# Can/should anything be done about US shootings? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 2, 2015, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263 "2015-12-02T23:16:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2015, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/442 "2015-12-16T01:17:50Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Perhaps this, possibly that, I don’t believe that … how bold a position to take. Your convictions know no bounds. I know! How dare I not be absolutely certain? ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2015, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/443 "2015-12-16T01:25:43Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Another is that these are the same sorts of stores that ([unlike Wal-Mart](https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/walmarts-background-check-policy-stricter-than-federal/)) sell guns without waiting for background checks when government computers are down, and that, partly because of the ease of buying guns there, they have loyal non-criminal customers who would be outraged by the crack-down. The gun lobby would take their side rather than, as I would prefer, organize a boycott against them. Pretty shoddily researched: [ol] [li]Roof used a Glock 41. Walmart doesn’t sell handguns to my knowledge. That’s certainly true of any one I’ve been to. So he wouldn’t have been able to obtain one at Walmart at all.[/li][li]It has nothing to do with “government computers being down.” It means that they did not return a reply on a name that they had initially noticed some discrepancies (which may result from someone with a similar name).[/li][li]Even so, there are many stores that do everything that complies with federal law including selling without a reply, but that doesn’t mean that they are those “sorts of stores.”[/li][li]Walmart “record[s] and store[s] the data from the sales”… just like any other FFL, unless there’s something extra that they do within the law. It’s not apparent.[/li][/ol] ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/444 "2015-12-17T03:08:46Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Possibly - perhaps an individual lawsuit might have merit. I trust the courts to decide that, not Congress. First I think you are wrong and second, you are missing the point. What makes you think that a jury (not a judge) is any better at determining the merits than a legislature. Second, there were states that were legislating to make these otherwise frivolous cases non-frivolous by creating a cause of action. So if the state of Texas created a cause of action that allowed people to successfully sue on behalf of aborted fetuses or allowed people who had abortions to sue for buyers remorse and effectively bankrupt anyone that has an abortion clinic in Texas, you think we should just let the courts figure it out on their own? Pffft. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/445 "2015-12-17T03:10:00Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > I’m not relying on anything. I just don’t think it is fair for people who are selling tools for killing to be exempt. The phrase “special snowflakes” is totally relevant here. Have you simply ignored all the background? Are you simply ignoring that this was to prevent an abuse of the courts? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/446 "2015-12-17T13:18:24Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > First I think you are wrong and second, you are missing the point. > > What makes you think that a jury (not a judge) is any better at determining the merits than a legislature. Because, in this case, I believe juries are less likely to be driven by the motivation of helping the bottom line of the gun industry. I’ll turn the question around on you – what makes you think that legislatures are better at determining the merits of lawsuits involving firearms than juries? > [@](#): > > Second, there were states that were legislating to make these otherwise frivolous cases non-frivolous by creating a cause of action. > > So if the state of Texas created a cause of action that allowed people to successfully sue on behalf of aborted fetuses or allowed people who had abortions to sue for buyers remorse and effectively bankrupt anyone that has an abortion clinic in Texas, you think we should just let the courts figure it out on their own? > > Pffft. I’m not sure what it means to “make these otherwise frivolous cases non-frivolous by creating a cause of action”. Judges and juries decide whether lawsuits are frivolous or not (or they should). As for abortion, if your hypothetical was possible and could harm abortion providers, pro-life groups would have already tried it. I find the idea that they’re somehow ‘not crazy enough’, or whatever, to do so, completely laughable. They would jump at any possibility within the law (including altering the law) to harm abortion providers. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/447 "2015-12-17T15:32:32Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’m not sure what it means to “make these otherwise frivolous cases non-frivolous by creating a cause of action”. Judges and juries decide whether lawsuits are frivolous or not (or they should). It means that a state or local municipality passes laws that create a pathway for damages where previously there was none. In other words, on day 1 doing X is perfectly legal, like walking your dog on a public sidewalk. Then on day 2, after the new law is passed, if you walk your dog on a public sidewalk you are liable for the extra wear and tear you are causing to the ground and can be sued by every residence you pass on your walk. An analogy would be [SLAPP lawsuits.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation) These are\* “intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.”