Own a Assault Weapon? soon the Sheriff will be at your home

Someone certainly does. I never said everyone does. That would be a generalization. Nevertheless, it remains the case that what distinguishes a gun from an automatic ball thrower is the former was designed to kill, the latter was not.

Someone certainly does? show proof. you're just making up stuff, and you did do the generalization of jacking off for non-hunters .

the evidence is against it

the proof is in your posts of you contradicting your own statements. you just don't realize it.

Yet one designer can patent a single design, have two guns built exactly in accord with that design and yet one will be used to kill and the other solely for target shooting. Two guns built in accordance with one design. It is a bit sophomoric to keep insisting that guns are not designed for killing.
It is actually sophomoric to insist that guns are designed only for killing, if that was the case they wouldn't sell them to people. But they do, because they know most can handle them responsibly.

Well, I would scratch the phrase "in essence 'picking' what people use or deserve," ('cause the essence of picking what people use is actually picking what people use) but other than that you got it. All us have only our own experiences and beliefs to go on (as long as "experiences" is interpreted broadly; so as for example to include our conversation here).
you say people don't NEED full autos(i agree) and semi autos (disagree). That's your belief. Just because you and I think they don't NEED doesn't mean the shouldn't be able to buy them.

Later
Bye Trish :) ttyl

I said semi-automatics were designed to kill, not butcher targets and give erections. If you think this logically implies all target shooters get erections, then you need a lesson in logic as well as physiology. I used the "jerkoff metaphor" for target shooting with a semi-automtic (not as you say, for non-hunters). Sorry but target shooting with semi-automatics is not a sport. You do it for the kick, not the challenge. There is no challenge. Sorry, if I implied the kick is sexual. But if your posting about guns on a Tgirl web site, one has a right to wonder.

There is as yet no evidence that you understand logic of any kind, let alone what constitutes a contradiction.

Belief based on evidence is all anybody has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

I wrote a long sarcastic piece, but it got too personal so I deleted it.
The gist was that being the Policemen of the World, and maintaining prisons and mental facilities costs tons of money, and is costing the average American more than they're getting back, there are hidden taxes everywhere, and the 1950s family is shot to hell, girls have to work 50 hour weeks too, so they can have two hours of peace a day in front of the TV. Money = Freedom It's not the Mitt Romneys that are shooting people, it's the people that have been pushed to the limit. And that's getting to be more and more people.

---

Huh? What limit? By whom? You're not really trying to claim that these terrorists are actually the victims here, are you? Which of those assholes was economically challenged or stressed? Colorado theater guy? How about the macho epitome of bravery in Newtown? I guess it was the Sikhs who cleaned out that dude's bank account & pushed him over the edge to go shoot up their temple during service. Hmmmm... Nah. More likely is that he didn't like the price of gas that day, & was just too stupid to know the difference between Sikhs & Muslims. A rag head's a rag head, right? & that's real important because... Well... It's not the Romneys or their ilk who are pocketing that extra 5 cents at the pump while convincing this genius to be a terrorist...

There's no economic spin to be had here.

I said semi-automatics were designed to kill, not butcher targets and give erections. If you think this logically implies all target shooters get erections, then you need a lesson in logic as well as physiology. I used the "jerkoff metaphor" for target shooting with a semi-automtic (not as you say, for non-hunters). Sorry but target shooting with semi-automatics is not a sport. You do it for the kick, not the challenge. There is no challenge. Sorry, if I implied the kick is sexual. But if your posting about guns on a Tgirl web site, one has a right to wonder.



Again, for the semi autos, it may not be(or you do not consider it) a challenge or sport to you, but it is to others. Who are you to make the assumption that there is no challenge? Competitive shooters will tell you otherwise.

Posting on a tgirl forum's "politics and religion" section is why we avoid the sexual aspect of this subject. smh...

