Can/should anything be done about US shootings?

[Scumpup]

@Siam_Sam

And so it returns yet again to the pro-gun people saying it’s useless to try to do anything.

And so it returns to anti-gun people demanding we do SOMETHING even though they propose nothing effectual.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@wolfpup

First, there’s a short and simple answer to that, whether you like to hear it or not: the same laws that exist in all other civilized countries.

The laws that eventually create a culture shift where buying a gun is a serious, unusual, and very well vetted transaction that few people do, and only for good and valid reason, instead of a fun thing that everybody does all the time. And where such a weapon, once possessed, is under strict regulations concerning transportation and storage, instead of being carried around on the street like a cell phone or a toy.

This doesn’t address the questions of how long it would take such laws to permeate the gun culture, or how to accomplish a more rational re-interpretation of the 2nd Amendment than Heller or its very existence, but the path to ending rampant gun violence is clear enough if there is the will.

And the issue of “oh, my, there are so many guns now, there’s no point in trying to control them” is a red herring, like the real estate dilemma of “If only I had bought that house 10 years ago, it’s too late now” – which we hear about every 10 years, decade after decade. Point being that every day and every year people are buying more guns under the present regime, more deadly guns are being created all the time, and no incentives whatsoever exist to reduce their numbers, so while you sit there asserting that it’s too late, it’s a done deal, the vast arsenal of guns just gets more and more deadly.
[/quote]

Your answer seems to be “well, its never too late to start” and I would say that is easy to say from the comfort of a nation where the cops don’t even feel the need to be armed. I think the last time we could have truly disarmed the country was right after WWII. Today I think you would do more harm than good by disarming all law abiding citizens because the criminals will remain armed.

If cops start going on patrol without firearms then i think we can start discussing whether it makes sense to largely disarm the average citizen.

And finally, you need to rid yourself of the ridiculous notion, much beloved by the NRA, that people fall neatly and permanently into the categories of “law-abiding” (who can do no wrong, ever) and “criminals” – “good guys” and “bad guys”, like the black and white pieces on a chessboard. Like the gun owner who says “why shouldn’t I have a high-capacity magazine and a semi-automatic – it will never be used to do anything criminal.” Like the mother of the Newtown shooter who might have said, “why shouldn’t my son have a Bushmaster XM15 and a Glock pistol, so that we as law-abiding gun owners can go to a shooting range and bond as mother and son? He’ll never do anything bad with them.” Like the “law abiding gun owner” who gets fired from his job, goes broke, and finds out that his wife has been cheating on him, and suddenly isn’t so “law abiding” any more.

You know what to do (“you” collectively). But you won’t, because you love your guns, and it’s much easier to dispute and deny the hard facts than it is to gather the will to do anything.

I don’t think anyone thinks that people fall permanently into the category of law abiding citizen. How many gun murders do you think are committed every year by someone who was legally permitted to buy a gun? Out of the 11,000 or so homicides committed with a gun, how many of those killers were legally able to buy the gun they used to commit murder?

Do you have any idea?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@wolfpup

I agree, John, as you will note in my third paragraph. I’m trying to take a broader view of the subject, instead of assuming that the Heller ruling is forever, and even some of this Court’s subsequent rulings have been encouraging.

Which rulings? McDonald effectively upheld Heller and I don’t think the court has really addressed the second amendment in any other rulings. Or are you reading something into SCOTUS declining to take a case? If so then you are really grasping at straws. The chances of being granted cert is about 1%. Granted most of these are prisoners in jail asking for cert (the rate there is .1%) and the rate for cases like this is more like 3 or 4%. So take whatever encouragement from that you wish. Its meaningless (or more precisely you cannot divine the meaning).

It isn’t actually unrealistic if you consider the views of some constitutional scholars who believe Heller is a gross misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment’s intent that can and should and will eventually be overturned, as some other bad rulings have been in the past.

And plenty of constitutional scholars think the case is just fine. If I had to choose cases to overturn due to poor analysis and basis in law, Heller would come far far behind rulings like Roe v. Wade and Crawford v. Marion County. Regardless of where you stand on the politics of these cases, the opinions are hard to defend.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@iiandyiiii

Yes, this is what I believe.

And why shouldn’t an industry that is being politically targetted with frivolous lawsuits get special protection from the frivolous lawsuits? If there are not mechanisms in place to dissuade those frivolous lawsuits at the state level then why not institute them at the federal level?

Would you feel better if the federal government provided court costs and penalties for filing frivolous lawsuits rather than simple immunity from frivolous lawsuits? Or would you need to see the protection extended to all manufacturers and retailers?

[iiandyiiii]

@Damuri_Ajashi

And why shouldn’t an industry that is being politically targetted with frivolous lawsuits get special protection from the frivolous lawsuits? If there are not mechanisms in place to dissuade those frivolous lawsuits at the state level then why not institute them at the federal level?

Would you feel better if the federal government provided court costs and penalties for filing frivolous lawsuits rather than simple immunity from frivolous lawsuits? Or would you need to see the protection extended to all manufacturers and retailers?