\* Do you think these are a good thing that should be encouraged, discouraged, or ignored? From the wiki: > [@](#): > > Twenty-eight states, the District of Columbia, and Guam have enacted statutory protections against SLAPPs.[27][verification needed] These states are Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota,[28] Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas,[29][30] Utah, Vermont, and Washington. In Colorado and West Virginia, the courts have adopted protections against SLAPPs. These laws vary dramatically in scope and level of protection, and the remaining states lack specific protections. Are you opposed to the twenty eight states who have anti-SLAPP laws as well? Because it’s the same principle. > [@](#): > > As for abortion, if your hypothetical was possible and could harm abortion providers, pro-life groups would have already tried it. Surely you must recognize this as faulty reasoning. It presumes there are no new creative ways that pro-life groups could act to further their agenda. That everything possible has already been attempted. That is laughably bad reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/448 "2015-12-17T16:17:38Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It means that a state or local municipality passes laws that create a pathway for damages where previously there was none. In other words, on day 1 doing X is perfectly legal, like walking your dog on a public sidewalk. Then on day 2, after the new law is passed, if you walk your dog on a public sidewalk you are liable for the extra wear and tear you are causing to the ground and can be sued by every residence you pass on your walk. > > An analogy would be [SLAPP lawsuits.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation) These are\* “intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.”\* Do you think these are a good thing that should be encouraged, discouraged, or ignored? > > From the wiki: > Are you opposed to the twenty eight states who have anti-SLAPP laws as well? Because it’s the same principle. If they only apply to a single industry, then I might oppose it. If they apply to everyone, then probably not. > [@](#): > > Surely you must recognize this as faulty reasoning. It presumes there are no new creative ways that pro-life groups could act to further their agenda. That everything possible has already been attempted. That is laughably bad reasoning. Until and unless this happens, I don’t believe it’s a threat to abortion rights (and I still might not if courts just throw out the bad lawsuits), and I don’t think it’s relevant to this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/449 "2015-12-17T16:36:36Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If they only apply to a single industry, then I might oppose it. If they apply to everyone, then probably not. Ok - so it’s not the issue of Congress or legislatures determining that certain actions are frivalous that you are opposed to? Because you’ve been harping on the frivolity determination being made at the the judge/jury level rather than congress, but here you are okay with it. And oh look, here’s [another instance of congressional protection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Securities_Litigation_Reform_Act) from strategic litigation. So will you drop or concede the issue of the judge/jury vs. congress? So then about the singling out of an industry - we’ve already established that it’s not a single industry, it’s those that face particular threats, like a loss of vaccine manufacture which you are also okay with because of a compelling public interest. What you don’t seem to agree with is that gun makers were facing direct and particularized threats to their business. This wasn’t a coincidence either, this was a directed effort to litigate to cost them money, even in the face of losing legal actions. From the [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act): > [@](#): > > In 1998, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley sued gun makers and dealers saying “We are going to hit them where it hurts, in the wallet”.[2] The ciy of Bridgeport, Connecticut also sued several gun companies. Mayor Joseph Ganim said that the city’s action aimed at “creating law with litigation…That’s the route that we’re going because [the industry has] always very effectively, with big money, lobbied the legislature and kept laws from being passed.”[3] > > In 2000 Smith & Wesson, facing several state and federal lawsuits, signed an agreement brokered by President Bill Clinton, in which the company voluntarily agreed to implementing various measures in order to settle the suits.[4][5] The agreement required Smith & Wesson to only sell guns through dealers that complied with the restrictions on all guns sold regardless of manufacturer, thus potentially having a much wider potential impact than just Smith & Wesson.[6] > > HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo was quoted as saying that gun manufacturers that did not comply would suffer “death by a thousand cuts”, and Eliott Spitzer said that those who didn’t cooperate would have bankruptcy lawyers “knocking at your door”.[7] So yes, the PLCAA protects one industry. It happens to be an industry that faced targeted threats that warranted targeted a response. > [@](#): > > Until and unless this happens, I don’t believe it’s a threat to abortion rights (and I still might not if courts just throw out the bad lawsuits), and I don’t think it’s relevant to this discussion. Sure, it’s not super relevant, other than to highlight the deficiency in your reasoning in drawing your conclusion that all possible efforts by pro-life groups have already been attempted. