I guess if we are calling people who don't want unfettered access "banners", I'll use "willy-nillys" to differentiate the groups.

The willy-nillys fought with all of it's might background checks and waiting periods. They still fight the closing of the 'gun show loophole'. The FBI doesn't complete background checks on hundreds of thousands of requests within the 3 day period (noted, not all result in purchase), meaning that legally, the sale can be completed. (Although the few gun shops I have patronized made it clear that they wait for the background all clear.)

Waiting period / background checks have been shown to put a dent in ineligible individuals purchasing firearms legally. Something like 35% rejection due to felonies or DVI's. Make every purchase everywhere subject to the same standards.

Also, I fully support charging individuals who have their unsecured / unattended firearms stolen / accessed and subsequently used in a felony. And, no, in the center console of your unlocked vehicle is NOT secured.

Willy nillys, who's with me?

"Banners" was used while discussing bans on mostly cosmetic features and design elements. So quite literally.... banning.

I am somewhat surprised at how much of this thread has been spent with people getting upset at or refusing to use the dictionary. This is not usually such a problem in these debates elsewhere.

Good effort but you will not get thoughtful responses.

They are thoughtful responses you just don't like them because they do not agree with you.

I HAVE had a gun stolen out of my locked house. Why by any stretch of the imagination should I be held responseable for a gun that some POS stole from me?

I was working at Whiteman AFB and living off base. I had a week off so took a short vacation. When I got home one of my guns was missing. I instantly called the PoPo to report it. They did show up but acted like it was no big deal and didn't even want to do a report.

Weirdly the thieves stole by far the cheapest gun of the 4 in the room a Ruger 9mm. I did get it back almost a year later because it ended up being 2 people that broke into my house. One of them got arrested on a different charge and turned in his friend for stealing my gun to get his current charges reduced.

Well you see, you should be charged with a crime because holding the actual criminal responsible does little to serve the political agenda, while if you are held responsible they can score some points. We're right back to a few hundred posts ago, just criminalizing the other side, regardless of how many other principles, laws and rights must be trampled or ceded in order to do so.


Let's see if anyone will agree with this new legal principle when it is applied to anything beyond guns, that if the victim of a crime does not do enough to stop the crime, they are legally culpable and should be charged (I am unclear if the argument is that they should be charged with a new crime of negligence or that they should be charged with the acts of the actual perpetrator).

1) A homeowner has a hammer stolen from their garage. The hammer is unsecured, the garage door unlocked but closed. The burglar later uses the hammer in a homicide. Should the homeowner be charged with a crime and imprisoned?

2) A young woman walks down a dark alley in a seedy side of town late at night in a very short skirt. Is she to be charged alongside her rapist?

3) A man wearing nice clothes that signal he has some wealth is out in a high-crime neighborhood. He is robbed, and offers no real resistance to the robber. Is he to be charged alongside the robber?

The answer, of course, is no. Charging the victim of the crime is, of course, a complete bastardization of the purpose of law. It violates every liberal principle. History shows us that principles are easily ignored when one sees a chance to criminalize people they don't like.

I can't wait to see what the next loony proposal is to criminalize groups of people someone doesn't like.

Thoughtful responses do not have to agree with me by any stretch. A serious response addressing points is what is thoughtful. Yours qualifies in my view. I think the idea is if you have weapons, don’t secure them, and a child in your home gains access to it and goes on a shooting spree then you face consequences. Not if someone breaks into a safe.

Ben, in 10 pages there have been many attempts to label any group other than the willy nillys as "banners". When several (apparently) WNINO posted a suggestion that 'made sense and they could live with', REAL willy nillys threw down the "what part of shall nots" and "criminals don't follow laws' tripe.

OK. So let's grant that any firearm located in a home (couch, microwave, cereal box, safe) is considered secure and not subject to possible prosecution. Let's say LOCKED vehicles are secure.

Can we agree that storing in an unlocked vehicle is not? And if it is stolen that it just might be considered negligent? Who knows, maybe if it is found on some kids shooting cans in a field, a fine approximately like parking at an expired meter. If it's used to shoot a convenience store clerk, I'd have to insist on a minimum of a running a red-light ticket.

