HR 4269

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by tysdad115

So you're suggesting a different permit for different firearms? No thanks. I must have skipped over that part in the second amendment.

The funny part about all of this is the people who are afraid of inanimate objects are all for forcing their will on firearms enthusiasts by imposing more ridiculous laws. Take a look around at what's really wrong in this country focus on those instead.

I sincerely hope the weak are put in situations where they are forced to suffer the consequences of their cowardice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So.... This is a gun nut

Again,I am not opposed to guns. Just stupidity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

There could be a better process to buying a gun.

How about a mandatory gun safety class, a psych evaluation and then you get a annotation on your drivers liscence that you have a gun permit, much like getting a motorcycle liscence ? How harmful is that to the gun owner ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Rmarsh]

The gun manufacturers are protected from product liability lawsuits.
The NRA heavily lobbied congress to pass a bill that gives them immunity from lawsuits being filed by victims killed or harmed by their products. I say that they should be held to the same standard every other business is held to which is if you make a product that kills thousands of innocent people you are going to pay for the damage it has created. Even the huge auto manufacturers cant buy that kind of protection.

Maybe I am not fully informed, but for the thousands of senseless killings that i read and hear about every day, there are very, very few stories of vigilanties to the rescue.

I am a gun owner myself but I see an obvious double standard here.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

The gun manufacturers are protected from product liability lawsuits.

Even the huge auto manufacturers cant buy that kind of protection.

I am a gun owner myself but I see an obvious double standard here.

I'm pretty sure if you run someone over with your car today the victim's family cannot sue the manufacturer of your car for damages...or maybe they could try but that would be ridiculous, would it not??

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

"shall not be infringed". end of story.

the framers were pretty smart and understood that statists would tend to use government to deny individual rights and grow governmental power which is why your rights are enumerated and guaranteed and why they provided remedies along with the enumeration of individual rights and limits on government throughout the Constitution and Bill of Rights...the Second Amendment enumerates your rights, limits government and provides a remedy

[Rmarsh]

Originally Posted by scottw

I'm pretty sure if you run someone over with your car today the victim's family cannot sue the manufacturer of your car for damages...or maybe they could try but that would be ridiculous, would it not??

They can sue the operator of the vehicle for negligence or the manufacturer if the car has an inherently dangerous defect like the ford truck gas tanks that killed people. Car companies get sued all the time. So why not gun companies....the answer I believe is that congress can be bought for the right price and was bribed.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

They can sue the operator of the vehicle for negligence or the manufacturer if the car has an inherently dangerous defect like the ford truck gas tanks that killed people. Car companies get sued all the time. So why not gun companies....the answer I believe is that congress can be bought for the right price and was bribed.

we're not talking about mechanical defects

[Rmarsh]

No...not defects...even worse.... a product specifically designed to maim or kill.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

No...not defects...just a product specifically designed to maim or kill.

oh...so now instead of lumping them in together you want them treated differently....soooo...if you get mad and shoot up a mall with a gun the gun manufacturer should be sued but if you get mad and drive your car through a mall....the car manufacturer should be sued or not.... since a car is not a "product specifically designed to maim or kill".....I'm confused

please explain the difference...

and Google "knife infatada" and “Save a Life–Surrender Your Knife” and tell me if knife manufacturers should be sued when their products are misused


for the record, i don't own a gun, I'm not an NRA member and I've never watched Fox News

[Rmarsh]

Every case is different so I don't lump everything together.
I would like to see all companies held to the same standard and they are not. Civil cases are for juries to decide.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

Every case is different so I don't lump everything together.

I would like to see all companies held to the same standard and they are not.

respectfully...you are not making any sense

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

Every case is different so I don't lump everything together.
I would like to see all companies held to the same standard and they are not. Civil cases are for juries to decide.