There is as yet no evidence that you understand logic of any kind, let alone what constitutes a contradiction.
There is no evidence that you yourself understand logic as you have failed to recognize previous examples of logical analgoies, your previous posts are proof of that. You have yet to recognize the contradictions (now it's multiple) in your own posts.

Belief based on evidence is all anybody has.
This is true to a logic based belief, but to the passion based belief, evidence is ignored or not sought after resulting in what others see as spectacular or ludicrous beliefs.

I don't mind being accused (as you did) of basing my position on my beliefs and experiences. You may ignore all the evidence you like in the name of your passion. I will continue to examine and analyze all of it. To now turn around and accuse me of doing otherwise would involve you in a contradiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

I don't mind being accused (as you did) of basing my position on my beliefs and experiences. You may ignore all the evidence you like in the name of your passion. I will continue to examine and analyze all of it. To now turn around and accuse me of doing otherwise would involve you in a contradiction.

---

What evidence? That in your opinion since guns were originally designed to kill that's all they STILL are? Yea, that's some really good evidence...

I personally have only stated fact that you choose to ignore because of YOUR passionate beliefs.

If anyone is talking through passion and not analyzing , it is you.

my my my, aren't we all in a passion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

Huh? What limit? By whom? You're not really trying to claim that these terrorists are actually the victims here, are you?

---

No no, hipster, my writing skills .....sigh...

I'm saying when gun laws are enforced, who do you think pays for it? YOU DO!! I'm talking real money. Goods and Services. Actual cash from your pocket.Do you really want to foot the bill to put a bunch of stupid crackers in jail?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

my my my, aren't we all in a passion?

---

Kind of, I heart <3 you :kiss:

That's OK then - all kiss and makeup. You get to keep your automatic weapons

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

No no, hipster, my writing skills .....sigh...

I'm saying when gun laws are enforced, who do you think pays for it? YOU DO!! I'm talking real money. Goods and Services. Actual cash from your pocket.Do you really want to foot the bill to put a bunch of stupid crackers in jail?

---

Sure. All the poor pot smokers who are needlessly in jail and need somebody to keep them company and who better than Larry The Cable Man and Bush 43?

http://i.imgur.com/myAh0qN.jpg

Found this and couldn't help myself.

Anyway.

Why the naming calling during a debate?

Any way if you were truly interested in preventable deaths... then my point would not be lost on you. The killings are scary with assault weapons (but making all assault weapons disappear tomorrow wouldn't have any significant impact on the killing). No one wants to admit that the cat is out of the bag, the horse has left the barn, we have falling down the slippery slope - guns are here and they are here in sufficient numbers to stay. It is much better to regulate than to attempt an all out ban. Didn't this country attempt this logic with prohibition (that great experiment failed as will the current 'war' on most drugs). There is a bigger issue few want to touch regarding this debate thanks to my my my! and others who realize that there is a bigger issue than taking someone's AR-15 away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brickcitybrother

http://i.imgur.com/myAh0qN.jpg

Found this and couldn't help myself.

Anyway.

Why the naming calling during a debate?

Any way if you were truly interested in preventable deaths... then my point would not be lost on you. The killings are scary with assault weapons (but making all assault weapons disappear tomorrow wouldn't have any significant impact on the killing). No one wants to admit that the cat is out of the bag, the horse has left the barn, we have falling down the slippery slope - guns are here and they are here in sufficient numbers to stay. It is much better to regulate than to attempt an all out ban. Didn't this country attempt this logic with prohibition (that great experiment failed as will the current 'war' on most drugs). There is a bigger issue few want to touch regarding this debate thanks to my my my! and others who realize that there is a bigger issue than taking someone's AR-15 away.

---

There may be bigger debates but you'd have a hard time telling an LAPD officer facing down a guy with a bullet proof vest and a AR-15 with pockets full of magazines that assault weapons aren't an issue.

Sure this isn't the only issue in our 21st Century civilization but it is a big one. And we can change it if we show any will at all or we can pretend that the unfettered policies of gun ownership in our country are not a problem, just like we pretended 50 years ago that segregation wash't an issue worth tackling and 30 years ago pretended the AIDS wasn't a issue worth talking about.

