And the shootings go on and on , and on, and on...

Pepper said:
Truly Pathetic and Disgusting. Walk a mile in the shoes of a parent losing a (young) child, especially through unnatural means, like violence.
Click to expand...


And money is going to bring that child back ??? Punishing a third party is going to bring that child back ??? Either one eases the pain ???...BS!
 

Trade said:
I don't think it's the guns at all. I think it's our culture and our economic system that by it's very nature leaves millions of people left out and marginalized. A certain small percentage of these are going to crack under the stress and act out.
Click to expand...

And if we take your point one step further, if our society has so many deeply rooted issues, then maybe our society is not responsible enough to allow easy access to guns.
 
rgp said:
I'm comparing cars to cars , only . Cars kill people I never compared them to, or said they influenced gun deaths...

"Why are you arming them?"

Because the second amendment of the constitution says they have a right to have them.
Click to expand...
Did the Constitution say it's o.k. to arm crazy people because they have a right. Does the Constitution have an age limit?
The Second Amendment stated that the reason for arming is for the security of the state.
It says nothing about personal protection.
I know what you are saying and I know what you are intimating without saying it.
You are comparing car deaths to gun deaths and absolving the gun deaths with your comments.
 
Camper6 said:
No. Not only a defect in manufacturing. It depends on the case.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you are wrong -- car manufacturers have never been held liable in this country for legally making a vehicle, unless the crash or whatever was caused by bad engineering, a fault in the manufacture vehicle, etc. You can't sue Ford just because it made the vehicle that was being driven when some idiot crashed into a busload of nuns. Nobody would ever make cars if that were the case.
 
Impressed with your legal knowledge Butterfly. Most of my working life was in the field of law, so I know for sure you know your stuff.
 
Camper6 said:
Perhaps the manufacturer could have installed a safety feature and didn't?
Click to expand...

It isn't up to a manufacturer to install safety features that will apply to any and all scenarios you can think up. It is up to users to use products judiciously -- like locking up weapons when there are toddlers around. That's only common sense.

Blaming manufacturers of things for what is actually the negligence of the user is just a way to say nobody is ever responsible for their own personal negligence. -- like "if Ford hadn't manufactured that car it wouldn't have been there so I couldn't have gotten drunk and driven it into that busload of nuns." Or "if Remington hadn't manufactured that firearm it wouldn't have been there so I couldn't have left it laying around loaded where my kid could get it and shoot his brother."
 
Butterfly said:
It isn't up to a manufacturer to install safety features that will apply to any and all scenarios you can think up. It is up to users to use products judiciously -- like locking up weapons when there are toddlers around. That's only common sense.

Blaming manufacturers of things for what is actually the negligence of the user is just a way to say nobody is ever responsible for their own personal negligence. -- like "if Ford hadn't manufactured that car it wouldn't have been there so I couldn't have gotten drunk and driven it into that busload of nuns." Or "if Remington hadn't manufactured that firearm it wouldn't have been there so I couldn't have left it laying around loaded where my kid could get it and shoot his brother."
Click to expand...
That is not what this case is about.
 
Camper6 said:
Did the Constitution say it's o.k. to arm crazy people because they have a right. Does the Constitution have an age limit?
The Second Amendment stated that the reason for arming is for the security of the state.
It says nothing about personal protection.
I know what you are saying and I know what you are intimating without saying it.
You are comparing car deaths to gun deaths and absolving the gun deaths with your comments.
Click to expand...


Exactly, the constitution says the right to bear arms ...... what one does with one , or what intends to do with one is not noted.

If you know what am "saying" other than what I am typing ? Please inform me to what that is.
 
rgp said:
Exactly, the constitution says the right to bear arms ...... what one does with one , or what intends to do with one is not noted.

If you know what am "saying" other than what I am typing ? Please inform me to what that is.
Click to expand...
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Says right there arms are kept as they are necessary to the security of a free State, nothing more. We don't have militias, either.
 
Pepper said:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Says right there arms are kept as they are necessary to the security of a free State, nothing more. We don't have militias, either.
Click to expand...


Not sure I get your point ? That is just a flowered up way of saying what I did. And BTW I'm not sure all militias are disbanded ?
 
Pepper said:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

That pesky little comma is what gives the people the right to keep and bear arms. The well regulated militia is secondary. Let's not forget, the founding fathers had just thrown off an oppressive government and definitely wanted to make sure it never happened again. I just can't see what is so hard to understand. By the way, (not aimed at you Pepper) there are some other FACTS that kind of get in the way of all this hand wringing about gun deaths. Maybe some people should educate themselves before spewing distorted facts. Since most seem too lazy to look it up, I've done the leg work for you. Let's look at the most recent statistics. Long winded but well worth reading.