How about electric companies?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[stripermaineiac]

well the one thing I learned with working in a prison for 30 yrs is that those who break laws that are there to protect us all really don't give a tinkers damn about laws . they just want to get what they want and use weapons of all and any type to acheive their personal goal. Power,control,greed or whatever selfish act drives them is all thats important to them. The fearful in our society forget that a gun in the house keeps the creeps out. Someone wanting to hurt people does it to create fear so they can control a society is crazy and enables terrorism-. Taking a persons right to protect themselves from those who wish ultimate control-totalitariunism,terrorism and dictatorships is acheived by taking weapons and the right to use them away from a society. stop letting criminals have it easy and empowering the abusers to take your right to protect yourself from you in the guise of controling gun violence.
30,000 gun deaths last year supposedly-50 percent from people killing themselves and the rest from criminals and crimes. fix those problems don't create an larger defense-less country.

[Rmarsh]

Originally Posted by scottw

respectfully...you are not making any sense

I think your missing the point.
Gun manufacturers are immune from civil law suits with almost no exceptions. I think they should be held to the same standard as every other manufacturing business in the country. Why the exception? Very powerful gun lobby maybe.
So I guess if you can't make sense of that, my comments are moot.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

I think your missing the point.
Gun manufacturers are immune from civil law suits with almost no exceptions. I think they should be held to the same standard as every other manufacturing business in the country. Why the exception? Very powerful gun lobby maybe.
So I guess if you can't make sense of that, my comments are moot.

not sure you have all your facts straight...sticking with your car analogy, I suspect if Ford or GM (Google GM shielded lawsuit) found themselves the target of 40 American cities and counties filing purely political law suits they'd seek the same protection ....I'm sure every creep lawyer in the country was drooling at the precedent and that may be why Congress acted so quickly, ..... no, I can't make sense of holding a car, gun, knife, lollipop manufacturer responsible for what an individual does with their legally manufactured and sold and non-defective product...

[Rmarsh]

What facts do you think im wrong about? Congress did in fact pass a law in 2005 that prevents gun companies from being sued. No other companies have that protection. Im done repeating myself .....
the facts are out there on this one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

There could be a better process to buying a gun.

How about a mandatory gun safety class, a psych evaluation and then you get a annotation on your drivers liscence that you have a gun permit, much like getting a motorcycle liscence ? How harmful is that to the gun owner ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes because a safety course is going to be high priority for those that are going to use a gun to kill others or themselves.
How about this , we teach gun safety in our schools, much like the NRA Eddy Eagle program. That would have an actual positive affect in preventing accidental deaths and respect of firearms .
Asking somebody to be subject to a psychiatric test , with a conclusion based on an opinion of a possibly biased doctor is not a good idea .

I could be persuaded to make drug testing part of the equation though .

Thoughts ??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Sex Ed. Drivers Ed. Gun Ed.
Maybe they can rope it all together and watch Smokey and the Bandit ? :
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

What facts do you think im wrong about? Congress did in fact pass a law in 2005 that prevents gun companies from being sued. No other companies have that protection. Im done repeating myself .....
the facts are out there on this one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If your goal is to put gun companies out of business , make a bunch of lawyers rich and make people less responsible for their own actions , then work to repeal the law .
Or maybe you want to make it so that the wealthy are the only ones that can afford firearms , as repealing this law will certainly a sure a huge spike in firearm cost . An interesting strategy , especially if your conclusion is poor people commit most of the gun crimes .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

What facts do you think im wrong about? Congress did in fact pass a law in 2005 that prevents gun companies from being sued. No other companies have that protection. I'm done repeating myself .....
the facts are out there on this one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you've got it exactly backwards.....you are complaining as though the firearm manufactures enjoy some special privilege.. read the facts from the 2005 law it's not nearly as simple as you state...the reason for the "exemption" as you call it was because gun manufacturers were being treated "differently" by these cities and counties...these cities would never sue a car manufacturer because drivers misused their cars....the gun manufacturers sought protection....what would you have them do?

let me sum it up


You would like to see all companies held to the same standard as every other manufacturing business in the country. they were before the law suits

Why the exception?. because they weren't, they were being held to a different standard

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Evidence? What evidence is there that some locations weren't chosen because they were gun-free zones? What evidence is there that the killer was not familiar with the lack of guns on a location, such as where he worked, even if it wasn't designated a gun free zone? If the majority of FBI defined mass killings were domestic in nature, occurring in private homes, which were obviously not designated as gun free zones, what evidence is there that the killer was not familiar with the lack of guns or where they were in those homes, especially if the available gun was in their hands?

