-
Hello!
Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.
Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....
Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.
Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.
The Brady Bunch is at it again
- Thread starter Rich Z
- Start date
tsst
Deuce is watching!
I feel for the families but placing more restrictions on our freedoms and more laws on the law abiding will accomplish nothing. If anyone believes adding another law to the already 20,000 gun laws in existence will stop a law breaker they’re simply being self-deceiving. :shrugs:
Chip
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒ&
Red flag? I've ordered thousands of rounds of ammo online more times than I can count. I'll shoot 500 in a typical afternoon in the woods, yet 4,000 sounds preposterous. I know many, many people who shoot more than I do. Red flags would be raised hundreds of times a day! This sounds like suing auto makers for drunk driving accidents. Or more accurately, the gas station that they filled up at last.
They tried it before by suing gun manufacturers and got bitch slapped by the courts because of it. This is just a nuisance suit that the court should slap the prosecutors with an abuse of process sanction over and disbar the attorneys involved.
Personally I believe that the Brady Bunch should have a class action suit filed against them for conspiracy to deny citizens of the USA their Constitutional rights. Put their asses on the defensive for a while with some expensive litigation.
Personally I believe that the Brady Bunch should have a class action suit filed against them for conspiracy to deny citizens of the USA their Constitutional rights. Put their asses on the defensive for a while with some expensive litigation.
dave partington
Crazy Dave
Nova_C
New member
I don't know that the lawsuit is necessarily frivolous, or is about them trying to do an end run around the constitution. Bartenders have been held liable for serving drinks to obviously drunk people who then end up driving or in the hospital, but this is definitely a case of non gun owners misunderstanding the relative lethality.
My guns have been sitting unused since I moved up here and I'm sitting on something like 2K rounds. As a target shooter, it's easy to burn 500 rounds in an afternoon of load testing. I don't think most non gun owners understand what it is people are doing at the range. Nobody shoots 10 rounds and goes home, for instance. Besides, a spree shooter only needs 100 rounds to do something terrible. Having 4k rounds stockpiled doesn't really mean anything.
Really, the most effective gun control for limiting the effects of spree shooters would never, ever pass in the US legislature. Banning automatic rifles and semi-autos.
In Canada, it's pretty much straight up illegal to own a rifle capable of full auto or burst firing (With a few rare exceptions). Semi-autos are not covered by any specific restrictions, and I would fight like crazy should anyone try to ban them, but realistically, a bolt action would limit the death toll of a spree shooter.
That's an action I could at least understand, though I wouldn't support it. Ammo availability, though? They're barking up the wrong tree.
My guns have been sitting unused since I moved up here and I'm sitting on something like 2K rounds. As a target shooter, it's easy to burn 500 rounds in an afternoon of load testing. I don't think most non gun owners understand what it is people are doing at the range. Nobody shoots 10 rounds and goes home, for instance. Besides, a spree shooter only needs 100 rounds to do something terrible. Having 4k rounds stockpiled doesn't really mean anything.
Really, the most effective gun control for limiting the effects of spree shooters would never, ever pass in the US legislature. Banning automatic rifles and semi-autos.
In Canada, it's pretty much straight up illegal to own a rifle capable of full auto or burst firing (With a few rare exceptions). Semi-autos are not covered by any specific restrictions, and I would fight like crazy should anyone try to ban them, but realistically, a bolt action would limit the death toll of a spree shooter.
That's an action I could at least understand, though I wouldn't support it. Ammo availability, though? They're barking up the wrong tree.
My belief is that such lawsuits are designed simply to engage the defendants in expensive litigation, who then will have to raise prices on their merchandise and hopefully (by the persecuting team) force the prices so far upwards as to limit it's availability merely from an economic standpoint.
Personally I believe that outfits such as the Brady Bunch need to get slammed with their own lawsuits to defend to use that same strategy on them to make their organization non-viable financially.
If they can play the game, then why use their strategy against them? The pro-gunners really need to stop being only on the defensive team all of the time.
Personally I believe that outfits such as the Brady Bunch need to get slammed with their own lawsuits to defend to use that same strategy on them to make their organization non-viable financially.
If they can play the game, then why use their strategy against them? The pro-gunners really need to stop being only on the defensive team all of the time.
Chip
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒ&
Autos have been banned in the US since 1986. Semi-autos encompass nearly every modern rifle used for hunting and sport. And even if banned, there are tens of millions in circulation. And let's just say everyone turned them in -I doubt it would have significant effect on a crazy person set to do harm. They tend to target schools and public places with dense groups of helpless people. A revolver or lever action wouldn't slow things down but so much. I personally don't want to see armed security and metal detectors at every school. The sad truth is, you simply can't account for an insane person bent on massacre. Despite the news coverage, these events aren't on the rise.