Consider Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) statistics from 2017, the most recent year of complete data. The total number of firearm-related deaths was 39,773. Roughly two-thirds of that figure, 23,854, were firearm-related suicides, with the remaining 15,919 being a combination of the approximately 500 accidental gun deaths that occur annually coupled with just over 15,000 firearm-related homicides.

If we break down the firearm-related homicides via FBI crime statistics, we see that handguns were far and away the common firearm for murder. The FBI reported 7,032 murders with a handgun verses 403 murders with a rifle, and 264 with a shotgun, in cases where the firearm was identifiable.

If we take the 403 rifle murders a year and divide by 365 it comes out to 1.1, which means 1.1 Americans die in a rifle-related murder each day. We must not overlook the fact that the 403 murders with a rifle are murders with rifles of all kinds, i.e., bolt action, lever action, breech action, pump, and semiautomatic. If we narrowed the category to only include AR-15s, AK-47s, or similar semiautomatics, the number of Americans killed daily would be even lower than 1.1.

Now, with the aid of charts released by the CDC, as well as CDC special reports, studies by schools such as Johns Hopkins University, crime statistics from the FBI, and coverage from Breitbart News, consider 10 other causes of death that literally eclipse the number of daily deaths involving a rifle:

1. Daily Heart Disease Deaths: 1,773
2. Daily Cancer Deaths: 1,641
3. Daily Medical Malpractice Deaths: 685
4. Daily Accident Deaths: 465
5. Daily Lower Respiratory Disease Deaths: 439
6. Daily Stroke Deaths: 401
7. Daily Alzheimer Deaths: 332
8. Daily Diabetes Deaths: 229
9. Daily Drug Deaths: 192
10. Flu: 152

For those who argue that rifle deaths ought to be compared to deaths by other voluntary activities, rather than disease, consider the following six examples:
1. Daily Drunk Driving Deaths: 29
2. Daily Deaths from Crossing the Street: 16
3. Daily Distracted Driving Deaths: 9
4. Daily Deaths by Knives and Other Sharp Instruments: 4
5. Daily Deaths from Bicycles: 2.7
6. Daily Deaths by Hammers and Other Blunt Objects: 1.27
Again, the daily number of deaths from all types of rifles combined is 1.1.
 
Some young shooters grew up in the 'you get a trophy for just showing up' society and then learned that real life does not work that way. Living an adult good life is not always as easy as they were lead to believe and they don't want to put in the work to make it happen.
 
Butterfly said:
Atomic weapons are not banned -- they are very closely regulated. Several countries have atomic weapons.
Click to expand...
Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki there have never been any atomic bombs used in warfare so banned or not the treaties are being honored.
The gun lobby is against any type of regulation because it infringes on the Second Amendment.
So the nation is stuck with the response from the people in power with prayers and condolences.
 
Taking time to read squatting dog's post 219 should help people to understand that death is individual and happens in different ways. Mass shootings shock people, but the reality is every death not the quantity should be the concern.

A lot has been posted about cars & gun manufacturers liability. Death by being run over, shot, stabbed, poisoned, or beat with something. All have the common denominator of using an object that is static. Once the decision is made by a person with ill will towards others, that inanimate object is somehow to blame? It's the person not the object.
 
Knight said:
Taking time to read squatting dog's post 219 should help people to understand that death is individual and happens in different ways. Mass shootings shock people, but the reality is every death not the quantity should be the concern.

A lot has been posted about cars & gun manufacturers liability. Death by being run over, shot, stabbed, poisoned, or beat with something. All have the common denominator of using an object that is static. Once the decision is made by a person with ill will towards others, that inanimate object is somehow to blame? It's the person not the object.
Click to expand...
Try telling that to the survivors. There's a difference between accidental deaths and deliberate killing.
The gun is the modus operandi. You simply cannot ignore it as part of the problem by calling it an inert object. That's NRA talk.
A child should be able to go to school without the danger of being shot.
You should read what happened at Sutherland Hills church shooting and then see if you will be so blaise about it.
 
rgp said:
Exactly, the constitution says the right to bear arms ...... what one does with one , or what intends to do with one is not noted.
Click to expand...

The purpose is noted. It's for the security of the state. That's what the right was granted for.

It was drafted before the United States had an armed force.

Now it's the National Guard and the armed forces. Times have changed.
 

Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top