[Merged] Hillary Clinton wants gun firms liable

[Guest Br Cornelius]

The Hand that holds the Gun is the main cause of homicides. If the gun goes off by itself it's called an accident, not a homicide.

Homicids go up in lock step with gun possession. I don't much care why a person kills me if I am more likely to be killed simply because guns are common.

The point is that everyone is more likely to kill someone with a gun where gun are common and in many cases that person might have believed that they had a legitimate reason at the time they killed someone. The result is the same though - more dead people.

Br Cornelius

[Big Jim]

As I included in an earlier post, I live in an area where guns are common and used openly. Down the road, in the city, guns and their usage are much more restricted. Yet the homicide rate where I live is statistically zero and in the city there have been 55 murders this year and many more non-fatal shootings. The difference is not in the availability of guns but in different cultures. Where guns are owned by people who want to kill you will have killings and where they are owned by people who want peace you will have peace. Not all of the violence in the city involves guns. Some of the murderers have used knives. Some have used blunt instruments and some their bare hands. All of those are equally available to my neighbors and myself yet we don't use them to kill each other. I don't pretend to know how it is in Ireland and other countries but I think a big part of the problem here in the U.S. is that we are not allowed to directly discuss some of the social problems we have. We cannot single out the cultural differences that contribute to some of our problems without being ostracized as racists or phobics. So in order to seem like they care enough to do something our politicians go after the gun. I hear that in Switzerland all citizens are required to own guns but I never hear of the same rate of misusage of them as we have here. Are their guns different, or is it the people?

[Thorvir]

The Hand that holds the Gun is the main cause of homicides. If the gun goes off by itself it's called an accident, not a homicide.

I wonder if anyone tried this experiment:

Set up a camera to watch a weapon laying on a table. See how long it takes for the weapon to come to life, go out into the world, and kill someone. All on it 's own, of course. If the uninformed and ignorant keep wanting to blame firearms instead of people, then certainly someone has come up with evidence that they kill on their own, right?

[Big Jim]

I wonder if anyone tried this experiment:

Set up a camera to watch a weapon laying on a table. See how long it takes for the weapon to come to life, go out into the world, and kill someone. All on it 's own, of course. If the uninformed and ignorant keep wanting to blame firearms instead of people, then certainly someone has come up with evidence that they kill on their own, right?

[Thorvir]

I can't get that pic to open,

[RavenHawk]

There are no fully automatic's that are available to the public. You have to have some high clearance to buy one of those.

Technically, that is correct. But in many cases, any amateur gunsmith can convert a weapon to full auto (if the weapon had that capability originally designed into it). People can make their own guns so I guess Hilary will just have to go after the steel manufacturers.

[RavenHawk]

Well , If I can argue a case in the Courts regarding the loss of a loved one on account of a high powered weapon when survival is more than highly probable with a weapon of a lesser caliber ~

Who says that the public doesn't need high powered weapons? Survival is definitely on the line here. It's the reason for the 2nd Amendment in the first place. If the public is armed with the same weapons available to the military, then the government is incapable of taking that next step. That saves lives in the long run as a deterrent. It's the same reason why this nation should be spending more than the next 25 nations combined on defense. It rules out the arms race which is a dangerous thing to play with.

Not banning guns , not confiscating guns but making gun related deaths to some certain degree of liability on the part of those profiting from such deaths ~

So Louisville and Gerber should be sued for murders committed using their equipment?

[RavenHawk]

Not saying I agree with Hilary at all...but the car comparison is completely idiotic.

It is. Driving a car is a privilege and gun ownership is a guaranteed Right.

[Thorvir]

Technically, that is correct. But in many cases, any amateur gunsmith can convert a weapon to full auto (if the weapon had that capability originally designed into it).

And that would be illegal, with the owner of the gun and the gunsmith committing a crime.

If one wants an automatic weapon, go through all of the legal mumbo-jumbo and get one.

People can make their own guns so I guess Hilary will just have to go after the steel manufacturers.

And 3D printers.