The American people need to say NO F'ING MORE. More guns make us lesser and fewer guns will make us a better people. There are lots of answers, if you simply held manufactures liable for the damage their weapons do, they would lead the charge to limit distribution.

But regardless of what the answers are, no one can tell me a country as great as I believe my country is can accept the mayhem that our current gun laws facilitate.

It is time to say no F'ing more, but sadly as every day passes and the corpses of the babies of Newtown get colder, the willingness to fight the forces has grown colder in fighting those that have allowed weapons of mass destruction to be purchased at gun shows as a casual exercise of the 2nd Amendment.

These arguments about old age, cancer, auto accidents and other terrible events being distractions from the carnage of our allowing gun manufactures to freely sell these weapons of death misses the point. Every other thing that causes death is worthy of a spirited fight BUT that does not change that gun culture in America is needy of change.

The saddest part of the fight to bear arms is almost everyone fighting that battle would instantly find new perspective if their mother, wife, father, husband or god forbid child was struck down needlessly by a weapon that had no other purpose than to kill a human.

75 days since Newtown 2321 gun deaths up by 37 yesterday.

... and counting ....

I can't for the life of me figure out who called you a name brickcity. I said your use of statistics was inept. Any time you use a statistic in order to say one thing and it says something quite different the usage is inept. I already pretty clearly rebutted the conclusion you attempted to generate from your statistics, which you've had no response to and so now you've resorted to posting pictures.

Perhaps great white sharks create more fear than the total number of deaths would justify. That does not mean that guns also do even if there are things that cause a greater number of deaths (another inept inference). There are ways to regulate guns other than by banning them. We agree on that. Because you did not read my first post you missed the part where I discussed products liability immunity for gun manufacturers. If manufacturers were not immune from suit even for irresponsible marketing (as the PLCAA has sometimes been interpreted), they would have an incentive to be more responsible. Would this prevent all gun deaths? No but based on the paradigm for other regulated industries, it should be tried. Why should a product with little utility be regulated less stringently than one with great utility?

I'd like to thank Trish and RobertLouis and fivekatz and all of the people in this thread who write sensible things about the need for improved regulation of guns. If you think I was name-calling (which I wasn't) you should be glad I didn't recommend an article on mastering the then/than distinction that seems to be giving you so much trouble. I figured if I did mention it you would write a long self-pitying post about how your arguments may not appear sophisticated but that they are informed by a sort of inborn common sense that goes beyond mere booksmarts. But just to clear this up, then and than are not the same word and cannot be used interchangeably.

Libertarian Worried U.N. Will Take His Guns & His Pizza:

Libertarian Worried U.N. Will Take His Guns & His Pizza - YouTube

In my Father's time there really weren't that many senseless killings, unless you count the 50 million civilians killed in WWII. While I admit this has nothing to do with THIS debate, ....these are the times we live in. John Lennon wrote "Imagine" and he was shot to death. The word is out. It's better to love than hate. Usually it's the people who have been kicked around, fairly or unfairly, sometimes by invisible inner demons, who are the problem. People were killing people long before the machine gun was invented. I'm cynical. So Kill me...
I'm sure there will be some changes to the law, only because of the insanity of Newtown. After Columbine my neice's school did away with her after-school Shakespeare club, because the nationwide schoolboard memo went around to break up all the geek cliques. Oh, What fools these mortals be.

76 days since Newtown and 2338 gun deaths up by 17 since yesterday.

Quote:

---

In my Father's time there really weren't that many senseless killings, unless ...

---

Probably true enough. But all through history there has been no lack of crazy, psycho, sociopathic killers. I would guess the density of cold, heartless, serial murders is no greater today, than at other times. They just have more effective means now at their disposal. It's the same reason each war is worse than the last. As the technology advances, so does the mayhem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Probably true enough. But all through history there has been no lack of crazy, psycho, sociopathic killers. I would guess the density of cold, heartless, serial murders is no greater today, than at other times. They just have more effective means now at their disposal. ......

