I think you’re confused if that’s how you interpret my post.
There was an effort to sue gun makers analogous to the hypothetical I posed with Toyota. Do you think that is a desirable thing?
Just to add, many folks don’t have an accurate understanding of the PLCAA . In the linked article just above Slate mistakenly implies that lawsuits stemming from negligent entrustment are prohibited where in fact they are allowed.
I think no special protection for one industry is a good thing, and I think the courts are capable of dealing with that hypothetical like they do other potentially frivolous lawsuits. Other industries that are targeted by activists survive and thrive without special carve outs; the gun industry should too.
Your argument just happens to not be falsifiable without allowing the lawsuits, and it just so happens to benefit gun manufacturers financially.
What part of the argument isn’t falsifiable?
That gun manufacturers could not survive without this protection.
I’m not sure I made that argument but I could have said something to that effect. In any case, that’s not a necessary premise. Curtailing stupid lawsuits is reason enough.
Hang on, in the UK if I want a firearm I can get one. I know people in my family who own and use one regularly.
It isn’t easy or cheap and there are firm restrictions on purchase, storage, transport and type but they are certainly not “banned”.
What is more. If I legally owned a firearm and used it kill an intruder who threatened my or my family’s life, I would not be convicted for it.
You keep repeating this, and it keeps being absolute nonsense.
The court system does that just fine for every other industry without special carveouts. Congress did this because it benefits the gun industry financially – they might as well just have written this special snowflake industry a big government check… it would have been more honest. This was done to give special benefits and help the bottom line of gun companies. If it was truly necessary, then it would be necessary for all industries.
Criminals and the adjudicated mentally ill cannot purchase guns.
What Canada has is a different society and culture than America. Their gun laws are not particularly strict (personally I would be OK with going quite a few steps in the direction of Canada’s system of licensing and registration as long as there were no state and local laws).
Of course it was the main push. If you don’t agree with that then you were obviously in a coma or out of the country during the months following Sandy hook. Of course it wasn’t the only push but the gun control lobby was really focused on the AWB.
And the reason the AWB failed is largely because it was shown to be so ineffective that it made clear to everyone how retarded the gun control lobby in this country is. How many people do you think are killed every year by assault weapons?
Only 3% of all murders are committed with rifles, of which assault weapons are a small subset.
BTW do you know what makes an assault weapon an assault weapon? Things like adjustable stocks, pistol grips (both ergonomic accessories) a bayonet lug or (for pistols) looking like an automatic firearm (both purely cosmetic).
The white house also proposes a budget every year too. And unless we have a one party government, everyone just ignores it. Obama was not the point man on gun control after Sandy hook. It was Dianne Feinstein and her main policy objective was the AWB.
History repeated itself after Sandy Hook. There was an opportunity for real and meaningful gun control but the gun control folks fucked it up and ended up looking so retarded that noone wanted anything to do with them. Why do you think Dianne Feinstein keeps her trap shut these days?
That’s pretty much what we have here but with different results. You sound like one of those folks who want democracy in the middle east but object to the results of the democratic expression of the will of the people in those countries. “Yes have democracy and create a society exactly like what I would have created if I were king, otherwise your democracy is broken”
So there no one where you are from is allowed to spend money on campaigns? The NRA doesn’t really spend a lot of money by DC standards. Their power doesn’t come from money. Their power is largely Democratic. There is a reasonably large group of otherwise apathetic single issue voters who will come out to the polls if someone tries to fuck with their second amendment rights.
How much do you think the NRa spends on political contributions? How much do you think Michael Bloomberg (one person) has made in political contributions on the issue?
The gun rights folks have been around for decades, protecting a constitutional right that we have had for centuries.
We don’t have universal health care because we have a two party system, one of which is dedicated to small government in all things other than military spending. That party represents the will of about half the people in this country.
You are probably right about taxes but frankly America is not the only country with this problem.
They do exercise that ironclad influence with a large army of voters. I’m sorry that you disagree with a large portion of the American voting population but there it is.
BTW you do realize that conggress passed an assault weapons ban before, right? it where the term assault weapons comes from. The term did not exist before they passed that law. A law that the NRA really really didn’t like. and yet it still got passed. How did they manage to defeat the invincible NRA back then?
No, according to me David Hemenway is biased and while the data he collects is probably not too corrupt (although data collection can also be contaminated by bias) the way he interprets the data is biased.
What government agency DATA have I criticized?
I don’t think you know what you are talking about but you are obviously very emotional about it.
There is an appeal process and I think that as a matter of law, you cannot hold a manufacturer liable for the criminal acts of another. At least the cases i am aware of would have been. The cases I knew about ranged from a case where the lawsuit was based on the fact that the manufacturer was selling to a gun store where some disproportionately large percentage of guns used in crime were sold to a case where the plaintiff was relying on the novel and previously rejected principle that someone might be liable for the criminal acts of others.
They are nuisance suits and while there was no attempt to enact sharia law in Texas the nuisance suits had little chance of winning and no chance of surviving appeal. Its just harrassment by people who think they are on the side of the angels (and that justifies pretty much anything doesn’t it?)
The alcohol industry went through something like this and they did’t need special protections. The fact of the matter is that this probably saves the firearms industry a few million dollars in legal fees so I suppose there is that.
The problem with the way they portray the law is that they are misleading about what the law does. Even the article describes the law as “a terrible law that shields gun sellers and manufacturers from legal liability in most lawsuits.”. What it does it shield gun manufacturers from liability for the criminal acts of others. Yes it is a special protection that no other industry gets but frankly it is a special protection that they don’t need unless you consider it appropriate to pass laws to stop a particular flavor of frivolous lawsuit.
Thats why I said virtual ban. You can buy a gun in NYC too but its such a pain in the ass that it is a virtual ban.
Why the fuck would you? We inherited our jurisprudence on self defense from England, so we have much the same law (or at least we used to before all these stand your ground laws)
I didn’t say it was a ban I said it was a virtual ban. Perhaps I am not as sanguine about the restrictions as you are.
What can you actually buy?
Do you agree that the PLCAA should be repealed?
Basically it amounts to air weapons, shotguns and smaller bore rifles. I believe some larger bore hunting rifles are permitted as well.
Here is a pdfthat has all you might need to know.
No handguns though.
The word “ban” has a very specific meaning, you’d be wiser to use it in the correct manner. Saves confusion for us and backtracking for you.
I’ve just read through the NYC restrictions on buying and owning a gun.
That you would consider them in any way onerous or represent even a “virtual ban” is utterly laughable. At best they are a minor, temporary inconvenience (only one purchase per 90 day period?..boo-hoo, proper storage required only after purchasing 5 weapons…what an outrage!)