persons from suing the gun manufacturers regarding how the guns were used. (The same holds true for GM with cars, Louisville Slugger for baseball bats, etc.)

manufacturer for the murder of someone stabbed by one of their products. That is the absurd point that Clinton harped on and on yesterday during the debate.

process of allowing gun owner privileges. The biggest problem there is that there are no quick tests than can guarantee that the prospective gunner owner will never go nuts and start murdering people. The problem will never be totally solved.

I am for banning all guns.

I am against manufacturers being liable for how an individual uses their (currently) legal product.

eom

There is a reason why it is ranked number 2 on that little list of bill of rights. Look at Mexico. The people have no recourse against their government or the cartels that run them. Civil liberties are hard to come by. Many lives have perished for us to enjoy those liberties and freedom. It is just unfortunate that gun rights is tied together with right wing nuts. But there are plenty of gun advocates that are not right wing. You just don't hear about them because they are not polarizing or sensational.

There is nothing you can say to them.

I know many people who own multiple guns and are extremely responsible. I just don't believe that the correlation of gun deaths to gun laws is that simple. I think this is a grey issue-- not black and white. There are many factors that come into play but we don't ever seem to want to talk about it. Like gang violence, other criminal elements, economics, education, mental health and healthcare.

gun laws but have high murder rates. It's not the registered guns it's the illegal guns.

With or without gun laws.

...sorry. I think it was another post I had made on this thread about the criminal element.

to get one.

And criminality makes more sense in addressing gun related deaths. This incessant push on gun reformation is myopic to say the least. You're right. It makes certain people feel good. That's about it.

to the right of him on every other issue. She is making a mountain out of one tiny molehill because it's all she has. Nevermind the fact that, as the OP pointed out, it's a ridiculous stance.

she will get back to paying lip-service to gun owners the second it's time to start campaigning for the GE.

then your argument against common sense lawsuits would make sense.

However, lots of knives are designed to kill. I shouldn't have used "kitchen" knives as my example. I should have used daggers
and swords.

However a machete can be a very lethal weapon in the wrong hands.



Let's suppose some fool with a machete runs amok and kills several people. Should the company that manufactured the machete be sued?

Realize also that even if a firearm is primarily designed with killing in mind not all killing is bad. It is perfectly legal to kill in legitimate self defense when attacked by an individual who intends to put you in the hospital for an extended stay or six feet under (and has the ability and the means to do so).

Often a firearm is used for self defense and nobody ends up injured and no shots are even fired.

So you're right.

I know a number of people who hunt deer during the hunting season and feral hog year round. They simply can't afford to buy their meat at the grocery store.

Guns are designed to accurately launch projectiles at a given point.

The person who selects that aiming point is who decides whether a gun is going to kill.

Given the literally hundreds of millions of guns which DON'T kill anyone ever year, either they are designed hopelessly defectively (since they don't kill) or maybe the problem lies with the people who select bad targets.

Read an interesting statistic - that the NYPD thinks that almost all gun-related crime in the city is committed by less than 300 people... kind of makes you wonder why we don't aggressively target a known group of gun felons instead of broad-brush-painting legal owners who haven't, and probably never will, committed any crimes at all.

Given that almost all guns are very effective at launching a bullet pretty accurately at the target, it sounds like the problem is 'felon control' more than 'gun control.'

It's the most "November suicidal" thing she's pulled so far, of course. Shows her willingness to do anything to win...and her almost comically bad judgement. Gun Control is utterly toxic to Democratic candidates in a nationwide election.

Hillary's "do and say whatever it takes to win the primary, regardless of how dishonest or short-sighted it is" strategy seems to rely on enough voters actually buying the lurch to the right that will inevitably follow her nomination, and for liberal voters to decide they don't mind. She's banking on the electorate having the attention span of a gnat. Nice to know how highly she thinks of us, innit?

Sanders was quite right when he said, that if you want to be able to do this then what we are actually discussing is not control but outright banning of the manufacturing and sale of guns in the United States.

That will never happen.

I was glad to see him push back on that during last night's debate.

I am all for suing the person that committed a crime with a product but not the manufacturer, unless the product malfunctioned.

Such suits aren't filed for any reason other than an anti-democratic dodge around laws the plaintiffs can't garner enough votes to pass within the political system. I have no use for anyone who subverts democratic principles.

Wow what a money racket. Find a person who wants husband whacked. Kill them with a stolen gun, leave gun there so no questions who made gun. The widow sues and you split the settlement!!

I doubt it will go to trial. I suspect the Judge will dismiss it as too frivolous to go to trial.