---

....agree,plus our population more than doubled since 1945 , so I would infer that our crazy,psycho, sociopathic killers did too. The internet changes the game quite a bit also.

How come all the psycho-killers are male?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

How come all the psycho-killers are male?

---

Aileen Wornos?

broncofan

You truly believe that a change in product liability law will result in greater protections for all of us. Are you serious? You can't be because your premise is that assault weapons are inherently dangerous. Meaning it is not feasible to make a 'safer' assault weapon. Yes, I read your post regarding product liability law - but realized you had no true concept of the law and chose you ignore the comment. But since you think I missed it, I will address it. Making manufacturers civilly liable for flawed design (which product liability law addresses) will in no way result in changes to our safety. Unless of course you know of a better way to make a safer weapon (much less an assault weapon). Please educate me, no in fact, educate all of us, on the 'safer' gun design that you have. Once you read that the US Supreme Court decisions that have recognized that there does not exist a 'safer' gun design - then you realize that the products liability law is no answer (unless your a plaintiff's attorney who will file a class action that will result in pennies being paid to victims, while your own pockets are lined with millions in settlement money fees). This does not mention that resulting to civil law (and lawsuits) allows manufactures to assert as a defense the actions of the shooter 'as an intervening act' that they are not responsible nor liable for. Assault weapons are the boogie man - you're afraid of the boogie man.

Again - make every single gun transfer subject to background checks. Make the failure to do so result in 5 five year prison term. Its simple that straw buyers will no longer have an incentive in doing so. It will also prevent the 'oh I sold my gun to a friend' issue that often comes up.

It is simple.

It is also simple that once there is an attempt to ban any weapon - gun enthusiasts (or gun nuts as described by yourself and others or the NRA) will go ape-shit draping themselves in the 2nd Amendment. Idiotic as that maybe - it repeated happens. We will not succeed in having such a prohibition. Equally idiotic will be the other side clamoring for the complete ban on certain weapons. The debate will be bogged down and little will occur legislatively.

You do not intend to understand my position - which is your right. You clearly intend to continue your argument regarding assault weapons as the big bad boogie man - that only if we could be rid of them - we will live in everlasting harmony. But the reality is that less than 1% of people murdered were killed by an assault weapon. I am for the 99% who may be helped by a change in our collective treatment of gun ownership and transfer. While I do not suggest my ideas will stop all gun violence, I would much rather address 99% of the problem and thereby 99% of the victims than concern myself only with 1% (even if that 1% is of the most horrible acts our society suffers).

You don't like my comparisons - fine. You cannot attach my statistics, so you attack my analysis - fine as well. You attack me personally - equally acceptable. But I ask you ... do you really think I am wrong for trying to address the larger problem that affects 99% of the victims? Perhaps you do. Perhaps you'll come up with some other insult to hurl at me, my analysis, my logic - be that as it may. Well good luck on your attempt to ban weapons that are already in the public. Equal luck with your falling into argument that NRA loves (and tricks most of its membership into believing that a 'gun ban' may become a reality). Perhaps civil suits (which takes years to go to trial, if they are not settled before hand) is the way to effectuate change country-wide change. But I would argue otherwise and tell you to talk to the plaintiffs in the suits by American Indians, victims of environmental contamination (e.g. Love Canal), asbestos litigants and so on - if their lawsuits have won country-wide change [as opposed to lining the pockets of the attorneys on both sides].

Well I await your next insult.

P.S. Why are you so fascinated with my avatar name of brickcitybrother? Your continual suggestion that my name should endow me with some special attributes leaves me at a lost. Its a name. Its an avatar/screen name. Its not that serious. If you want to know its origin - simply ask. You need not assume. In a forum like this - there are not many secrets people are keeping. At least not here.