A couple of the articles or "studies" that I've seen, which claimed to destroy the so-called "myth" of gun free zones, try to emphasize the personal motivation of the killer over the choice of location, and then insinuate that, therefore, the reason for the shooting was not the gun free zone. That is a straw man argument, since it is mostly not claimed that gun free zones are motivations to kill, but that they make it easier.

And then those "studies" bring up statistics such as 67% of mass shootings happened in private homes and only 15% in public gun free zones, and 30% in work places. Well, that 15% (another anti-gun "study" claimed that there were "no more" than 25%) occurring in gun free zones is "evidence" that, for some (15 to 25 percent), they are attractive locations.

So, even though private homes are not classified as gun free zones, as I said above, the shooter's knowledge and familiarity with who has guns and where they are, and the advantage of having the gun, perhaps the only one in the home, in his hand while his victims are unprepared for what is about to happen, gives the shooter a "gun free" advantage when he faces those unarmed victims he is about to shoot. A similar knowledge and comfort level exists in a workplace mass shooting.

So, granted that the motivation for the domestic or workplace shootings, as well even in the gun free zone ones, is not the location, the shooter is well acquainted enough with those locations to know he can either kill all of those he is really "motivated" to kill, or a good number before he is stopped. If he is stopped. And this is true, using the above statistics, in the vast majority of mass shootings.

On the other hand, if the killer actually knew that each person in the location of his choice was well armed and trained, would he be as likely to choose that location? Do we have "evidence" that no mass shooter would choose a place with less resistance?

I did a quick check on the subject and these are the first four I saw:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...un-free-zones/

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...john-r-lott-jr

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...ntrol/1770345/

http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/brown/080800.htm

I found a few which disputed the gun free zone "myth," but they had the typical straw man arguments. I suppose, if your inclination or preference is to believe them, then for you there is no "evidence" for the gun free zone "myth." I got a kick out of one anti-myth study which said:

"To put the improbability of mass deaths occurring at school in context, consider that the total number of handgun deaths in the United States (1980-2006) was about 32,000 per year. By comparison, since 1980, 297 people have been killed in school shootings. This amounts to roughly 9 deaths per year at school. Essentially, John Lott and other gun-advocates want teachers, professors, and security officers carrying guns in order to deter extremely unlikely events, a policy that has no substantiating evidence."

So all this urgent fuss about needing more gun control laws to make our schools safer from mass shootings is about deterring "extremely unlikely events."

I kept reading and waiting for some good evidence, even one great anecdote and came up empty.

And your reasoning that because some mass shootings do happen in gun free zones as proof of it as a factor really doesn't pass the smell test.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

What facts do you think im wrong about?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-all-lawsuits/

Clinton is talking about a law that says the gun industry is protected from liability in certain instances, but the law also specifies several situations in which the gun industry is susceptible to lawsuits.

Further, Congress has passed a number of laws that protect a variety of business sectors from lawsuits in certain situations, so the situation is not unique to the gun industry.

We rate Clinton’s claim False.

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

You mean like San Bernadino, Ft Hood, the Washington Navy Yard, Aurora Colorado, Planned Parenthood, Chatanooga Tennessee, Charleston SC Church, and Arizona (Gabby Giffords)......those the ones you're talking about
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't say all, I said the majority of...you're just cherry picking.

