• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing gun violence/injury thread

elkman92 said:
Are you just daft? Feel free to look up how the National Association of Manufacturers felt about the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act, and why they supported it. That is fact...
Click to expand...

Wrong that is politics. I've posted multiple sources that show gun manufacturers have more protection from liability than any other manufacturers in this country.

the facts never get in the way of your being brainwashed by them.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
Two problems:

1) Way too many guns around
2) McMansions that all look the same
Click to expand...

Seriously. Surprised it doesn't happen more often. I don't fault the homeowner but i imagine he feels terrible this morning.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
elkman92 said:
Raven Knob, yes? Troop 955 from Wake Forest Baptist Church...
Click to expand...

918 cub scouts then 919 for boy scouts. just across from the pfafftown community center. i free-scaled the knob when i was ~14.
 
Last edited:
Six myths about the PLCAA

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/03/six-myths-about-the-law-that-bans-gun-lawsuits.php

* No, the law doesn’t deprive Newtown parents of otherwise solid legal claims.

* No, the law doesn’t abridge traditional common law rules.

* No, the law doesn’t prohibit lawsuits that Congress expected to go forward.

* No, lawsuits aren’t a good way to distinguish “good” from “bad” dealers or gunmakers.

* No, it wasn’t just an “NRA law”.

* No, it’s not improper to focus legal defenses when one sector of society comes under focused legal attack.
 
Bronson Pinchot said:
Elkman, do you agree with this, or are you of the mind that politics can't help, only more guns, or better gun education could be in the solution?
Click to expand...

Good question. Political capital is being spent on discussing policies that Clinton's own DOJ said were negligible in preventing gun violence, and that held true when the AWB expired in 2004. DiFi's anti-gun bill, which again will not see a vote, listed the AR15 as a banned rifle, but excluded Ruger's Mini-14. There is no difference in either firearm except appearance. That is a waste of politicians time when they should be looking at other problems.

There is a difference in extrapolating and interpolating data, but given the rise in firearm ownership over the past several years, and the steady decline in violent crime as reported by the FBI, more guns certainly do not mean more crime. However, I doubt that means much to the residents of the 3% of counties in the US that experience 70% of the firearm homicides.
 
RJKarl said:
You 100% wrong about this, but you will never admit regardless of how many independent sources I show you. I've shown three so far.

What you are alleging is ludicrous. If it was the way you state it, there would have been no reason for the law or the NRA and gun manufacturers spending millions of dollars to ensure the law's passage.
Click to expand...

SO then you disagree with the National Association of Manufacturer's stance on the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act, and that all manufacturers should be held responsible for criminal misuse of a legal product by a third party?
 
RJKarl said:
Wrong that is politics. I've posted multiple sources that show gun manufacturers have more protection from liability than any other manufacturers in this country.

the facts never get in the way of your being brainwashed by them.
Click to expand...


Actually, I think that was an editorial...
 
dmcheatw said:
918 cub scouts then 919 for boy scouts. just across from the pfafftown community center. i free-scaled the knob when i was ~14.
Click to expand...

Well done. I fired my first cartridge rifle there as part of Rifle and Shotgun Shooting merit badge, and received Hunter's Safety Course training at the same time. I lost my card several years ago, but NC Fish and Game still had it on file, and was able to send me a copy over twenty years later...
 
elkman92 said:
Good question. Political capital is being spent on discussing policies that Clinton's own DOJ said were negligible in preventing gun violence, and that held true when the AWB expired in 2004. DiFi's anti-gun bill, which again will not see a vote, listed the AR15 as a banned rifle, but excluded Ruger's Mini-14. There is no difference in either firearm except appearance. That is a waste of politicians time when they should be looking at other problems.

There is a difference in extrapolating and interpolating data, but given the rise in firearm ownership over the past several years, and the steady decline in violent crime as reported by the FBI, more guns certainly do not mean more crime. However, I doubt that means much to the residents of the 3% of counties in the US that experience 70% of the firearm homicides.
Click to expand...

Your focus on this whole "they don't know guns as well as I do. They're so stupid." really makes you look petty.