Again written in 8 or so minutes - excuse any spelling/grammatical errors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

Aileen Wornos?

---

There was also Dorothea Puente... who killed elderly residents of her boarding house, cashing their social security checks and forging letters to families to keep up appearances. This was during the 80s. I think she died in prison in last year or so.

Brickcity,
I didn't say anything about your screenname. I said I did not call you a name. What you say about products liability law is not exactly right. The requirement of a reasonable or feasible alternative design is not dispositive of design defect in most states. The Third Restatement's invention of the feasible alternative design standard has been rejected by most courts as a dispositive requirement but is used as a factor to consider in the risk utility consideration. When I say inherently dangerous I do not mean to say it is like the 3 foot deep swimming pools people were diving into. At least not with respect to all guns but rather certain types whose only utility is to maim innocents because as a defensive weapon, the effectiveness is slim.

What you say about criminal acts being a superceding cause or intervening act is an attack on causation. This is not something that is uniformly applied in the common law, but has required regulations and statutes to be passed to exempt manufacturers for the actions of criminals with their products. In fact, it is not a principle of cause in fact at all; that is it has nothing to do with whether there is an unbroken chain of causation such that one can say a product is the but for cause of the tort. It is a product of what is called proximate cause, which in tort law means that at some point even when cause in fact is established, courts do not want to hold people liable for the unforeseeable results of their actions. Proximate cause is an artifact of policy, so that liability can be limited to that which can be foreseen and manufacturers can properly insure their risks.

BTW a defense usually means an affirmative defense for which the defendant has the burden of proof once the prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiff. It does not usually refer to those arguments used to rebut the prima facie case such as the lack of proximate cause or cause in fact. And yes, products liability would change the way manufacturers make guns. Various cases were held in favor of plaintiffs and reversed on appeal. There were issues of conduct, which are not held in strict liability but based on negligent marketing. Further, if products liability would not have resulted in liability for manufacturers, why would there have been a need to pass a federal statute to pre-empt tort law which is typically within the province of the states to decide (all you state's rights advocates take heed)?

And if your argument then morphs into a claim that perhaps they'd have been held liable but they would not have responded by developing safer products, we could look at the behavior of other manufacturer's held liable for their products. A design defect finding basically makes a product susceptible to attack from any individual whose harm it caused. It is a referendum on an entire product line. It would not effectively ban all guns but would rather make the production of certain types of guns unprofitable once the external costs are internalized.

BTW, did you do some research on the legal issues? Not to be condescending but you got most of it right. My claim is the federal law meant that strict liability was not able to develop in this arena. The common law is not static as new circumstances challenge old paradigms. As I said the federal law would not have been passed if the legislature did not think the shield were necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brickcitybrother

broncofan



You don't like my comparisons - fine. You cannot attach my statistics, so you attack my analysis - fine as well. You attack me personally - equally acceptable. But I would argue otherwise and tell you to talk to the plaintiffs in the suits by American Indians, victims of environmental contamination (e.g. Love Canal), asbestos litigants and so on - if their lawsuits have won country-wide change [as opposed to lining the pockets of the attorneys on both sides].

Well I await your next insult.

.

---

There's no such thing as statistics without analysis. There's no point in posting numbers if they are not to render one argument or another more effective. The statistics have to say what you want them to say otherwise they are bare figures.

We are confusing two things. There are two major policy objectives in tort law. One is redress for the victims. Another is to deter wrongful conduct. You seem to be saying that wrongful conduct has not been deterred because victims have not been properly compensated. If there was a large payout, it would make it irrational for a manufacturer aware of the precedent to make products for which they will have to make similar payouts. I think you said in a previous post that plaintiff's attorneys get too big a cut, which would be relevant to the redress of victims but not necessarily to the deterrence function, since money would be paid out but would not necessarily go to the right party.