I’m open to sanctions and fines for frivolous lawsuits, just not special protections for the gun industry. Good things have come from lawsuits targeting an industry, and I’m unconvinced that the law only stops frivolous lawsuits.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@iiandyiiii

Protection was necessary for vaccines and EMS workers, presumably, because without it people might not get vaccines and emergency health care.

Protection was necessary for the gun industry because without it, there was a possibility of financial hardship for gun manufacturers and sellers. Gun prices may have gone up. It’s even possible that the gun industry might have been forced to make major changes – perhaps exercising a lot of effort in helping prevent their products from ending up in the wrong hands; shifting some profits towards helping victims of gun crime and preventing crimes in the first place; increasing gun safety; etc. Perhaps there would even be the possibility of some gun companies going out of business due to litigation (though, still, this seems unlikely considering the overwhelming profitability and success of fossil fuel and auto industries which are targeted by activists as much or than gun companies). This could change the industry, but with so many Americans willing to pay thousands of dollars for new firearms, it seems like there’d be nigh-zero chance that it would be impossible to make a profit from making and selling guns.

So you would be OK with lawsuits inundating the abortion industry because they can just pass the costs of frivolous litigation on to the people getting abortions, right? Who gives a shit if the cost of abortions doubles or quintuples?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@iiandyiiii

The law protects gun sellers as well as manufacturers, from my understanding. Heaven forbid the manufacturers and sellers of firearms (those special, fragile little snowflakes) might have to actually make efforts to try and prevent their guns from being used by criminals. That might hurt their bottom line!

The protection does not extend to selling to someone that you think might be a straw seller or might commit a crime.

[iiandyiiii]

@Damuri_Ajashi

So you would be OK with lawsuits inundating the abortion industry because they can just pass the costs of frivolous litigation on to the people getting abortions, right? Who gives a shit if the cost of abortions doubles or quintuples?

Absolutely. Do you have a cite that such lawsuits are banned?

[iiandyiiii]

@Damuri_Ajashi

The protection does not extend to selling to someone that you think might be a straw seller or might commit a crime.

Why not? Such lawsuits might put the gun industry out of business!

[Bone]

@iiandyiiii

Interesting legal theory, and perhaps it should be put to the test. I trust the courts, including juries filled with flawed humans, far more than Congress and legislatures motivated to help gun companies financially, in this particular case. I certainly don’t trust that Congress and state legislatures know better what amounts to a frivolous lawsuit when it comes to an industry they seem highly motivated to assist.

Perhaps there are features which would make guns less useful for crime, or more efforts that could be done to only sell to safe buyers, or similar. I don’t know. I just would rather see this stuff worked out in the courts, then banned altogether by legislators who routinely get down on their knees for gun lobbyists.

You couch your response in terms of “perhaps” and “maybe” but it’s really just a way to weasel out of making an actual statement. Perhaps I can fly. These are worthless statements.

You say perhaps the theories should be put to the test…but this reveals your ignorance. These theories were put to the test, and the gun makers prevailed in all but one case (‘saturday night specials’) as I stated previously. The theories are fucktarded. Do you subscribe to them?

[Bone]

@John_Mace

It may be key to Libertarian philosophy, but not to libertarian philosophy.

Is there a small L libertarian philosophy that doesn’t recognize the right to self defense and arms? I would expect the position to be no different than the one for controlled substances, in that drugs should be legalized.

[PhillyGuy]

@iiandyiiii

Perhaps there are features which would make guns less useful for crime, or more efforts that could be done to only sell to safe buyers, or similar. I don’t know.

I do. More than half of the firearms traced in crimes come from just 1 percent of the nation’s licensed gun stores, but federal agents rarely check to make sure these stores are complying with gun laws, a new study finds.

Cutting their legal risk by almost half, while reducing sales by perhaps 1 percent, would seem to be a no-brainer, if there was liability.

I’m not crazy about changing public policy by lawsuit. I favor making the losing party pay the legal costs of the winners. But, much as I dislike lawsuits, I’m even more against giving an exemption to merchants of the tools of death.

[iiandyiiii]

@Bone

You couch your response in terms of “perhaps” and “maybe” but it’s really just a way to weasel out of making an actual statement. Perhaps I can fly. These are worthless statements.

You say perhaps the theories should be put to the test…but this reveals your ignorance. These theories were put to the test, and the gun makers prevailed in all but one case (‘saturday night specials’) as I stated previously. The theories are fucktarded. Do you subscribe to them?

Gun makers won? Great! So they don’t need special snowflake protection!

[Bone]

@iiandyiiii

Gun makers won? Great! So they don’t need special snowflake protection!

This is why I asked if you supported frivolous lawsuits. It seems you do. At a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, the result was that the theories advanced were rejected. Congress and the states saw the evidence and determined statutory immunity was appropriate.

That you opined on the subject while ignorant of the litigation history, including what I already wrote, is not surprising.