What are the "other problems" they should be looking at to try to reduce gun violence? I do agree that it's a multi-faceted problem, but you seem to be saying that since they made a mistake with their listing of the guns, that they shouldn't try to ban any weapons AT ALL.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
Your focus on this whole "they don't know guns as well as I do. They're so stupid." really makes you look petty.

What are the "other problems" they should be looking at to try to reduce gun violence? I do agree that it's a multi-faceted problem, but you seem to be saying that since they made a mistake with their listing of the guns, that they shouldn't try to ban any weapons AT ALL.
Click to expand...

Withdrawing from the single convention on narcotics and ending the drug war.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
Your focus on this whole "they don't know guns as well as I do. They're so stupid." really makes you look petty.

What are the "other problems" they should be looking at to try to reduce gun violence? I do agree that it's a multi-faceted problem, but you seem to be saying that since they made a mistake with their listing of the guns, that they shouldn't try to ban any weapons AT ALL.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure "they" know guns just as well as I do, DiFi has a staff for that. I think she, and those on her side, are counting on the fact that most of the public do not. Deception is part of plan, as noted by Josh Sugarman of the Violence Policy Center...

"The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

It also seems that while the "universal background check" legislation that is being floated around for all gun sales, and the fact that very few people are ever investigated or indicted for lying on form 4473 once they are flagged, what makes you think any new laws as far as background checks will be vigorously investigated and enforced? If the goal really was safety in that a background check should be done on every sale, there would be a desk at every gun show with some clerk contracted by the FBI to handle the person to person sales, and there should be a phone number for me to ring to do a NICS check on a potential buyer if I am the seller. If safety was really the goal, make a background check cheap and easy for anyone to do. Unfortunately, we have never heard of that...
 
No. 1 thing that would decrease handgun violence among young males, especially urban blacks: end the drug war.
No. 2, elkman's suggestion for background checks is good. First, they should be required, second, they should be cheap and easy to maximize compliance, and third, there should be significant consequences for noncompliance.
No. 3, help the states get mental health data into the background check database.
No. 4, mandatory gun insurance which would increase the prevalence of safe storage and decrease the overall prevalence of guns in society.

Nos 2 and 3 are the only ones on the list that are probably politically feasible right now. But Elkman is absolutely correct that AWB is a big waste of political capital, time, and energy. It never had a chance of passing, it put 10,000 more military style rifles on the street due to fear buying, and it wasted the post-Newtown momentum that could have gone toward something like No. 4.
 
Deacon923 said:
No. 1 thing that would decrease handgun violence among young males, especially urban blacks: end the drug war.
No. 2, elkman's suggestion for background checks is good. First, they should be required, second, they should be cheap and easy to maximize compliance, and third, there should be significant consequences for noncompliance.
No. 3, help the states get mental health data into the background check database.
No. 4, mandatory gun insurance which would increase the prevalence of safe storage and decrease the overall prevalence of guns in society.


Nos 2 and 3 are the only ones on the list that are probably politically feasible right now. But Elkman is absolutely correct that AWB is a big waste of political capital, time, and energy. It never had a chance of passing, it put 10,000 more military style rifles on the street due to fear buying, and it wasted the post-Newtown momentum that could have gone toward something like No. 4.
Click to expand...


Number 4 would be a problem. Heller and McDonald struck down storage that would render a firearm useless, and requiring insurance on a right that is enumerated might be a bit of a stretch.....
 
elkman92 said:
Number 4 would be a problem. Heller and McDonald struck down storage that would render a firearm useless, and requiring insurance on a right that is enumerated might be a bit of a stretch.....
Click to expand...

You might be right. I don't pretend to be able to predict how SCOTUS would come down on such an issue. At the very least I don't think it's unconstitutional on its face. My thought is that we have the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to do so at the lowest possible cost. If states can charge sales tax on guns and ammo, and the government can require background checks (which impose some form of cost that is passed on to the gun owner), why can't the government require the payment of insurance? I think it should be constitutional to require gun owners to internalize some of the external costs the exercise of their right imposes on society. Falls into the same realm of reasonable restrictions on rights like restrictions on libelous or provocative speech - the enumerated right can be restricted so that its exercise does not infringe on the rights of others. But I'm just brainstorming, I don't claim to be an expert on second amendment law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top