Products liability does not eliminate unsafe products but it does reduce their number. If there are not regulatory agencies in place ensuring product safety, at least manufacturers can be forced to internalize the costs imposed on others by their products.

Edit: just in case you miss it I respond to your legal arguments in the previous post.

77 days since Newtown and 2363 gun deaths up by 25 since yesterday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

There's no such thing as statistics without analysis. There's no point in posting numbers if they are not to render one argument or another more effective. The statistics have to say what you want them to say otherwise they are bare figures.

We are confusing two things. There are two major policy objectives in tort law. One is redress for the victims. Another is to deter wrongful conduct. You seem to be saying that wrongful conduct has not been deterred because victims have not been properly compensated. If there was a large payout, it would make it irrational for a manufacturer aware of the precedent to make products for which they will have to make similar payouts. I think you said in a previous post that plaintiff's attorneys get too big a cut, which would be relevant to the redress of victims but not necessarily to the deterrence function, since money would be paid out but would not necessarily go to the right party.

Products liability does not eliminate unsafe products but it does reduce their number. If there are not regulatory agencies in place ensuring product safety, at least manufacturers can be forced to internalize the costs imposed on others by their products.

Edit: just in case you miss it I respond to your legal arguments in the previous post.

---

.
.

Your legal training is fine -though it is clear you are not a personal injury attorney (plaintiff or defense). However, perhaps if you read the actual Restatement of Torts article you would under my point better. When plaintiff's tried products cases under the strict liability for Abnormally Dangerous Activities/Products they were initially successful with litigation against the gun known as the Saturday Night Special. However, state legislatures have gutted the claim when the courts did not. The Design Defect claims are also ineffective because both of federal legislation and all state jurisdictions requiring that a Design Defect claim allege adefect in the gun that caused it tomalfunction.

Plaintiffs' attorneys have tried to have courts interpreted design defects to include product designs that pose unreasonable risks only where the unreasonable risks result from a particular design feature that renders the design defective. However, courts have required that in order to recover under this approach, the plaintiff must identify a particular design feature that is defective and then prove that this design feature rendered the product unreasonably dangerous. The identification of a defective design feature, the 'defect', serves as a threshold requirement to considering if the design poses unreasonable risks. Unlike the first approach, this approach does not impose liability for product designs that pose unreasonable risks generic to the basic design of all products of that type. It limits liability to product designs that pose unreasonable risks that result from particular design features considered defective. This has not been successful either as the usual interpretation a the manufacturer subject to liability when its product includes a 'design feature' (e.g. defect) which caused the product to perform in a way not contemplated by a reasonable consumer, to operate less safely than a reasonable alternative design, or to malfunction and, as a result, rendered it unreasonably unsafe, is the manufacturer subject to liability.

Law Review articles have suggested that a simple 'risk-utility test' for design defect would be successful. But talk with the ATLA guys (who know now call themselves the American Association for Justice) about the millions they spent on that theory only to be beaten with a defense of assumption for the buyers (who made informed decisions to purchase such products) and then beaten again by the statistics that don't bear out the risk to third parties out weigh the product's utility (360 million guns and less than 36,000 deaths). Better yet, in the battle of the experts there was not response to the following analysis

Nearly a dozen (11 to be exact) nationwide surveys concerning
defensive gun use, conducted estimated that there are between
760,000 and 3.6 million defensive gun uses per year. During these
uses, only a 1,000 to 3,000 involved the killing of an assailant, with
only 8,000 to 16,000 sixteen thousand involving the wounding of an
assailant. An extremely conservative analysis demonstrates that more
than 97% of defensive gun uses involve showing or merely referring
to the gun. It seems a that for a criminal, given these numbers,
facing a victim with a gun is more likely than arrest and far more likely
than incarceration. And unlike the reactive nature of a police
response, defensive gun use preempts crime before it happens.

[Paraphrased from DON KATES, JR. & GARY KLECK, THE GREAT AMERICAN GUN DEBATE:ESSAYS ON FIREARMS AND VIOLENCE] I did not want to weigh this down with cites but I knew I had to provide some backup for this one.