Edit: post not directed at Ben personally. :)

Because of the location I live and the way it works here. I can only say no matter the location of the gun the thief is responsable period. As an example it is hot as BLEEP here today. I can guarantee I can go to the parking lot of easily 5 different stores and there will be a vehicle with the windows open and a gun out in the open.

In all seriousness if the window is open or the car is locked with the windows up. The difference between the time it would take to steal the gun is at the most 5 seconds. To me it is plain and simple, you only punish the thief.

Now a gun laying out in the open around small kids is a whole different thing.

The one thing I hope we can all agree on is our dfferences on this subject stay in this section. As an example I think every post a fellow member made in the Covid thread is beyond moronic. Saying that I personaly think he is a great guy and would never hold that one small thing against him in the overall scheme of life. I truly wish you all a great day if we agree or not.:)

Only here can a victim become the perpetrator and be held liable ...
I sure hope my axes, chainsaws, kitchen knives are never stolen and used in any kind of assault.... wait does that make it an assault kitchen knife..

If you have a gun which can legitimately kill many people rather quickly, take reasonable steps to prevent it from be used by someone else to do bad things. A knife does not carry the same risk. It’s a cavalier post like that that makes me scared about what’s going on with these guns. Be responsible owners. Seems like it should be a basic requirement but it has not been.

Differing opinions or ignorance of a subject matter may be frustrating sometimes, but is just discussion or debate. For me, it rarely affects a relationship. I don't speak to one acquaintance anymore due to Qanon, JFK Jr, Jewish space laser stuff. :rolleyes: That is not just a difference of opinion.

But I will not tolerate racists, anti-Semites, or 'true' homophobes. That is not just a difference of opinion. :mad:
Just a bigot, I still have hope. ;)

right i dated a girl who said she understand what mainstream historians say what happened in the holocaust and she asked what does the 'other' side say...i said there is no other side...

As for being responsible for no matter what for having a gun stolen under 'strict liability' you rarely would see that...i do support making people purchase insurance in order to own certain guns or to be able to carry them on your person as opposed to in your home ..

To illustrate the absurdity, and the extreme lenghts some anti-gun people will go, there is a movement now for victims of shootings to sue gunmakers.

A company makes a legal product which is not defective and works as intended, but they are sued because a criminal uses it to hurt someone.

This kind of thing is why I'm generally suspicious of people who point first at the gun, rather than the criminal, when assigning blame.

But it is OK for Congress to pass a law prohibiting gun manufacturers from being sued? I know that issue was at the tippy-top of Americans' list of priorities. No faith in the legal system?

It’s ironic the same people that have a gun taken from them don’t want repercussion but guessing they want a female victim of rape to bear the burden of that crime. Sigh. Feels like we’re regressing.

I think a product, that is legal, must be defective in order to bring suit against it. If I get hit by a guy with a baseball bat, I think it would likewise be absurd for me to sue Hillerich & Bradsby.

When people propose 10,000% taxes on ammunition, or try to sue gun manufacturers out of business, it's just an end run around the 2nd Amendment.

Then they should have written the law to protect all manufacturers of any product, no?

And if you and 17 others were killed at 30 yds by a Louisville slugger, I would file an amicus curiae on your behalf. I think a hammer would be more of a threat though. More aerodynamic.

This never happened. They did not pass a law prohibiting gun manufacturers from being sued.

A law was passed in 2005 to ease the burden of frivolous lawsuits,banning sueing gun manufacturers and dealers for a lawful sale or manufacture of an arm that a criminal later used in a crime (which were mostly losing in court already). Just like how you won't have success suing Dewalt because a family member was killed with a hammer. A gun company or dealer can be sued for pretty much everything else, like any other company, and they are.

There was one guy in here arguing using actual facts earlier, but most of the rest of the arguments from the other side have just used claims that are simply factually wrong, misunderstood existing regulations, and made claims about guns that are mechanically false.

Same thing was said about cigarettes. I tend to agree though - if the law allows it, a manufacturer shouldn’t be sued for producing what is legal at the time. A seller that doesn’t follow the rules though, they should be held accountable.

"To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued
against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms
or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the
misuse of their products by others."

Sounds pretty prohibity to me? Any other codified restrictions for any other industry, offhand? Who decides frivolous? People who also cite the "McD's coffee lawsuit?