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/450 "2015-12-17T16:46:24Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Ok - so it’s not the issue of Congress or legislatures determining that certain actions are frivalous that you are opposed to? Because you’ve been harping on the frivolity determination being made at the the judge/jury level rather than congress, but here you are okay with it. And oh look, here’s [another instance of congressional protection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Securities_Litigation_Reform_Act) from strategic litigation. So will you drop or concede the issue of the judge/jury vs. congress? There can be multiple reasons to oppose something. My feelings on judges/juries vs Congress is specific to firearms – when it comes to Civil Rights in southern states, I generally trust Congress far more than judges and juries. > [@](#): > > So then about the singling out of an industry - we’ve already established that it’s not a single industry, it’s those that face particular threats, like a loss of vaccine manufacture which you are also okay with because of a compelling public interest. What you don’t seem to agree with is that gun makers were facing direct and particularized threats to their business. This wasn’t a coincidence either, this was a directed effort to litigate to cost them money, even in the face of losing legal actions. From the [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act): > > So yes, the PLCAA protects one industry. It happens to be an industry that faced targeted threats that warranted targeted a response. I know that the gun industry faced targeted threats, but I disagree that they warranted the PLCAA for a couple of reasons – I don’t believe the threats would significantly harm the firearm industry; even if they significantly harmed the firearm industry I don’t believe there is a compelling public interest to protect them. > [@](#): > > Sure, it’s not super relevant, other than to highlight the deficiency in your reasoning in drawing your conclusion that all possible efforts by pro-life groups have already been attempted. A vague threat to abortion rights based on an undefined law isn’t relevant. If you tell me the specific language of a hypothetical law that supposedly threatens abortion rights by helping potential litigants, then maybe I can provide my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/451 "2015-12-17T17:06:06Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > There can be multiple reasons to oppose something. My feelings on judges/juries vs Congress is specific to firearms – when it comes to Civil Rights in southern states, I generally trust Congress far more than judges and juries. How consistent of you. > [@](#): > > I know that the gun industry faced targeted threats, but I disagree that they warranted the PLCAA for a couple of reasons – I don’t believe the threats would significantly harm the firearm industry; even if they significantly harmed the firearm industry I don’t believe there is a compelling public interest to protect them. So the harm wouldn’t be that bad, and even if it was, so what! On rare occasions, gun control folks are remarkably honest and you can see their actual goals. Hopefully you can understand when Congress and others take gun control proponents at their word when they say they want to bankrupt gun makers. If you think that’s okay, well, good luck I guess. > [@](#): > > A vague threat to abortion rights based on an undefined law isn’t relevant. If you tell me the specific language of a hypothetical law that supposedly threatens abortion rights by helping potential litigants, then maybe I can provide my opinion. I think you’re missing the point here. I’m not arguing any relationship to abortion or other hypothetical laws related to abortion. I’m calling out your faulty reasoning that lead you to make this statement: > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > As for abortion, if your hypothetical was possible and could harm abortion providers, pro-life groups would have already tried it. You are saying that there is no new hypothetical that is possible because if it were it would have already been done. That’s just poor logic and has nothing to do with abortion. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263/452 "2015-12-17T17:25:27Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > How consistent of you. I’m consistently on the correct side. 🙂 > [@](#): > > So the harm wouldn’t be that bad, and even if it was, so what! On rare occasions, gun control folks are remarkably honest and you can see their actual goals. Hopefully you can understand when Congress and others take gun control proponents at their word when they say they want to bankrupt gun makers. If you think that’s okay, well, good luck I guess. It’s possible that this was part of Congress’s motivation, but considering the coziness between those Congresspeople and the gun lobby, and since the PLCAA protects against far more than only those targeted lawsuits from cities that were intended to financially harm the gun industry, then I conclude that the main purpose of the PLCAA is to financially benefit the gun industry. If it were a law that were much smaller in scope to only guard against those specific targeted lawsuits from cities (and not from individuals), then it’s possible I would feel differently (or maybe not). If the law did not just involve a single industry, I might be more likely to feel differently. > [@](#): > > I think you’re missing the point here. I’m not arguing any relationship to abortion or other hypothetical laws related to abortion. I’m calling out your faulty reasoning that lead you to make this statement: > > You are saying that there is no new hypothetical that is possible because if it were it would have already been done. That’s just poor logic and has nothing to do with abortion. It’s possible I made a logical error. If so, I apologize. I don’t believe it affects any of my points. I’ll note that you said nothing about **Damuri Ajashi** ’s logical error (or maybe just plain silliness) that the anti-gun folks are much crazier than the anti-abortion folks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-should-anything-be-done-about-us-shootings/739263.md?page=22)