The vaccine companies mostly won as well, but we’re leaving the business because of jury risk and litigation cost in a thinly profitable product. Your claims of a special snowflake are ignorant.

[JXJohns]

@iiandyiiii

The law protects gun sellers as well as manufacturers, from my understanding. Heaven forbid the manufacturers and sellers of firearms (those special, fragile little snowflakes) might have to actually make efforts to try and prevent their guns from being used by criminals. That might hurt their bottom line!

FFL dealers are not protected, snowflakes though they may be:

Wisconsin FFL hit with civil judgement. As they should have been.

[iiandyiiii]

@Bone

This is why I asked if you supported frivolous lawsuits. It seems you do. At a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, the result was that the theories advanced were rejected. Congress and the states saw the evidence and determined statutory immunity was appropriate.

That you opined on the subject while ignorant of the litigation history, including what I already wrote, is not surprising.

The vaccine companies mostly won as well, but we’re leaving the business because of jury risk and litigation cost in a thinly profitable product. Your claims of a special snowflake are ignorant.

I support courts determining whether lawsuits are frivolous or not, not legislators. If Congress rejects all frivolous lawsuits, they could pass a similar law for all industries. That they don’t indicates they approve of the courts making the determination for most. The litigation history only solidifies my opinion.

[Bone]

@iiandyiiii

I support courts determining whether lawsuits are frivolous or not, not legislators. If Congress rejects all frivolous lawsuits, they could pass a similar law for all industries. That they don’t indicates they approve of the courts making the determination for most. The litigation history only solidifies my opinion.

The PLCAA is one of the results after gun control overreaches. Failed litigation strategies prompted congress to pass it, so you can thank the gun control lobby for that. If there were a concerted effort to destroy other industries vital to the national interest, I’m sure congress would act.

You support the courts making the determination - except for the vaccine industry and the heightened requirements for EMS workers, and all the other activities that are granted statutory immunity, right? Because, what did you call it, a compelling public interest? Like I said, it seems fine for things you agree with. Consistency!

[iiandyiiii]

@Bone

The PLCAA is one of the results after gun control overreaches. Failed litigation strategies prompted congress to pass it, so you can thank the gun control lobby for that. If there were a concerted effort to destroy other industries vital to the national interest, I’m sure congress would act.

I don’t accept this was the motivation of Congress (rather, I believe that Congress was motivated to financially help the firearm industry by reducing their legal expenses). And you believe the gun industry is “vital to the national interest”? Why do you believe this is so?

You support the courts making the determination - except for the vaccine industry and the heightened requirements for EMS workers, and all the other activities that are granted statutory immunity, right? Because, what did you call it, a compelling public interest? Like I said, it seems fine for things you agree with. Consistency!

I’m willing to consider exceptions to my “courts should decide whether lawsuits are frivolous or not” philosophy. The reasons you’ve presented for why an exception should exist for the firearm industry don’t cut it for me. No one has made a detailed argument in favor of the exceptions for vaccines and EMS personnel, but I’m certainly willing to entertain one. Based on your arguments, I see no need (or benefit) for an exception for the gun industry. Based on the cursory arguments presented for vaccines and EMS, I might be okay with it, but I have no final opinion on the issue.

Apparently you consistently also support the things you agree with, and oppose the things you disagree with, in terms of political issues. Remarkable that we share this! I wonder who else supports the things they support and opposes what they oppose?

[Bone]

@iiandyiiii

I don’t accept this was the motivation of Congress (rather, I believe that Congress was motivated to financially help the firearm industry by reducing their legal expenses). And you believe the gun industry is “vital to the national interest”? Why do you believe this is so?

Because they supply weaponry for our police and military, among other reasons.

No one has made a detailed argument in favor of the exceptions for vaccines and EMS personnel, but I’m certainly willing to entertain one.

Did you happen to read the NEJM article:

Even though most public health officials believed that the claims of side effects were unfounded, some families won substantial awards from sympathetic juries who were convinced otherwise. As a result, most companies making the DPT vaccine ceased production, and the remaining major manufacturer threatened to do so. Health officials feared the loss of herd immunity, and Congress responded by creating the VICP.

That means without the vaccine protection, there would have been no manufacturer of the DPT vaccine (diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), and tetanus.

Apparently you consistently also support the things you agree with, and oppose the things you disagree with, in terms of political issues. Remarkable that we share this! I wonder who else supports the things they support and opposes what they oppose?

Equivocation, nice. Rather than the tautology that you rely on, I was referring to what you considered a compelling public interest.

---

I’m sure I’m not going to convince you, but I find it amusing that the PLCAA a result of another instance of the gun control lobby overreaching. The failed litigation efforts led congress to pass it. Just like the AWB push contributed to UBC failing after Sandy Hook, and the original AWB contributed to other congressional losses. Gun control tried to sue gun makers out of business and in return Congress told them to GTFO. Good luck trying to get it repealed.

[Scumpup]

@iiandyiiii

And you believe the gun industry is “vital to the national interest”? Why do you believe this is so?

Really, when you asked this question, where do you think the police and the military got their weapons?