Yes.
There was a law that protected gun manufacturers from liability for the criminal or negligent acts of others. So if I shoot you with a glock, you couldn’t turn around and sue glock. Its a pretty meaningless law unless some state decides to deliberately place liability on manufacturers in a way that we have never done before.
IOW that law was much like the laws that made it illegal to institute sharia law in Texas.
They are?!!!? :eek:
No, that’s not right. Prior to the law’s passing, there were numerous lawsuits that were threatening the firearms industry as a whole. The lawsuits rested on some novel theory that the manufacturers should have known their product would be used in criminal activity and therefore were liable. The attempt was some collective guilt scheme that assigned liability based on percent of market if I recall correctly.
In any event, the PLCAA doesn’t apply special protections, it codifies protections that exist for every other industry. A similar type protection was used when creating the vaccine court. See this thread, post 3903 through around 3993 for further discussion.
You have to fill out a Federal Form at the FFL dealer, yes? And states have other requirements.
Now yes, in some states, person to person sales of used guns are not always required to be recorded. The so-called “gun show loophole”.
WTF does that have to do with the notion that there is no gun control? Aren’t you simply wrong that there is no gun control in this country? Shouldn’t you just admit you were wrong and say that there is gun control but you want more, a lot more. Don’t pretend that no gun control exists, it undermines your credibility.
Second of all the main push on gun control after Sandy hook was an Assault Weapons Ban. Its about the least effective method of gun control that has ever been seriously proposed so the reason Sandy hook didn’t result in MORE gun control is because the gun control advocates in this country are retarded.
They control votes and those votes control the congressmen. You may not like the results in every instance but that is how democracy works here. How does it work where you live?
The law prohibits the CDC (and some other health care agencies) from promoting gun control because of a pronounced bias towards gun control by people in those organizations. Surveys and studies are conducted by the FBI and the Department of Justice on a fairly regular basis.
Which is a teeny tiny sliver of gun violence in this country.
You’ve never tried to buy a gun in America have you? It is significantly more difficult than buying a candy bar. This sort of hyperbole undermines your credibility. That and the fact that most gun murders are committed by people who are not allowed to buy a gun.
So what you meant to say is that the USA has plenty of gun control but because its not a virtual ban on modern guns its the same thing as having no gun control.
Would you like to guess how many people have been murdered by machine guns in the last 80 years? Would it surprise you to find out that there have only be a couple of cases of someone being murdered by a Title II machine gun?
Have you ever seen a “silencer” or heard one? I’m going to guess that you think that a silencer will make a sniper rifle go “thwip” “thwip”
Wearing hearing protection while hunting decreases situational awareness so a lot of people go without. The hearing damage over time is measurable. Suppressors could mitigate that.
So maybe its not insanity on their part but ignorance on yours.
I was asking because, by most estimates, about a third of American own guns. Not 90%. If it were 90% we wouldn’t have a gun control debate in this country.
Really? because it kinda sounded like you were saying that the decisive variable that accounted for the difference in gun violence between the US and Canada was the prevalence of guns. Now you’re saying its a bunch of different factors of which the presence of guns is only one factor.
cite?
The vast majority of guns are legally owned by law abiding citizens. The most pronounced effect of any attempts to reduce the number of guns in America will be at the expense of those law abiding gun owners. Considering that the majority of gun crimes are NOT committed by law abiding gun owners, I don’t think you would see any thing approaching a proportional reduction in gun violence.
It matters who has the guns. What law do you propose we pass that would disarm the criminals and gang members?
Aside from the fact that David Hemenway is incredibly biased and has no credibility it sounds like you are saying that excluding the USA from the studies only sometimes results in a correlation between gun availability and homicide. I would trust the raw data collected by Hemenway but I would not trust his interpretation of that data.
And social differences can certainly account for LARGE differences in homicide rates. I suspect that the gun ownership rate in my neighborhood is at least as high as it is in Detroit or Baltimore and yet the murder rate is orders of magnitude lower.
Who has the guns makes a big difference.
96% of people who try to kill themselves with firearms end up dying from the attempt.
90% of people who try to kill themselves through suffocation end up dying from the attempt.
Am I reading that wrong?
Can you explain how you get triple the lethality from firearms given those numbers.
Are they using survival rates to come up with the ratios because I can see how you could use survival rates to get to those sort of numbers but I don’t see how you can use the actual death rate to get those numbers. So maybe the study is defining lethality in a way that is not intuitive to me.
If so then the way you are presenting the information is pretty misleading.
Fact ~96% of gun suicide attempts result in death.
Fact ~90& of suffocation suicide attempts result in death.
My opinion: Saying that firearms are three times as lethal as the next most lethal form of suicide is pretty fucking deceiving
In other countries what you call gun control is actually simply a virtual ban on guns.
I disagree. If the election were held the week after Sandy Hook and they ran on licensing and registration, I think things could have gone against you. What stopped it was the combination of the vilification of virtually all gun owners and the retarded form of gun control they tried to push.