[RavenHawk]

It's always been my opinion that lawsuits like that are a big drag on the economy. How many companies have had to raise prices, discontinue products or go out of business because somebody blamed a product or company for their own stupidity? I don't mean legitimate lawsuits against truly defective or dangerous products. But if you put a hot cup of coffee in your crotch and drive away, don't blame the coffee or the restaurant if you get burned. Same if you reach into a running lawnmower. It's not Toro's fault if you lose a hand. It's a cheap plea by Hillary to appeal to the emotions of low information voters. Where does it stop? Since there seems to be no limit to human stupidity then theoretically, at least, there would be no limits to lawsuits. This is in direct conflict with any other promises she may make about wanting to improve the economy.

There needs to be system wide tort reform, not just in the healthcare industry. In the pre-trial screening, it needs to be determined if it was human stupidity or a mechanical defect. If it's found that it was human stupidity then dismiss the case or at least drop the manufacturer from the proceedings.

[RavenHawk]

Homicids go up in lock step with gun possession.

And people get wet if they walk out into the rain.

I don't much care why a person kills me if I am more likely to be killed simply because guns are common.

Well, if you get rid of every gun, then you'll be killed with the next common item. As I keep saying, banning/restricting guns do nothing to control people's passions.

The point is that everyone is more likely to kill someone with a gun where gun are common and in many cases that person might have believed that they had a legitimate reason at the time they killed someone. The result is the same though - more dead people.

And again, if there are no guns, then people will use the next available common item to kill with. The result is the same – more dead people.

[Big Jim]

Technically, that is correct. But in many cases, any amateur gunsmith can convert a weapon to full auto (if the weapon had that capability originally designed into it). People can make their own guns so I guess Hilary will just have to go after the steel manufacturers.

Yet another example of how gun laws don't work. The law says don't and people still do. Imagine that.

[RavenHawk]

And that would be illegal, with the owner of the gun and the gunsmith committing a crime.

Absolutely! And if the intent is to commit a crime, laws mean nothing.

If one wants an automatic weapon, go through all of the legal mumbo-jumbo and get one.

Correct. But if and when needed, those converted illegally will be welcomed. If needed no one will reject it because it is an illegal weapon.

And 3D printers.

And that too…

[Thorvir]

But if and when needed, those converted illegally will be welcomed. If needed no one will reject it because it is an illegal weapon.

Well, I have no need whatsoever for an illegal weapon (illegal to own with out a permit, that is). However, I do see your point that there might come a time when it might be necessary to have a weapon like that (fanciful stuff like a zombie apoc, alien invasion, or a government take-over...) But I think by that time, if those things happen, lots of other laws will go defunct out of necessity as well. Maybe even the whole of society.

And @Big Jim....that pic you posted earlier won't open. What was it of?

Edited October 7, 2015 by Thorvir Hrothgaard

[ellapenella]

Homicids go up in lock step with gun possession. I don't much care why a person kills me if I am more likely to be killed simply because guns are common.

The point is that everyone is more likely to kill someone with a gun where gun are common and in many cases that person might have believed that they had a legitimate reason at the time they killed someone. The result is the same though - more dead people.

Br Cornelius

hmp, do you really care about people? or do liberties that we have bother you? what about abortion clinics that are common places of taking lives? do you just pick and choose what you think matters or not whereas lives matter? I'm so tired of the gun debate because most of you really don't care about all lives . It's more so about changing the U.S.A into something communist .

[Myles]

Homicids go up in lock step with gun possession. I don't much care why a person kills me if I am more likely to be killed simply because guns are common.

The point is that everyone is more likely to kill someone with a gun where gun are common and in many cases that person might have believed that they had a legitimate reason at the time they killed someone. The result is the same though - more dead people.

Br Cornelius

That is a little deceiving. While as a whole, you can say the USA has more deaths because guns are abundant, we need to dig deeper.

I live in a smaller community. City of 10,000 people. I'd say half of the households own guns. Guns are very abundant. I do not remember the last time there was a shooting.

20 miles north, in Fort Wayne, there are 20-25 gun related deaths a year.

[Big Jim]

Sorry about the picture not opening. I couldn't figure out how to add one. It's a picture of a letter to the editor, newspaper unknown.