...IF she is the Democratic nominee. Does she not yet realize that people record this shit?

I agree with you completely. Liability laws are generally about design flaws and physical defects in a product that result in injury. The products these firearm manufacturers produce work exactly as intended, with no flaws or defects. As for the kind of liability we see as in a bar/bartender being liable for giving a patron too many drinks, since gun manufactures sell to dealers who then sell to the public, that would be like suing Jack Daniels because some guy in a bar bought too many shots and killed a carload of people.

It doesn't make any sense no matter how you look at it.

I agree with Bernie about the "irresponsible" sale of guns and I do think sellers and manufacturers should be held liable for injecting gun sales into areas that are known for high frequency of misuse / crime.

because you will have legal high capacity weapons made before the ban, then a period when they were banned followed by a period where they were legal again(AWB expired) and then a period when they are banned again. It would be nearly impossible to figure out which are legal and which are not.

I have a magazine that says 'for law enforcement usr only', because it was made during the ban.

Since the ban expired, I can legally own that now, and through any future bans.

I haven't worked at a gun store since the ban expired so I'm not up on the details of how that worked. You also pointed out how the ban failed to stop the flow.

That's where my fully auto glock 17 9mm will stay with my 30 round clip. It's illegal in California. I have to go to Oregon to pick up my weapon.

Absurd.

Like if there is a manufacturing defect, those lawsuits are allowed.

... she is advocating for the right of people to sue gun manufacturers for not making their product as safe as possible. E.g., fingerprint recognition and other things that people might come up with. We hold other manufacturers responsible for making their products as safe as possible.

You've got it.

Nuance lost.

When these safe guns fail to work? It is call KISS for a reason. They do ship free gun locks with pistols.

Too much that goes wrong.

There might be other ways to do it, but nobody is clamoring for them. Not the cops, not the feds, and not the general public.

People that don't own guns and never will seem to be hot for them.

Also, bullets that are more likely to kill rather than merely wound (hollow point vs full metal jacket).

Guns that are needlessly unsafe - ie lack safety controls or have extended magazines...

or cans etc).

Knives and hammers also almost never accidentally kill. In the next 5 minutes if my neighbor is cleaning his gun and it's loaded I could be dead or paralyzed. His steak knife isn't going to come through my drywall and hurt me.

And besides knives and hammers having other uses, it's also impossible to enforce any kind of effective ban at least around the house, if not in public (besides the fact of knives and hammers being useful for other things).

screwdriver? knife. Pair of scissors? knife. any sharpened piece of metal or glass or rock or hard wood/plastic? knife. Big rock? hammer/club. Heavy stick or piece of metal? Hammer.

So you can make your own hammer or knife quite easily. In fact they do it in prisons.

other industrialized countries. The US has a murder rate because instead of fists we end up with guns. In other countries, one person punches the other out, they usually survive relatively intact.

that we do.

Clearly there are other factors at play in Canada than guns per capita. Are Canadians less suicide-prone? Less criminally-inclined?

I'm genuinely curious as to why Canada's rate of gun-related death is proportionally lower than their rate of guns per capita, in comparison the the US. Canada is a different culture...but probably closer to our own than any other. It's a better country to compare the US to in most areas of inquiry than any I can think of, even the UK. It might actually be possible, with such similar cultures, to sufficiently factor out confounding differences between the countries and get a good look at why they have fewer gun deaths than we do...and see what we might consider changing.

Canadians seem to be better at owning guns w/o killing themselves and others with them than we are...and I think finding out why would be very, very useful

None of my firearms have ever killed anything, and I hope with all my heart they never do. Most of what I shoot is long-range rifle stuff (I'm a pretty serious competitir), but I don't hunt, am not a police or military sniper, and never will be, and these aren't suitable self-defense weapons (I have handguns for that...more on those below). What sort of killing, precisely, do you believe I'm practicing for?

As for the handguns, yes, I practice shooting human beings with them. I'm not going to use some silly euphemism: shooting predatory humans in self defense is what I have those handguns for (one for home, plus a smaller one for licensed concealed carry). I am not...most emphaticaly not...practicing "killing." I'm practicing stopping an attacker. That's not a semantic game, either. There's a difference.

That difference lies partly in intent. I have no desire to kill anyone, even someone trying to kill me. I want to stop their attack, to negate the threat...and to cause no more harm in doing so than necessary. If non-lethal weapons improve to the point of being as effective in all (or at least most) plausible scenarios of self defense, I'll gladly adopt them. That's not the case, though.