The plaintiffs' attorney have also tried 'design defect' claims that allege a defect in the gun under the "reasonablealternative" design test. This too has been unsuccessful as technologies that incorporate safety features such as locking devices would serve to “personalize” guns, making them useless to non-authorizedusers haven't been successful technologically or practically. Old fashion gun locks are easily defeated - ask anyone who's has had his bike stolen with the same tech. New tech [imbedded fingerprint scanners or radio ring triggers] is no where near prime time.

The best case for a case against gun manufacturers came in the best state California, with the best case scenario: A mass shooting with an military assault weapon -the TEC 9. [Actually, it was a TEC DC9 which was worse than the original.] The best plaintiffs' attorney got together and sued Intratec, the American sub of Interdynamic AB, which was actually operating as Navegar. 8 years after the case was dismissed on summary judgment, (meaning no trial, no huge verdict, no headlines), the California Supreme Court threw the plaintiff's out of court on every theory (even their negligent marketing claim based on the manufacturer's violation of California statutory law regarding the marketing of handguns).

I saved that case and point for last, because it illustratesthe points I was making that you did not address. 8 years after the best plaintiffs' attorneys, in the most liberal state, with the most liberal laws, with some of the most strigent gun laws, with the most liberal judiciary in the nation, with amass murderer using a 'non hunting' 'killing machine' of a gun to kill innocents - still are tossed out of court before a jury is even selected.

Please, tell me where do you think you're going with the 'sue the manufacturers' to get this society safe from gunstheory! Oh I get it, you will personally argue to Justice Scalia (who by the way wrote the opinion that Washington, DC cannot have a restrictive ban on guns under the 2nd Amendment - District of Columbia v. Heller) to change his mind and/or that of Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Thomas (who always goes against Scalia) or maybe you can appeal to the intellect of Alito (who while on the 3rd Circuit wrote a dissenting opinion which would have let a man who illegally purchased and possessed fully automatic machines go free because he did not believe Congress had the authority under Commerce Clause to trump the 2nd Amendment to ban the sale of fully automatic weapons).

Of course this is really just intellectual masturbation right? I've indicated previously and you say you acknowledge that Congress pretty much closed every door to suing gun manufacturers. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, covers both and state and federal court civil liability for almost all negligence and products liability claims.

Enough of jerking off.




P.S. And yes you kept referring to my name in your posts attacking my opinions and now you back away from it - fine. Can we simply leave that you do not like being challenged and enjoy argument (like most attorneys who find joy in the argument as opposed to finding solutions). I have offered a viable step going forward (perhaps not a complete solution if there is one). I am only offering support to my opinion - not ridicule or derision (though I am not above a small amount of sarcasm).

With that said - I think I will leave this discussion hoping (and working) for a better tomorrow.





Click Here if you're really interested in what the Harvard Law Review had to say about the California case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brickcitybrother

.
.

Your legal training is fine -though it is clear you are not a personal injury attorney (plaintiff or defense). However, perhaps if you read the actual Restatement of Torts article you would under my point better. When plaintiff's tried products cases under the strict liability for Abnormally Dangerous Activities/Products they were initially successful with litigation against the gun known as the Saturday Night Special. However, state legislatures have gutted the claim when the courts did not. The Design Defect claims are also ineffective because both of federal legislation and all state jurisdictions requiring that a Design Defect claim allege adefect in the gun that caused it tomalfunction.



Of course this is really just intellectual masturbation right? I've indicated previously and you say you acknowledge that Congress pretty much closed every door to suing gun manufacturers. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, covers both and state and federal court civil liability for almost all negligence and products liability claims.

Enough of jerking off.




P.S. And yes you kept referring to my name in your posts attacking my opinions and now you back away from it - fine. Can we simply leave that you do not like being challenged and enjoy argument (like most attorneys who find joy in the argument as opposed to finding solutions). I have offered a viable step going forward (perhaps not a complete solution if there is one). I am only offering support to my opinion - not ridicule or derision (though I am not above a small amount of sarcasm).

