability than an automaker has when somebody crashes a car into a crowd of people.

That's not necessarily true. Automakers know that driving automobiles is dangerous, and so are mandated to include safety mechanisms in their design. And if they were to refuse to do so, they could be held liable for the results.

I don't think we could hold a gun manufacturer liable for someone deliberately breaking the law and using the gun to kill someone. But safety requirements could be mandated that might restrict who can use the gun, and how it's used. Similar requirements could be placed on owners and sellers, with similar liabilities.

It's true that as money enters the picture, it's amazing how effectively changes will follow.

 

[Granite]

That is true, if a person knows what needs to be done to modify a weapon it doesn't matter what the manufacturer does. It goes to intent...does the manufacturer make the weapon for the intent of it being modified? Are they making the parts to modify it? and so on.

With the advent of at-home 3D printing, it's all over.

 

[rocketman]

Or government is by the people and for the people so yes, by the government.

I am not sure I could agree with the word of one man/woman on the government payroll to take a persons rights. Maybe the word of one doctor to spur a deeper investigation or hearing would be in order.

 

[rocketman]

With the advent of at-home 3D printing, it's all over.

You are correct but, the only thing that keeps that from happening is the brainpower it takes to operate the equipment, or to program it to do what they want successfully.

 

[Granite]

You are correct but, the only thing that keeps that from happening is the brainpower it takes to operate the equipment, or to program it to do what they want successfully.

It's really easy. And the brainpower required's not too much.

http://www.wired.com/2015/06/i-made-an-untraceable-ar-15-ghost-gun/

http://gizmodo.com/3d-printed-guns-are-only-getting-better-and-scarier-1677747439

It's a matter of when somebody takes it to the next level, not if. It's probably happening as we speak. The tech is only going to get better and cheaper.

 

[rocketman]

It's really easy. And the brainpower required's not too much.

http://www.wired.com/2015/06/i-made-an-untraceable-ar-15-ghost-gun/

http://gizmodo.com/3d-printed-guns-are-only-getting-better-and-scarier-1677747439

It's a matter of when somebody takes it to the next level, not if. It's probably happening as we speak. The tech is only going to get better and cheaper.

I am aware that the tech is there but, I will stand by the fact that most are too ignorant to use it...Heck the average american cannot educate themselves on current events to understand the world they live in, much less program & operate CNC machinery...Just sayin...You are correct though the tech is out there.

 

[PureX]

I am not sure I could agree with the word of one man/woman on the government payroll to take a persons rights. Maybe the word of one doctor to spur a deeper investigation or hearing would be in order.

I don't think it would work like that. I think there would more likely be a set of criteria that, once met, would disqualify one from obtaining a license to own or use a firearm. That criteria could involve all sorts of things, like past history of anti-social behavior, current dysfunctional and psychological difficulties, cognitive abilities, etc.,.

 

[bybee]

I don't think it would work like that. I think there would more likely be a set of criteria that, once met, would disqualify one from obtaining a license to own or use a firearm. That criteria could involve all sorts of things, like past history of anti-social behavior, current dysfunctional and psychological difficulties, cognitive abilities, etc.,.

You realize that in today's scene everyone would have to submit to the same testing...to be fair of course! Either everyone gets a Blue Ribbon or no one does!
This would very efficiently label every citizen according to someone's arbitrary standards or normalcy.
We shall live in a veritable beehive of hexagons...or is it octagons?

 

[Delmar]

Are those statistics even available? I honestly don't know.

If they are not, the statisticians are looking at the wrong questions, which is normal.

 

[Delmar]

Has anyone seriously considered holding firearms manufacturers liable for such events? Because once litigation's involved they'd change their tune dramatically.

That a firearms manufacturer should be liable for a gun that is legal to manufacture and legal to own is just ridiculous. This idea is like saying that if I used a Chevy to commit vehicular homicide GM should be liable.

 

[PureX]

You realize that in today's scene everyone would have to submit to the same testing...to be fair of course! Either everyone gets a Blue Ribbon or no one does!
This would very efficiently label every citizen according to someone's arbitrary standards or normalcy.
We shall live in a veritable beehive of hexagons...or is it octagons?

Sometimes I truly worry for your mental capacities.

Yes, we would all have to undergo the same process to obtain a license to own and use firearms. Just as we already all submit to the same process to obtain a license to drive a motor vehicle, practice medicine, sell real estate, and do a thousand other things that involves the public's safety and well-being.

And no, the criteria for obtaining a license to own and use firearms would not be "arbitrary", nor would they be based on anyone's idea of "normalcy". They would be based on social responsibility and functionality just as the requirements for obtaining any of the thousands of other licenses in our society, are.