Tavia
Elemental Exotics
Personally, I worry more about what might happen with some crazy person intent on killing a large group of people if that person can't get a gun. It's not like bombs are hard to make! You very well might die from being shot at by a gunman but at least you have some chance of either running form one or attempting to jump one. You get blown up by a pipe bomb or something you didn't know was there and you have no control over it at all. Anyone remember Boston? Despite the media's ridiculous labeling of "weapons of mass destruction" the bombs used there weren't sophisticated or overly hard to make.
As to that, a big crowd in the right, or wrong, place depending on how you look at it, and a big heavy vehicle, with maybe a few modifications and a murderous person behind the wheel and you could also have a very high death toll on your hands too. And we let 14 year olds behind the wheel here. Stealing a car isn't hard either.
Why certain groups of people can't get it through their heads that blaming the particular tool used to kill rather than figuring out a way to eliminate the reasons why someone kills is the only way you are ever going to truly be able to prevent things like school shootings, etc. is beyond me .... Oh wait, that's because there is no clear solution to that problem, it's a completely thankless task and no one would get votes for it if they tried ... Much easier to blame an inanimate object.
As to that, a big crowd in the right, or wrong, place depending on how you look at it, and a big heavy vehicle, with maybe a few modifications and a murderous person behind the wheel and you could also have a very high death toll on your hands too. And we let 14 year olds behind the wheel here. Stealing a car isn't hard either.
Why certain groups of people can't get it through their heads that blaming the particular tool used to kill rather than figuring out a way to eliminate the reasons why someone kills is the only way you are ever going to truly be able to prevent things like school shootings, etc. is beyond me .... Oh wait, that's because there is no clear solution to that problem, it's a completely thankless task and no one would get votes for it if they tried ... Much easier to blame an inanimate object.
Nova_C
New member
They're not, really. The NRA has successfully defanged the DEA and the CDC isn't allowed to fund research into the causes of gun violence.
(Linky)
In all the other countries that do research that information, there is a positive correlation between the availability of guns, and a rise in actual violent death rates (Not just gun deaths, but homicides overall). Which means the NRA has made excellent strides in keeping that information from the American public. So I'd say they've been very proactive at keeping any kind of regulations off the books. I don't know of any other nation with a functional, non despotic government that has as few controls on firearm availability and distribution as the US. Really, the US is the best place to be if you're a gun enthusiast.
Chip
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒ&
That's just not true at all. In fact, on average, there was no correlation, but where the was, countries with the strictest gun control laws tended to have the highest homicide rates. Counter-intuitive, but that is what the numbers suggest: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/journals/journal/jle.html#sc3
Some interesting stats regarding gun control in Europe:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap25.htm
The bottom line is, crime and civilian gun ownership can be cherry picked to support whichever side one is arguing. Those that are pro gun-control can use Japan and the US as examples, those that are pro-gun can use Switzerland and large US cities with strict laws to "prove" their point. Violence is clearly largely cultural, and linked with poverty and the drug trade. My personal belief is that we could do more to curb violence in this country by decriminalizing drugs and using the money we've been wasting on prohibition to provide education and job training in the inner cities than continuing to lock people in a cage for drugs, but that is a minority opinion in this country.
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/miron/files/cv_miron_updated_2_2013.pdf
As crime in America goes, the FBI numbers suggest crimes involving firearms have been decreasing steadily for the past 20 years, with no regard to current gun law trends over that time: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...orcement/expanded-offense/expandedoffensemain (go to the weapons table for each year, they don't provide a graph)
It's not as simple as "more guns = less crime" as many of my fellow shooting enthusiasts will say, but the opposite certainly can not be demonstrated without either twisting data, or only using that which supports your case.
Sure, I guess you can massage statistics to try to prove any point. But I do have to wonder if in those statistics you mention, how many homicides were JUSTIFIABLE homicides? How many gun deaths took place in the defense of a person's life, safety or property? Lumping ALL gun deaths together and calling them an ugly fact that beats the drum that ALL gun ownership must be dangerous and violence born, is disingenuous at best. Being used in this method by organizations to try to infringe or eliminate my Constitutional rights SHOULD be considered as a criminal act.
Now looking at the above from the opposite perspective, suppose the NRA does massage the statistics to slant the opinion presented their way. That overall, gun ownership is a positive influence in society in general. What Constitutional law is being violated? Whose rights are being infringed or outright violated? What PROOF is there that guns being readily available to the general public is overall a bad thing for that society? Because a small percentage will use them in already illegal and violent ways? Because there are always going to be a small percentage of accidents? If that is your argument, then please tell me why that should not apply as well to so many other things available to society that is NOT protected by a Constitutional amendment.