With that said - I think I will leave this discussion hoping (and working) for a better tomorrow.



Click Here if you're really interested in what the Harvard Law Review had to say about the California case.

---

When did I refer to your name? I honestly don't remember. If I were backing away from it I wouldn't bring it up. Are you sure I didn't use your name for identification purposes?

The writers of the restatement as you say did require a product be "defective" in addition to unreasonably dangerous. They were concerned about products such as beer or guns being the subject of a suit just because they happen to be dangerous when used for their intended purpose. The PLCAA provides a similar protection and is a shield to liability. It must have been passed for a reason; the feeling being that eventually a Judge was going to be receptive to the right set of facts.

However, the writers of the restatement are restating the law as it was (if they do it correctly; many questions about third restatement). The law develops based on exigency and I think in the case of guns, the federal law was passed out of fear of what many Republicans call judicial activism. In fact the advent of strict liability was an act of judicial activism as not too long ago it was anathema to hold people liability for defective products when their conduct was non-negligent.

Also, the Navegar case I think is a bad example of the failure of products liability. There was a regulation in California that if I recall did something similar to the federal law. I am talking about the common law developing without the interference of state legislatures or Congress on behalf of gun manufacturers. Why should guns get special protection if as you say they should win these lawsuits based on tort law? I am not going to pull up Navegar, but I think you'll find that I'm right about there being a regulation and so it wasn't a matter of normal tort principles applying. It may be a liberal state, but these suits were not going to stop being filed and gun manufacturers like manufacturers of other products were going to have to defend themselves eventually. Even if successful most of the time, this imposes costs.

We cannot rely on private litigation to be the ONLY tool for regulation. But no reason it shouldn't be a tool for when people have immunity their incentives change.

Goes with last post.

I found this quote about the Navegar decision, "The Court held that the California statute precluded any claim for negligence or strict liability against a gun manufacturer involving the risks versus the benefits of a firearm." Section 1714.4 of the California Civil Code which was passed to bar application of common law principles to gun manufacturers.

More immunity. Yes, passed in a liberal state, but why should such a law be passed only as a shield for manufacturers of guns? You make just about any other product, you are subject to the common law.

Brickcitybrother,
since you said you're leaving the debate, I wanted to say that although I'm pretty sure you're wrong about me using your name excessively (I went back and looked) you made some very good arguments.

I did use a few unnecessary insults. You are certainly not braindead, which your last post clearly shows. In fact I agree with most of your policy prescriptions, even if I chose to focus on the statistics, which I don't think helped your argument as much as your subsequent posts. So, I'm sorry I insulted you.

If you have not studied the law, you did an excellent job assimilating a lot of legal information. My view is not really that lawsuits make everyone so much safer, but that in the absence of really good regulation from agencies whose expertise protects the public, there should be other avenues.

In fact, if An8150 is here he might be able to vouch for this position. I am in favor of stringent regulation, but you cannot have no regulation and no market accountability. It is a Libertarian argument (though I am not a Libertarian), that we give people choices to do what they want but when those choices impose costs on others we make them provide some form of compensation. In that way, if the other, more hands-on regulatory mechanisms are not available because they're deemed to provide too much of a threat to the public's liberties, then manufacturers know they have to exercise caution. Again, the changes are incremental, and the lawsuits have theoretical hurdles to overcome. I just don't believe we can continue without market regulation or agency regulation.

If I had to choose between the two, I would assume your recommendations (re registration etc) would be more effective. I don't think we have to choose and further, in the absence of what you recommend, let the deep pockets make profits but also try to act responsibly. The point is that even the potential of accountability provides a check on a company's ability to act with impunity and would rein in excesses; with immunity that cannot happen. As you say, there are already a number of theoretical challenges to successful suit as it is.