Gun nuts threaten gun store owner for selling gun they don't like

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Bone

This is an odd way of looking at it. Do you apply this rationale to the police as well? Do they only give advantage to the police when they are lying in ambush?

Do you disagree that guns give an advantage to the party lying in ambush? I assume not. More generally, they give advantage to the party with the initiative, which is why cops pull out their weapons with some frequency (and fire them much less, at least in NYC).

Even if I accept the adjusted figure (which I don’t), are you saying that 48 deaths, however tragic, is sufficient to infringe on a fundamental, enumerated constitutional right? I think your answer is yes and mine is no.

There’s a lot packed into that question and I’m not sure how to address it. I can say however that I have a lot more respect for somebody who makes an honest attempt at cost benefit analysis than for someone who sweeps inconvenient facts under the carpet. I support the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone. I don’t deny that this hurts livestock herders economically and I don’t characterize their concerns as trivial. As a citizen, I’m saying I favor wolves in the lower 48 on cost/benefit grounds. Update the facts and I might change my opinion.

Similarly, I don’t call for zero emissions policies or even minimal emissions policies, though yes this will cost statistical lives. Public safety is an intrinsic good, but it isn’t the only intrinsic good. In the proper context, one should be honest about such tradeoffs.

IIRC, I don’t believe I was discussing public policy though. I’m more interested in rational private risk assessment, which is connected to a weighting of the most probable consequences of weaponry.

While it’s true that firearms do not fall under the purview of the Consumer PRoduct Safety Commission, that is primarily because that duty falls under the jurisdiction of the BATFE. It’s not some conspiracy to have the safety of guns unchecked. In addition, your statement that a gun manufacturer is not liable if their product blows up in a customer’s hand is factually incorrect. You may be thinking of the PLCAAthat exempted manufacturers from suits of negligence in using their products. This does not however eliminate liability from defective products.

Actually I was operating off of information which was perhaps 25 years out of date. I poked around the internet and discovered that a wave of lawsuits put some shitty gun manufacturers out of business during the 1990s. To my knowledge, it wasn’t the BATFE that did this though. Am I wrong?

You did this previously, and here again so I’m not sure if it’s intentional. You were responding to my post that said: " It’s also ludicrous to say that a 12 year old can physically fend off a grown adult." Running to a teacher to tell them something is not physically fending off a grown adult.

1. Well actually that’s my point: there is more than one way of defusing a confrontation and most confrontations are resolved without private violence.

2. I poked around the internet a bit and found some anecdotes and general advice regarding child safety. But I’m reluctant to assemble another 3 paragraphs on the subject, at least in this post. I prefer to put such efforts into core concerns and I’m not clear what they are here.
   ====

I’ve skipped a lot. Feel free to repeat questions if desired.