If someone does not like, is afraid of, or just doesn't want guns around them, fine. I don't see any reason to force guns on them. You don't need to see things my way and live your life the way I want you to. Arrange your life as best you can to meet that goal as long as you don't try to force your views on my life. Your desires stop where my rights begin. So don't assume that YOUR desires must trump MY rights. They don't.
And yes, the USA is a great country to live in for gun enthusiasts. It's a great place to live in for people who are still adamant about trying to preserve their rights in all forms. It's not as great as it used to be, and gradually getting worse, but push come to shove, there are few, if any, options available to find a better country to live in, all things considered. With that in mind, I am sure there are lots of other countries available that people with an opposing view of what rights citizens should have that could emigrate to if it would better suit their needs. China might be a real good bet, I believe.
The USA has gotten along just fine with the Constitution the way it is since this country was created. I think the evidence of the number of people going through the hardship of trying to get into this country illegally could be used as a pretty accurate measure of this.
So, looking at this from a different angle, I think a quite plausible case could be made that violence of all sorts has increased substantially in this country in a direct relationship to the number of restrictions placed on guns. Compare the number of gun laws back in say, 1960 along with the violent crime statistics at that time, with what we see today, and tell me what you come up with. Quite frankly, in my opinion, anyone stating that MORE gun laws will decrease violence just has not been paying attention to the FACTS of history, or is just being blatantly blind to those facts to support their own fantasy world argument.
Nova_C
New member
This data is unavailable because the NRA doesn't want research into gun deaths done. You can take that question up with them, I suppose.
Since I said or claimed none of this, I can assume this is not directed at me?
tsst
Deuce is watching!
Tim Mcvey killed 168 people and injured over 800 more. He used fertilizer, diesel fuel and a Ryder box truck no rifle needed. I would venture a guess even with full auto it would be damn hard to get those numbers. This is simply about controlling people by whatever means possible.
Nova_C
New member
Well, Rick was wondering about how many gun deaths are self defense shootings.
Certainly the murder rate is largely independent if not totally independent of guns, but there is more to it than just murders. Accidental shootings, and suicide by firearm.
In fact: Guns & Suicide
(I'd like to note that I mispoke when I said homicide before. I know this will seem like moving the goalposts, but I intended to include all violent deaths. There is a positive correlation between firearm availability and violent deaths.)
Quite likely ONLY because by definition a death by a firearm would have to be considered violent. Drug overdose and drowning would not. But then again, that might just skew the numbers, I suspect.
So again, how many of those violent deaths were justifiable homicides? And not just self defense encounters but also shootings by law enforcement officers during their duties. As seems to usually be the case, such a statistic is taking positive beneficial uses of firearms and lumping them together with the negative in order to inflate the number to support a particular side of the argument. And yes, it will most certainly slip my many people who won't bother to dig deeper into the pap that organizations like the Brady Bunch will blather about.
Nova_C
New member
I dunno how many were justifiable, like I said. There isn't a comprehensive report on it that I know of. I'm not even sure police shootings are consistently tracked since each department usually handles those numbers on their own.
If you can find that, though, please share. I think that would be super interesting.
The thing is, though, I'm including justifiable homicides in the list of deaths because, by their nature, they are gun related deaths. So whether or not a shooting was justified or not is really immaterial to the point that availability of guns does have an effect.
If you can find that, though, please share. I think that would be super interesting.
The thing is, though, I'm including justifiable homicides in the list of deaths because, by their nature, they are gun related deaths. So whether or not a shooting was justified or not is really immaterial to the point that availability of guns does have an effect.
Immaterial? Seriously? The fact that the gun deaths might have been of a predator, perhaps in the process of trying to cause injury or death to an innocent victim, is immaterial in a discussion about the pros and cons of firearms in private hands?
Sorry, I just can't see the logic in that.
Nova_C
New member
That's not what I'm talking about.
It seems we're having two different discussions, here. My point has only been, from the start, that there is a link between firearm availability and violent deaths. If that's not something you think is important to a discussion about firearm laws, okay then. The NRA doesn't think it's important either, as I've said. That's a fundamental disagreement between me and them, and possibly me and you. That's not to say anything else you've attributed to me has been my opinion at all. Someone can acknowledge that guns can have an effect on human behavior without thinking they should all be banned.
It seems we're having two different discussions, here. My point has only been, from the start, that there is a link between firearm availability and violent deaths. If that's not something you think is important to a discussion about firearm laws, okay then. The NRA doesn't think it's important either, as I've said. That's a fundamental disagreement between me and them, and possibly me and you. That's not to say anything else you've attributed to me has been my opinion at all. Someone can acknowledge that guns can have an effect on human behavior without thinking they should all be banned.