Moreover, anyone I shoot in self defense has a very good chance of not being killed. Modern trauma medicine is amazing stuff, and only one in five persons deliberately shot (excluding, for obvious reasons, suicide) dies. He'll be badly hurt...and unless he suffers permanent disability, I can't say I care. Trying to prey on another human being should hurt.

tl;dr: none of my target practice is "practice killing."

being except in self defense.

I realize most people who are shot survive. But it's still about trying to stop them by killing or maiming. Some may suffer non-permanent disability, but a lot will.

Yet you could... much more easily than me kill a person unlawfully on purpose or by accident. Your guns make the world less safe for me. So why should I risk hurt because of you?

Okay, I'll just drop the practice killing stuff, since you apparently don't want to actually defend your claim...no worries. It's not like either of us is likely to relent...this is the internet, after all. So let's address that last point:

Whether you're more likely to kill an attacker or maim him or cause a temporary injury is really irrelevant. Guns have a very high probability of killing or maiming, compared to clubs and fists. They may even be higher than determined knife attacks.

Yes I'm sure about your rifles causing risk to others. Of course, it's very small, but it could happen and it serves no benefit to me, yet you put my life in the ever so slightest danger by having them. Your dismissive "fuck it if they hurt someone else, the chance is small" is very much a callous attitude.

Also, I wasn't just referring to YOUR guns, I was referring to the fact that YOU want guns and many gun owners refuse to even compromise. The fact that the country is awash in guns is what is driving up my risk of being shot and it's indirectly by gun owners that is driving up my risk.

And yes the chances are low, but there are a few people accidentally shot every year. It likely won't happen to me, but it will happen to someone. Do you have a callous attitude if they end up dead or paralyzed?

Yes I am a big, strong woman. Almost a foot taller than you and an avid weightlifter. So the hell what? Convince me why that means I should just accept a slightly higher risk of death because of all the guns in this country.

And even for you, if the country was disarmed, you would be safer. Yeah there would be the potential for you getting killed by someone beating you to death, but for every one of those scenarios there would be another 5 of you getting shot to death eliminated. I made the numbers up, but it's absolutely true. Guns make the country less safe and if you deny that, you're flat out wrong. Now you can have the argument that it's worth it, and if you do, I'll disagree but respect it.

As for traffic accidents, the people involved in those mostly chose to participate. I don't mean it's their fault if a drunk driver slams into them and kills them, but they can refuse to accept the risk and not drive. I can't refuse to accept the risk that gun owners present to me.

And of course I'm well aware that most are good people not looking to kill innocents. But the one idiot and the one crazy person in the bunch ruin the whole thing.

Manufacturers are not liable for illegal use of their products. Be they knives or guns.

Attempting a back-door ban via SLAPP lawsuits is not going to work. We have to get pro-gun-control voters to the polls as much as NRA supporters. And we're utterly failing to do that.

greater good.

Which would heavily imply you believe law exists in this country.

Again, SLAPP lawsuits can not bring about your goal. The cases can not be won. The losses bring large legal expenses on victims. And there's no practical way to reach foreign manufacturers - Putin isn't gonna shut down Kalashnikov for us.

We have to bring about gun control by getting people to bother voting for it. Instead, the NRA fans are the only ones reliably voting. That failure can not be addressed by losing lawsuits.

at least via this SLAPP lawsuit plan.

Again, we have to build a coalition that will reliably vote for gun control. We have failed to do that. If you want to talk about practical, that is where the practical work needs to be done.

we will either get 1% of what we want or nothing. Haven't we learned this with all of Obama's surrenders to the GOP?

a variety of ways. One is as a threat or deterrence. Killing is another means as well.

Cars accidentally kill all the time. Car Accidents... it's kind of a thing.

They will not go through walls and hit bystanders.

She doesn't want to regulate gun ownership directly, but she hopes that if victims of gun crimes are allowed to sue, it will force the manufacturers to make guns that are safer.

She doesn't want to ban fracking, but she thinks that tightening up environment controls and forcing frackers to reveal the secret cocktail of ingredients they use would mean a lot less of it.

I don't know if she sincerely believes these policies could work or if she sees them as a way of setting up loopholes for corporations to exploit. But either way, there's a strange indirection in her thinking. You don't attack a problem head on but you try to make life more difficult for those who are creating it. And that strikes me as a very odd approach to governance.

Can anyone explain why she might be thinking that way?

A true progressive would be advocating for repealing the 2A instead of mocking this change in manufacturers liability issue.

hammered at the polls.

That sounds like a certain politician we all know!

the elite of the elite.