They also throw "trade associations" into the mix. Wonder who wrote the text?

The portion you pointed too is exactly what I said. It bars them from being sued because somebody else misused their product, a very narrow and specific type of frivolous lawsuit. Read the bill. Read what you quoted. It is not a general prohibition against sueing them, they can be sued and are sued. They are legally liable for all of their actions like anyone else and any other company. They just aren’t legally liable for the actions of other people. Just as a lawsuit against a knife manufacturer because a person stabbed someone will not succeed.

The reason the bill was for gun manufacturers specifically is because these frivolous lawsuits started to be used as a political bludgeon, to tie up manufacturers in expensive lawsuits to try and pull an end run around the 2nd. The left doesn’t seem to care about suing manufacturers of other objects used in murders, because it doesn’t further a political goal. There appears to be no political will from them to address homicides not committed with a gun.

As I have saud before, there are plenty of legitimate arguments against the 2nd and for regulation. It continues to baffle me why none of them are used, and instead claims that are simply factually false are made instead. Almost every claim to fact used to support an opinion being made by banners and regulators in this thread is simply and provably false, misstating existing regulations, being mechanically wrong, and refusing to learn what the terms they throw around actually even mean. Manufacturers and dealers are liable for all of their actions, and few industries have to go through as much monitoring as they do. Research what happens to FFL’s who break the rules. There is not a prohibition on suing them; you just have to sue them for their own actions and not the actions of people they are not affiliated with.

Can you provide a summation of this study?

I've seen videos of car chases, where the criminal jacks someone else's car and does property damage/physical harm to others. Should the owner of the car that was stolen be charged?

We should have common sense laws restricting Assault Paper that causes paper cuts.

Pretty sure Big Pharma is protected by this exact thing, including most recently their COVID "vaccines".

So no, very little faith in the legal system.

I'd be interested to read what you think are the legitimate arguments against the 2nd and for regulation.

Thanks

I posted some of them earlier in this thread. You’re welcome.

Agreed. It’s simply look at the second. Well I can look at the first and understand there have been many, many legitimate restrictions placed on speech and religion that do not run afoul. When it comes to the second, any legitimate restrictions are met with such odd protest. No one is trying to ban guns. Just trying to balance good and bad and save lives at the end of the day.

Yes, some people are. 10,000% tax on ammunition, suing gun manufacturers as being responsible for murderers using their products to commit crime... these are not reasonable things and are clearly designed to drive gun manufacturers and retailers out of business.

There ARE people trying to ban guns and they are coming at it from several different angles, including, someday, tearing down the 2nd Amendment.

And who will be the big winners? Gang members and other assorted murderers, who will have an entire society of defenseless sheep to slaughter with little concern for their own safety. And, like cocaine, heroin, and other illegal things, they will have another product (guns) they can sell at huge markups, since they'll have a monopoly on that business.

cgjackson222 proposed banning semi-auto and anything capable of holding more than 5 rounds, as I recall, constituting most all post-civil war technology.

The troll whose views flipped around once he saw an opening for his personal vendetta proposed a de facto ban on every gun of any kind with a 10,000x tax on any ammunition.

Several others have proposed bans too but aren’t in the current rendition of the debate.

Words have actual meanings. Anyone with a dictionary knows this.

This is what I’m talking about when I point out the lack of sensible argument from the other side. Don’t try and have it both ways and straight up lie about terms, existing bills, and mechanics. Pretending that a ban isn’t a ban is just idiotic. Make a logically valid argument (I.e., a good one - one that is not self contradictory, and consistent with the dictionary and verifiable facts). It is not difficult to do so. I’m an idiot, the rest of you can surely make an argument that passes elementary Aristotelian logic.

An argument should always be valid, whether one agrees with it or not. This simple hurdle still isn’t being cleared. Logic is 2,500 years old and has not changed much, one doesn’t need to be a scholar to get the basics and form a coherent, rational thought. Insisting that words do not mean what they mean, that mechanical items perform in a way they factually do not, and being dead wrong about existing laws do not form a logical argument.

This is really not hard. It’s difficult to fathom how a logical argument still hasn’t been made.

