The Gun Control Debate Thread

[TradeTheBeal!]

 

[China]

Meanwhile in the UK...

 

Cornwall MP ridiculed over knife GPS tweet

 

An MP has been ridiculed on social media after he suggested all knives should be fitted with GPS trackers.

 

Mr Mann's Tweet reads: "Every knife sold in the UK should have a gps tracker fitted in the handle.

 

"It's time we had a national database like we do with guns.

 

"If you're carrying it around you had better have a bloody good explanation, obvious exemptions for fishing etc."

 

His tweet has attracted more than 3,600 comments, with some saying Mr Mann was "not the sharpest knife in the drawer".

 

New figures show knife crime in England and Wales is at its highest for nine years.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

Sandy Hook Massacre: Remington and Other Gun Companies Lose Major Ruling Over Liability

 

Justices issued a 4-3 ruling that reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit and overturned a lower court ruling that the lawsuit was prohibited by a 2005 federal law that shields gun manufacturers from liability in most cases when their products are used in crimes.

 

The plaintiffs include a survivor and relatives of nine people killed in the massacre. They argue the AR-15-style rifle used by shooter [Name Redacted so as to not glorify homicidal maniacs] is too dangerous for the public and Remington glorified the weapon in marketing it to young people.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[TheGreatBuzz]

17 minutes ago, China said:

Sandy Hook Massacre: Remington and Other Gun Companies Lose Major Ruling Over Liability

 

Justices issued a 4-3 ruling that reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit and overturned a lower court ruling that the lawsuit was prohibited by a 2005 federal law that shields gun manufacturers from liability in most cases when their products are used in crimes.

 

The plaintiffs include a survivor and relatives of nine people killed in the massacre. They argue the AR-15-style rifle used by shooter [Name Redacted so as to not glorify homicidal maniacs] is too dangerous for the public and Remington glorified the weapon in marketing it to young people.

 

Click on the link for the full article

I'm very interested to see how this case plays out if it ever gets in front of a jury.  I'm not a lawyer so my opinions are only my thoughts on morality of it.  I think trying to sue the maker is very wrong.  Maybe if you could show they were trying to market to mass shooters or criminals.  But I feel like this is like trying to sue Budweiser for a rash or DUI'S. 

[Larry]

21 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'm very interested to see how this case plays out if it ever gets in front of a jury.  I'm not a lawyer so my opinions are only my thoughts on morality of it.  I think trying to sue the maker is very wrong.  Maybe if you could show they were trying to market to mass shooters or criminals.  But I feel like this is like trying to sue Budweiser for a rash or DUI'S. 

 

Or cigarette makers for smoking-caused cancer?

[TheGreatBuzz]

17 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Or cigarette makers for smoking-caused cancer?

While I dont necessarily agree with that, I can at least understand it more.  Though that could be because I remember their advertising but I can't think of the last time I even saw an ad for a gun.

[Larry]

32 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

While I dont necessarily agree with that, I can at least understand it more.  Though that could be because I remember their advertising but I can't think of the last time I even saw an ad for a gun.

 

Don't recall seeing one on television. Pretty sure there's entire magazines dedicated to them. 

 

And how how much do you think the gun companies spend to get Hollywood to feature their model?

 

And the cigarette companies also spent big money trying to silence any research into the effects. I think I've read about that, once or twice in this thread. 

[Commander PK]

58 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Or cigarette makers for smoking-caused cancer?

 

I see a difference

 

Everyone knows guns can kill.  The gun industry does not try to cover up that fact or mislead people into thinking guns are not deadly if you end up on the business end of one.

 

Cigarettes were not always known to kill people.  The tobacco industry worked to cover up the fact that they can for years.  

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

14 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Don't recall seeing one on television. Pretty sure there's entire magazines dedicated to them. 

 

And how how much do you think the gun companies spend to get Hollywood to feature their model?

 

And the cigarette companies also spent big money trying to silence any research into the effects. I think I've read about that, once or twice in this thread. 

Well I've been on record here for certain increases in gun control laws.  But i dont agree with trying to put blame on the gun makers.

[Larry]

12 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Well I've been on record here for certain increases in gun control laws.  But i dont agree with trying to put blame on the gun makers.

 

Do you think the gun makers bear at least some of the blame for our current gun laws (or lack thereof)?

 

(I'll mention that I, myself, have been known to argue that the NRA is one of what I think of as "the good kind of lobbyists". The ones who represent a coalition of voters with a common cause. People who are supposed to be represented in our government. So I'm not passionately arguing for one side on this matter. More like arguing that the argument for liability might not be completely stupid.)

[Commander PK]

3 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Do you think the gun makers bear at least some of the blame for our current gun laws (or lack thereof)?

 

I don’t 

 

I don’t think we can blame a company when it’s product is misused.  A gun is designed to kill...but not to murder.  There is a difference.  