And in several of these you mention the killer clearly didn't have a plan to stay alive. Creating a situation where you're likely going to die is basically the same thing.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

read the facts from the 2005 law it's not nearly as simple as you state...the reason for the "exemption" as you call it was because gun manufacturers were being treated "differently" by these cities and counties...these cities would never sue a car manufacturer because drivers misused their cars....the gun manufacturers sought protection....what would you have them do?

No, the NRA's argument was that the gun manufacturers didn't have the financial resources to respond to the civil lawsuits, which by the way, weren't about liability around the use of the gun as much as the gun makers responsibility (or irresponsibility) for how they market and track sales of weapons.

[Rmarsh]

Originally Posted by buckman

If your goal is to put gun companies out of business , make a bunch of lawyers rich and make people less responsible for their own actions , then work to repeal the law .
Or maybe you want to make it so that the wealthy are the only ones that can afford firearms , as repealing this law will certainly a sure a huge spike in firearm cost . An interesting strategy , especially if your conclusion is poor people commit most of the gun crimes .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not my goal to do any sort of thing like that. Just pointing out the fact that gun companies have a special privilege. I think a jury should decide accountability just like they do with all other commercial enterprises.
If I'm a contractor and someone gets hurt even through there own stupidity...I can be sued. My son is a bartender, if he serves someone too much alcohol he and the establishment can be sued. Doctor makes a mistake ...he gets sued....not saying it's right but that's how it is for any business.

We can all site studies that support our views I suppose... but a study found that affluent societies with more gun ownership have more homicides.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

No, the NRA's argument was that the gun manufacturers didn't have the financial resources to respond to the civil lawsuits, which by the way, weren't about liability around the use of the gun as much as the gun makers responsibility (or irresponsibility) for how they market and track sales of weapons.

no, the lawsuits were bullying tactics by thugs...comply or we'll put you out of business....I can quote a couple of mayors who said essentially that, in fact...of course that was their argument as destroying them through litigation was the stated goal

[Rmarsh]

Originally Posted by spence

No, the NRA's argument was that the gun manufacturers didn't have the financial resources to respond to the civil lawsuits, which by the way, weren't about liability around the use of the gun as much as the gun makers responsibility (or irresponsibility) for how they market and track sales of weapons.

Gun manufacturers fought hard against a regulation that would require additional sets of serial numbers in hidden locations on guns because it would cost too much.
Trouble is some of the guns used to kill people, including police officers have these serial numbers erased or removed and can't be traced, so killers can't be brought to justice.
Some of these victims families find it irresponsible of gun companies, why deny them the right to be heard in court.

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

Not my goal to do any sort of thing like that. Just pointing out the fact that gun companies have a special privilege. I think a jury should decide accountability just like they do with all other commercial enterprises.
If I'm a contractor and someone gets hurt even through there own stupidity...I can be sued. My son is a bartender, if he serves someone too much alcohol he and the establishment can be sued. Doctor makes a mistake ...he gets sued....not saying it's right but that's how it is for any business.

We can all site studies that support our views I suppose... but a study found that affluent societies with more gun ownership have more homicides.

When we're the alcohol producers sued for the damage and deaths their product causes....it's the people not the product that are to blame for illegal use.
If I use a hammer to kill someone should the manufacturer be sued for my actions?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

Gun manufacturers fought hard against a regulation that would require additional sets of serial numbers in hidden locations on guns because it would cost too much.
Trouble is some of the guns used to kill people, including police officers have these serial numbers erased or removed and can't be traced, so killers can't be brought to justice.
Some of these victims families find it irresponsible of gun companies, why deny them the right to be heard in court.

Yea, but that would just make it easier to tell which shops are selling guns that find their way into cop killers hands...

Oh wait.

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by spence

Yea, but that would just make it easier to tell which shops are selling guns that find their way into cop killers hands...

Oh wait.

And how about ghost guns that are made with no serial number or even with a serial number of a legal gun. It's the people who misuse the guns that are to blame. If I use a Bic lighter to set a home on fire killing the people inside should Bic be held responsible?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device