I understand that fear but I don’t think it’s warranted. Most sensible people on the left do not want to leave you defenseless a d let that be the outcome. They’re truly just trying to work on a better solution to these mass shooting, and admittedly not focusing as much as they should on single killings. At any rate, work with them, don’t assume they are villains.

When you oppose law abiding, trained, concerned personnel to be armed in schools as a precaution, you are, in fact, leaving those kids defenseless. Your own posts show my fear is warranted.

Identifying school shooters before they go off is nearly impossible. That is utopia, not reality. Reality is, when a murderer goes off, he needs to be stopped with lethal force as quickly as possible.

Okay, I'll just read all 400 of your posts....

When you get done could you please update all of us?:rolleyes:;):D

I think I've acted as curator here enough; that your side has several times needed me to find the posts for them to try and attack is a little weird. You could read 777 to start.

I post too much. Got me there. Man, I've been burned real good.

They might not mind if you completely agreed with them.

We seem to have a lot of those threads. PWCC, PSA, eBay trying to protect buyers, the list could go on and on. They do make for fun reading though.

Haha

Not sure why you've pointed me to post #777. I don't see any legitimate arguments against the 2nd and for regulation in that one. Just you droning on again, lecturing us about logic.

I oppose the current system that lets a kid buy a gun legally and then use it a day or two later to blow up a bunch of school kids and teachers. You seem to be ok with this and not realize the good guy with a gun theory is bs. It’s weird.

I'll probably regret this, but if it is nearly impossible to identify school shooters, what exactly makes you think you would be successful identifying law abiding, trained, concerned personnel?

It's a good place to start, since you apparently need help in making a logical argument. I'm sure your side can do it. I'm sure you could read the previous post specifically naming several of the routes to go to use a consistent and logical argument, if you still can't figure out how a logical argument works to make one yourself.

With all of my droning on, I'm sure you can find something to legitimately attack very quickly.

Nice non-response. You have advocated leaving kids in schools defenseless.

How do you know who is going to go on a killing spree before it happens? If we locked up people who wrote about butchering other people, killing family members with guns, knives, or chainsaws, Stephen King would've been incarcerated these past 50 years.

It is pretty easy to identify a security guard or a police officer with a cursory background check, as most employers do. Are we going to claim we cannot identify people without a criminal record and a valid security guard permit? This is a simple thing. I don't really think a security guard will do much, but it is very easy to identify qualified individuals for the job.

Not every post is an "attack" on you. Was hoping we could potentially find some common ground if you actually feel there are some legitimate ways to further regulate guns. Alas, it was wishful thinking.

I have repeatedly said, in posts in the earlier part of the debate you were in, I do not support gun control and I support the 2nd Amendment. That is completely different from a good argument, i.e. a logically valid one. There are plenty of valid arguments I disagree with, most debates have valid arguments on both sides. Alas, it was wishful thinking to think one might finally be presented here.

Better be careful though, at this rate you'll have a significant number of posts soon and merit some scorn.

You think everyone is "scorning" and "attaching" you. I was simply pointing out that it was a big ask to have someone sift through all of your posts to find one of your points. But if you want to get your nose bent out of shape every 5 seconds, that's up to you.

Your last few posts are complaining that I post too much and insulting me. Which is fine, but yes, attack is the correct word for it.

Congrats, you’ve found a typographical error to hit me with. Double burn.

If you want to engage intellectually, you should understand that reading peoples' well thought out and informative posts is a prerequisite.

It seems you want to argue but are too lazy to read what is posted.

Yeah, too lazy to read almost 800 posts. Shame on me.

Let me just quit my job and put my 5 year-old up for adoption, then I'll read your posts.

You have time to post inane comments like this, but not to actually read what is being discussed. As a result, you are contributing very little to the discussion. Just an observation.

"I want to engage on the issue seriously, but I won't read the thread or the posts by the people I am claiming I want to engage intellectually with. Logic is a drone. I don't have time to read."

What a clown show lol.

Believe me, I've tried. Rather than go on personal diatribes, I usually cite links to arguments. Here is one that goes through a lot of the arguments that pro-gun rights folks have: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-t...b0666ad0c3cb34

I don't expect you to read it, but by your standard, I guess you have to.