 

If somebody uses a chef’s knife to stab somebody in the back...is the maker of the chef’s knife to blame?  Even a little bit?  Somebody can commit murder with a chef’s knife, but that isn’t what the knife is designed for.  If somebody gets high and takes their Dodge Ram out for a joyride and hits and kills a couple in a Civic...is Dodge to blame?  Is Honda?  

 

Slippery slope

 

 

[Larry]

1 minute ago, Painkiller said:

 

I don’t 

 

I don’t think we can blame a company when it’s product is misused.  A gun is designed to kill...but not to murder.  There is a difference.  

 

If somebody uses a chef’s knife to stab somebody in the back...is the maker of the chef’s knife to blame?  Even a little bit?  Somebody can commit murder with a chef’s knife, but that isn’t what the knife is designed for.  If somebody gets high and takes their Dodge Ram out for a joyride and hits and kills a couple in a Civic...is Dodge to blame?  Is Honda?  

 

Slippery slope

 

 

 

I observe that you replied with a stock answer, that ignored my question. 

 

(And I'll point out that the person who uses a gun to kill didn't misuse the product). 

14 minutes ago, Larry said:

Do you think the gun makers bear at least some of the blame for our current gun laws (or lack thereof)?

 

[Springfield]

26 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

 

Everyone knows guns can kill.  The gun industry does not try to cover up that fact or mislead people into thinking guns are not deadly if you end up on the business end of one.

 

But they do, though.

 

How many times, on this very board have I heard that an AR-15 is nothing more than a dressed up hunting rifle, shooting a round no larger than a 9mm.

 

Its absolutely, 100%, limp dick, bull****.

 

NOBODY is hunting with an AR.  ****, nobody is even using an AR for home defense.

 

Just stop bull****ting people and say that you want an AR-15 because it looks cool and you can play make believe soldier with one.  Maybe then people would take the gun movement more seriously if they weren’t incredibly full of ****.

[Commander PK]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

I observe that you replied with a stock answer, that ignored my question. 

 

(And I'll point out that the person who uses a gun to kill didn't misuse the product). 

 

 

It’s stock as you put it because it’s common sense.  The logic is sound and the comparisons make sense.

 

I did answer your first question.  I said I don’t think they should be blamed at all.   

 

Maybe we are talking about two different things. Blame vs. liability.  I see them the same.  A gun is not designed for murder it is designed for killing.  If there is no murder and the killing is justified...there is no blame or liability to be placed at the feet of the shooter, his gun, or the maker of his gun.  If the gun is used to commit a crime than the maker of the gun is also not libel because the gun was not meant to be used for that purpose.  Kind of like blaming a prescription pill company when somebody intentionally overdoses on their products...or blaming a GPS for running a red light.  

 

I did not buy my guns to murder people.  I did buy them to defend myself and my family which could result in an irresponsible and reckless  persons death if necessary.  In that case...I blame the perp for his death and nobody else.

 

If you believe that a gun maker has SOME of the blame when someone commits a crime with the gun then you also have to believe a knife maker has SOME as well when used for the same purpose.  

 

Edit: And our current gun laws are sufficient we just need to have the balls to fully prosecute and punish those who commit crimes with guns.  

Edited March 15, 2019 by Painkiller

[Commander PK]

 

[China]

Just a note on that previous video.  He states that an AR-15 shoots a .223 caliber round.  That is the standard and most common round.  However, one of the reasons this gun is so popular is that it is extremely customizable and can be set up to shoot "6.8 SPC, .308, .450 Bushmaster and about a dozen others. Upper receivers for pistol calibers such as 9 mm, .40, and .45 are available. There are even .410 shotgun versions."  His statement was misleading.  Link and link

[visionary]

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

9 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Do you think the gun makers bear at least some of the blame for our current gun laws (or lack thereof)?

 

(I'll mention that I, myself, have been known to argue that the NRA is one of what I think of as "the good kind of lobbyists". The ones who represent a coalition of voters with a common cause. People who are supposed to be represented in our government. So I'm not passionately arguing for one side on this matter. More like arguing that the argument for liability might not be completely stupid.)

Yes.

 

Though I think if the reason to sue was the gun manufacturers affect on gun laws, they should be going after the NRA.  I have a different opinion of the NRA than you do.  I tend to think they represent the manufacturers more than the people.

 

But if they are just going after them because they made the weapon, then they SHOULD have a pretty high bar to meet.  And I see nothing that makes me think they could come even close to that bar.

 

9 hours ago, Springfield said:

 

NOBODY is hunting with an AR.  ****, nobody is even using an AR for home defense.

 

 

I don't know how big of a sample size you used to determine that no one hunts with an AR or uses it for home defense but I can say you are 100% wrong.

 

 

7 hours ago, Painkiller said:

Edit: And our current gun laws are sufficient we just need to have the balls to fully prosecute and punish those who commit crimes with guns.  

 

I disagree that they are sufficient but I don't think they are far from it either.  I think they should "close the gun show loophole" (god that saying is so stupid because thats not even what it's about) and they should increase the liability of people who leave a gun to easy access for someone that shouldn't have one.  This is mainly for the people that do a mass shooting and it turns out they got the gone from their parents closet where it wasn't even close to secured.