What is your real objection to this? I would like to know. And why are you objecting to licensing gun ownership and use when you do not object to the thousands of other licensing programs we submit ourselves to in this country every day for the sake of public safety and responsibility?

And please try and answer this question without some absurdly obtuse cracks about everyone getting ribbons, or beehives and hexagons.

Thanks.

 

[Delmar]

How many more Sandy Hooks, Coumbine or Navy Yard shootings are we willing to tolerate? It should be obvious by now that our current laws are not working.

The answer is: All of them.

Columbine was back in '99. Sandy Hook's victims were primarily small children. We've waited this long since Columbine, and did nothing after the Newtown atrocity. In what other country could a head of state, his brother, a civil rights leader, and a rock and roll icon get shot to death in a span of less than twenty years? It literally couldn't happen anywhere else.

[sarcasm]That is right. We should prevent these creeps from becoming famous. Fox news should be held liable for telling us the names of the shooters and giving their images air time. [/sarcasm]

 

[bybee]

Sometimes I truly worry for your mental capacities.

Yes, we would all have to undergo the same process to obtain a license to own and use firearms. Just as we already all submit to the same process to obtain a license to drive a motor vehicle, practice medicine, sell real estate, and do a thousand other things that involves the public's safety and well-being.

And no, the criteria for obtaining a license to own and use firearms would not be "arbitrary", nor would they be based on anyone's idea of "normalcy". They would be based on social responsibility and functionality just as the requirements for obtaining any of the thousands of other licenses in our society, are.

What is your real objection to this? I would like to know. And why are you objecting to licensing gun ownership and use when you do not object to the thousands of other licensing programs we submit ourselves to in this country every day for the sake of public safety and responsibility?

And please try and answer this question without some absurdly obtuse cracks about everyone getting ribbons, or beehives and hexagons.

Thanks.

Okay. My state does already do background checks. You cannot get a firearm without passing the background check. Applicants are fingerprinted and required to fill out a fairly comprehensive questionnaire.
And I totally agree with this requirement.
Sorry if my analogies are beyond your comprehension.

 

[Granite]

[sarcasm]That is right. We should prevent these creeps from becoming famous. Fox news should be held liable for telling us the names of the shooters and giving their images air time. [/sarcasm]

Not sure what point you're trying to make but mine was lost on you. As usual.

 

[Delmar]

Not sure what point you're trying to make but mine was lost on you. As usual.

My point is that not granting these losers fame would provide the best chances of ending this.

 

[PureX]

Okay. My state does already do background checks. You cannot get a firearm without passing the background check. Applicants are fingerprinted and required to fill out a fairly comprehensive questionnaire.
And I totally agree with this requirement.
Sorry if my analogies are beyond your comprehension.

The problem with this, is that your state can't access background information from many other states. And many other states can't access background information from yours. So that these background checks aren't really checking on much of anything.

Also, gun shows are very often exempt form the background check/waiting period mandate, so anyone can buy a gun at a gun show without having been checked at all.

Also, most current background checks are only checking for criminal backgrounds that legally preclude people from owning or possessing a firearm. But they don't check for all kinds of dangerous anti-social behaviors that should reasonably preclude people from owning a firearm. So that the end result is that current background checks don't stop anyone but local previously convicted criminals from buying guns, and they can buy them at gun shows or through friends or illegally, anyway.

So the current restrictions do virtually nothing to curtail gun sales while they create the false illusion that we are regulating gun sales, when we are not. An illusion that people like yourself latch onto and reiterate at every possible opportunity because it fits in nicely with your preconceived bias about guns, politics, blue ribbons, bee hives, and who knows what else.

 

[Granite]

My point is that not granting these losers fame would provide the best chances of ending this.

A "point" you were trying to make sarcastically. And it actually sounds as though the "losers" you're referring to are the victims of those shootings.

 

[Rusha]

A "point" you were trying to make sarcastically. And it actually sounds as though the "losers" you're referring to are the victims of those shootings.

:think: Though I could be wrong, I got the impression he was referring to the shooters as losers.

 

[kmoney]

So would I, for obvious reasons.

The kid who did, obviously.

"Nice to know" doesn't guarantee anything. Tests don't keep people safe. Responsible and properly trained use of equipment does.

Those things are not brought about by passing tests.

Tests and licensing is fine and dandy; I do not reject having them.

Then what's your point, what are you arguing about? No one is saying passing a test is a guarantee.

 

[Stripe]

Then what's your point, what are you arguing about?

You should try reading the case I've clearly laid out. :up:

No one is saying passing a test is a guarantee.

They are being upheld as a solution to mass shootings. Clearly, that is nonsense.