It reads as follows:

Yesterday I placed my shotgun on the front porch, gave it six shells, and noticing it had no legs, placed it in a wheelchair to help it get around. While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, the boy across the street picked up my yard, a girl walked her dog down the street and quite a few cars stopped at the sign near my house. After 10 hours, I checked on the shotgun. It had not rolled outside and it had not killed anyone in spite of many opportunities that had been presented. Can you imagine how surprised I was with all the hype about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people? Either the killing is by people misusing guns or I'm in possession of the laziest gun in the world. So now I'm off to check my spoons, because I hear they make people fat

Donald K. Martin, Windsor Locks.

[Bama13]

It is. Driving a car is a privilege and gun ownership is a guaranteed Right.

Driving a car is not a privilege, it is a right. It is a privilege to drive on someone else's property, ie roads owned by the public. You can drive on your property without a license or tag. You can be drunk as a skunk and as long as you stay on your property the police can not arrest you for DUI. You don't have to wear seat belts, have head or tail lights, etc.

Not sure where the "driving is a privilege" thinking comes from.

[karmakazi]

Like I've said before... I'd love to have a woman president but I will NEVER vote for THAT woman. Ugh.

[+DieChecker]

And again, if there are no guns, then people will use the next available common item to kill with. The result is the same – more dead people.

You know what the liberal argument is, right? They believe that if someone has to use a bat or a knife, they'll only kill 50% to 75% of the people that might otherwise have been shot. So it is a net positive. They only want to get rid of the guns, not help the mentally ill person who is going to kill people anyways. That is not what they will say if confronted, but it is what their ACTIONS say they are doing.

[+DieChecker]

I wonder if anyone tried this experiment:

Set up a camera to watch a weapon laying on a table. See how long it takes for the weapon to come to life, go out into the world, and kill someone. All on it 's own, of course. If the uninformed and ignorant keep wanting to blame firearms instead of people, then certainly someone has come up with evidence that they kill on their own, right?

I've read several articles about people doing this. Putting a loaded pistol into a steel box and putting it on a high shelf for a year, and miraculously the pistol never went off, or killed anyone on its own.

[+DieChecker]

Homicids go up in lock step with gun possession.

Br Cornelius

Actually BC is correct that if you work the statistics correctly gun ownership does correlate to gun deaths. BUT, that is after "adjusting" the data to remove "Bias" based on race, ethnicity, religion, location, financial status... etc.... So, basically the only way he can make that true is by removing the social/cultural elements which make it NOT true.

[Thorvir]

Sorry about the picture not opening. I couldn't figure out how to add one. It's a picture of a letter to the editor, newspaper unknown.

It reads as follows:

Yesterday I placed my shotgun on the front porch, gave it six shells, and noticing it had no legs, placed it in a wheelchair to help it get around. While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, the boy across the street picked up my yard, a girl walked her dog down the street and quite a few cars stopped at the sign near my house. After 10 hours, I checked on the shotgun. It had not rolled outside and it had not killed anyone in spite of many opportunities that had been presented. Can you imagine how surprised I was with all the hype about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people? Either the killing is by people misusing guns or I'm in possession of the laziest gun in the world. So now I'm off to check my spoons, because I hear they make people fat

Donald K. Martin, Windsor Locks.

Thanks for the clarification!

[Guest Br Cornelius]

It's more so about changing the U.S.A into something communist .

Thats the sort of barking comment I expect

As for your other comment, you can be very selective about the lives that matter to you. i am sure you are against all forms of free healthcare and are quite happy to see people die for lack of affordable insurance. But of course we can shed a tear for a ball of cells in the womb. Do you really care about people, or just some people.

Br Cornelius

Edited October 8, 2015 by Br Cornelius

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Actually BC is correct that if you work the statistics correctly gun ownership does correlate to gun deaths. BUT, that is after "adjusting" the data to remove "Bias" based on race, ethnicity, religion, location, financial status... etc.... So, basically the only way he can make that true is by removing the social/cultural elements which make it NOT true.

Thats not remotely true. Compare a equal group of white middle class males in a gun control state and a none gun control state and you will find the correlation plain as night from day.

Br Cornelius