 

But I also think that in many states they are far too restrictive.  We have the talk in here before about how it would be nice if politicians could comprimise with a little give and take on gun laws.

[Commander PK]

9 hours ago, China said:

Just a note on that previous video.  He states that an AR-15 shoots a .223 caliber round.  That is the standard and most common round.  However, one of the reasons this gun is so popular is that it is extremely customizable and can be set up to shoot "6.8 SPC, .308, .450 Bushmaster and about a dozen others. Upper receivers for pistol calibers such as 9 mm, .40, and .45 are available. There are even .410 shotgun versions."  His statement was misleading.  Link and link

I can’t disagree with those facts.  The AR-15 is a civilianized version of an M-16.  I’m not an expert on that gun and I don’t own one, but I know plenty who do.

[Burgold]

There was an interesting (to me) argument made on the news today. One of the analysts suggested that by calling certain acts hate crimes we are actually protecting the perpetrators. The logic being that we invest so much money towards anti-terrorist actions than we do hate crimes. So, by calling so much of this Right Wing Terrorism mental illness at worst and hate crimes at best, it is handcuffing our ability to fund efforts to investigate and prevent future incidents. I don't know that hate crimes should always be considered synonomous with terrorism or treated as such, I totally buy the logic or how deep the real world distinction is, but I found the argument worth noting, especially in practical terms. After all, the purpose of most hate crimes seems at least partly to evoke terror within a community (be it religious, racial, sexual, or political.)

[TheGreatBuzz]

50 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

I can’t disagree with those facts.  The AR-15 is a civilianized version of an M-16.  I’m not an expert on that gun and I don’t own one, but I know plenty who do.

I would say I'm at least close to an expert.  Commonly, though not even close to always, guns in those other calibers are called a different name.  For example, a version of that rifle chambered in .308 is usually called an AR-10.  This also shows a bit where the term "AR-15" has gotten a bad rap because there are so many other models that are essentially the same but have different names.  I usually liken it to using the term Kleenex instead of facial tissue.

[Llevron]

24 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I would say I'm at least close to an expert.  Commonly, though not even close to always, guns in those other calibers are called a different name.  For example, a version of that rifle chambered in .308 is usually called an AR-10.  This also shows a bit where the term "AR-15" has gotten a bad rap because there are so many other models that are essentially the same but have different names.  I usually liken it to using the term Kleenex instead of facial tissue.

 

So wait, when you modify a gun and what rounds it can use the name/class of it changes? Is that what the fuss is about when the media says AR-15? Cause at that point its not a AR-15. That actually makes sense to me this time and i Know you told me that before. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

52 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

So wait, when you modify a gun and what rounds it can use the name/class of it changes? Is that what the fuss is about when the media says AR-15? Cause at that point its not a AR-15. That actually makes sense to me this time and i Know you told me that before. 

Modifying it doesn't really change the name.  Usually you just stick with the name of the model when you originally bought/built it.  I don't really know of/haven't known anybody who has bought an AR-15 for example and then changed the caliber.  Usually you buy/build in what you're looking for.  Interesting also is that your normal AR-15 can shoot .223 caliber but also shoot 5.56 though I wouldn't recommend doing it a lot unless you built your gun for it.  I can with my AR because it's built as a .223 Wylde (which I'm selling if anyone is interested).  I'm not going further down that rabbit hole though unless you want me to.

 

The fuss is because it isn't always an AR-15 but something else that has a similar "tacti-cool" look.  Look up AR-10, SKS, AK-74 and AK-47.  And those are just a few.  Look up "modern sporting rifle" if you want to see more.

 

How much is that fuss justified?  It doesn't matter a whole lot to the actual shooting until you start proposing laws.  People saying "ban AR-15's" are considered dumb because that leaves out all the other models.  It shows you don't know enough to have a real gun discussion.  IMO, you can say the same about people that say "ban assault weapons" but don't give a definition of what they consider that to be.  You could use the definition that was part of the Brady Bill but holy **** that was a bad definition.  Look at the guns below.  Which would you ban?  They are all essentially the same gun with different stocks and one has a 2" shorter barrel.

 

 

 

 

They are all essentially the same gun with different stocks and one has a 2" shorter barrel.  All different versions of the Springfield M1A.

 

EDIT:  And if you really want your mind blown, look up "AR pistol" and know that those are legally considered handguns and fall under those laws.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2019 by TheGreatBuzz

[TradeTheBeal!]

AR-15s and there variants are very effective hunting weapons...for hunting humans.  And they are used almost exclusively for this purpose.

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, TryTheBeal! said:

And they are used almost exclusively for this purpose.

How are you determining this?  I know plenty of people that use an AR-15 or similar rifle to hunt.  Mainly be cause it gives them what they want without buying a second gun.

14 hours ago, Larry said:

Don't recall seeing one on television. Pretty sure there's entire magazines dedicated to them.

Looks like I skipped this point but yes, that is true.