I’m not sure that is inconsistent with what I said. The codification was about as necessary as prohibiting the implementation of Sharia law in Texas. If we are a nation of laws then those sort s of lawsuits can’t get very far.
That’s not registration. It could easily become part of a registration system but its not even half way there.
If we were anywhere near registration, it wouldn’t be anywhere near as tough a lift to try and get to licensing and registration.
Likely less.
Maybe 300,000,000 guns. Less than 10000 of these used in a murder. That math indicates one gun in 30000 is used to murder someone.
All I want for Christmas is to get Hentor on Fact Checker. Can anybody advise me as the proper steps?
When criminals and the mentally unstable have been documented as having had legal possession of multiple weapons of immense power in innumerable tragic shootings, when almost anyone can buy virtually any weapons just because he wants them, with minimal screening, to an extent unheard of in any other advanced nation on earth, when the gun death numbers are at the huge levels that they are, then it goes without saying that there is no effective or meaningful gun control.
That’s interesting because you or someone else was going on and on upthread about how many guns Canada allegedly has and yet gun violence is relatively low. I’ve described it an an example of effective gun control, but there’s an average of about 31 guns for every 100 residents, or over 11 million guns in the country. Please tell us how 11 million guns is “a virtual ban” or admit YOU were wrong, because that sort of contradiction undermines your credibility.
Banning high-capacity semi-automatic weapons isn’t “the least effective method” just because you say so, just like it wasn’t the main or only push in Congress just because you say so. The White House proposed at least a dozen significant reforms. AFAIK, Congress passed not a single one.
Well, it’s a bit OT, but since you ask, the way it works where I live is much the way it works in most functional democracies: a reasonably informed populace (informed in part by a trusted and objective public broadcasting system) elects representatives who more or less enact their stated policies, usually in the public interest. In this way most such nations have advanced the public interest in such areas as effective gun control, universal health care, and a progressive system of taxation.
In contrast to having special interests like the NRA and the Koch brothers spending lavishly to tell voters what to think, and buying politicians that they can control like puppets on a string as to what bills they need passed or repealed. Which is why you have NO effective gun control, NO universal health care, and a tax system that overwhelmingly favors those who can afford to buy and control politicians. Some years ago Fortune magazine ranked the NRA as the #1 most powerful and influential lobby organization in Washington. To say that basically no significant gun law can get passed without their approval is an understatement; ever since they formed their Legislative Affairs Division in 1934 (now ILA) they’ve basically been writing the gun laws, and its PAC is among the biggest of all spenders in Congressional elections. The NRA is undoubtedly one of the most insidious, powerful, and corrupt forces to have ever usurped the public interest in a modern democracy. And they do it by exerting ironclad control over politicians, information, and public perception.
Right on – thanks for perfectly proving my above point!
According to you, anyone who supports gun control, or provides data that supports gun control (including government agencies) is either retarded, incredibly biased, or ignorant. 
I waste too much time just fact checking a dozen gunnuts on a message board. I don’t care to have to fact check the whole country.
It was necessary. The lawsuits were civil and we’re they to go through enough trials eventually there would be a sympathetic jury and the gun industry would be damaged based on frivalousness. Sharia law in Texas has about zero chance of coming to pass. A succesful lawsuit against gun manufacturers was a matter of time since gun control advocates could forum shop.
Auto manufacturers and other industries survive many successful lawsuits over the years. Gun manufacturers shouldn’t be treated as some special snowflake… They can raise prices or lower expenses if they need more to cover lawsuits, just like other industries, many of whom are targeted by activists as much as they are.
You’re equivocating on the types of lawsuits that are allowed and prohibited.
Lawsuits against gun manufacturers due to defective products are allowed, just like against cars. What people do not sue car makers for is accidents that are caused by the person, not the vehicle. An analogy would be: A person parks their Toyota in the driveway, and a criminal steals it, robs a bank, then runs over and kills a pedestrian. Then the estate of the pedestrian sues the Toyota. That type of lawsuit is not allowed for gun makers under PLCAA, and rightfully so. Do you think it should be?
If a person drives their Toyota under normal conditions, and the engine explodes due to faulty wiring and defective materials that Toyota knew about killing the driver, then the estate can sue Toyota.
If a person uses their firearm and due to poor manufacturing and substandard materials, the firearm explodes and kills the shooter, the estate can still sue the firearm maker under PLCAA.
So you’re saying Toyota is protected by law against that kind of lawsuit? Please cite.
Toyota paid out lots of money for “defects” in their vehicle, which after investigation appeared to be just major faults like “driver confused gas pedal and brake” or “driver haphazardly threw floor mat in car and it bunched up under the pedal.” But as far as I know there is no major effort to sue car manufacturers for punitive measures, except maybe patent trolls. But damn if the people against PLCAA don’t come across as disingenuous and shrill.