Gun Control starts at home

[Tom]

How come weapon sellers and manufactures have no liability and almost every other product sold has? (hint, NR?)
 Bill, did you have to deal with liability when you made and sold paddles? Know anyone who died because of a paddle?

[pdxmike]

How come weapon sellers and manufactures have no liability and almost every other product sold has? (hint, NR?)
 Bill, did you have to deal with liability when you made and sold paddles? Know anyone who died because of a paddle?

I'd guess if a gun blows up in your face and injures you when you're using it, or goes off on its own, or has any other defect like that, there's just as much liability as with any seller or manufacturer of anything else. 

But if you're thinking that a manufacturer should be liable for someone's death if they are shot, that makes no sense.  That's the purpose of guns, and it's a legitimate purpose. 

For sellers, if there are laws requiring paperwork or any other steps, and the seller ignores that and sells a gun to someone who goes out and kills someone with it, I'd say there's certainly legitimate liability for that. 

In regard to the paddles, an accurate analogy would be someone who uses a Ke Nalu paddle to paddle away from the bank he just robbed.  I'm sure it's illegal to flee from a robbery, but the paddle manufacturer has no liability for the robbery or the fleeing, even though the robber used the paddle to flee, and used it exactly the way it was made to be used (to paddle). 

[PDLSFR]

I have to be honest and say that some of the posts on this thread are absolutely so ridiculous and far off the mark it's embarrassing to read.

Liability ?? the owner of a product has liability if they where to kill or injure someone with it due do negligence or a willful act (be it a gun, knife, hammer, paddle, flying SUP off their car, etc..) ... seriously if your gonna talk about the  holding the maker of a product liable for how someone in possession of the product uses it, there would be NO products produced by anyone or the cost would be so high you couldn't afford it.

I could go on and on with this one... so Crayola should be held liable if I jam a crayon in your eye and kill you with it?... they can be sharp... lol

I think people need to be responsible with any product they own and be held accountable for their own actions .... end of story... oh wait so should the company that made the pressure cooker that was used as a bomb in yesterday's Marathon here in Boston be held liable for all the injuries and dead victims Come on zoners seriously now !!!!

[Admin]

Some traffic stats:



I agree with a lot of what others have added to this.  Enforcement played a role.  New, common sense regulations played a role, etc.

[waterman60]

Here's a thought, how about enforcing the laws already passed.  Hold people accountable their actions.   No one has addressed the black market or unregistered guns, guns that come in by the black market.  Lots of  arguments to go around on this topic.  It should start with personal responsibility for one own actions.           Dis-arming a law abiding citizens is gona be a hard sell, even the liberal dems voted against todays bill because of that fact.  Then there is the lawyer issue.
That differnet topic !

 

[skibike]

seriously if your gonna talk about the  holding the maker of a product liable for how someone in possession of the product uses it, there would be NO products produced by anyone or the cost would be so high you couldn't afford it.

This does happen. Infants cold medicine is an example.

"Cough and cold products for children under two years old were voluntarily removed from the market because of on-going safety concerns discussed by the FDA in 2007.  These safety concerns revealed that there were many reports of harm, and even death, to children who used these products.  These reports of harm occurred when the child received too much medication such as in cases as accidental ingestion, unintentional overdose, or after a medication dosing error. "

[JeanG]

I think that we can drop it already.

The Senate today shot down an assault weapon ban, only 40 votes in favor and 60 opposed/abstained in the Democrat controlled body.

In contrast, a bill to expand gun rights got 57 votes in favor today.

[Shark]

         Dis-arming a law abiding citizens is gona be a hard sell, even the liberal dems voted against todays bill because of that fact. 
 

Making background checks mandatory is NOT disarming law abiding citizens and the only dems who voted to block the bill were conservative/moderates from gun-happy states, not liberals.  The mental contortions that gun advocates go through to justify their positions never ceases to amaze me.

[JeanG]

27% of Democrat senators voted against the assault weapon ban.

[hbsteve]

PDLSFR--If you are going to stab me in the eye, use a Sharpie.  A Crayola would just be too embarrassing to explain.  It would still hurt, that's for sure.

[PonoBill]

I agree with a lot of what others have added to this.  Enforcement played a role.  New, common sense regulations played a role, etc.

I think the biggest factor in the change in drunk driving statistics is MADD. A very successful organization, very effective. They didn't take a one-dimensional approach to the issue, they worked to change the underlying causes. If all they did was get more laws passed to regulate something that was already illegal, they would have accomplished nothing.

If people want to do something similar with gun violence they certainly could. But looking to politicians to solve the issue is pointless. Gun Control is a valuable political tool for attracting constituency without committing to something significant--it's a flag burning issue. If the administration wanted to control guns better they could instruct BATF and other agencies to do so. Budget limitations? They could mobilize volunteers to police gun shows and dealers. But no, that would anger the federal employee unions. The issue is too important for such pettiness you say? You must be kidding, or at least must not have been watching the cleanup efforts post Sandy or the Gulf Oil Spill.

It could be done, now, today. But it won't be. It's political Jai Alai, making a big show of doing something while nothing changes.

[Shark]

27% of Democrat senators voted against the assault weapon ban.

Today's vote had nothing to do with assault weapons, it was about background checks.  The senators who voted against it were Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

[lucabrasi]

But on the other hand that tight grip you try to maintain to keep them safe, also serves to keep you grounded and alive.  I would have self destructed years ago if I didn't have kids.

Yep. Funny how they change so much about yourself and how different you see things. Walk out of the hospital, that first time especially, with that little thing all wrapped in a blanket....."ohhhh, wow, really, no instructions, now what?"....what a rush.

My, an article about some kid who is obviously and knowingly disturbed and who would have waited with a knife or hatchet or stick or whatever to inflict and direct his anger starts another thread on gun control? Are you kidding me? Of course the parents weren't responsible enough. Of course that gun should have not been there or at the very least locked away but good. Our media, what is considered news, and how it is reported, sensationalized, and all that happy horse shit is beyond control. How could that article that kicked off this thread be considered news? What was the purpose of that sad and disturbing story to be published in the first place beyond their local newspaper?

Of course gun control starts at home, as does responsible driving.......and all else. Worthy and even unworthy outcomes are born from that. Of course all of that won't necessarily make someone not drive drunk or keep from mental illness or make everything rosey but...........apples don't fall far from the tree so to say.
I think reduced drunk driving is about tougher laws that are enforced and education. The last few generations know...."that's no good and you will go to jail." Not like the old days...."walk home and don't let me see you again tonite in this car" kind of thing that often happened. It wasn't taken as seriously until about 30-35 years ago. I didn't study the stats but it probably follows that somewhat.

I saw a headline a week or two ago...."NRA punishes senators". Are you serious? That was supposed to make some outrage at the NRA? I just don't think they have as much influence as some want everyone to think. The......."hardcore/stereotypical" NRA member.....is going to vote Republican if Hillary switches parties for 2016 and is "their" candidate. The....."stereotypical/hardcore" liberal is going to vote for...., I don't know.....Sarah Palin in 2016 if she is "their" candidate. The little blemish on the senators record isn't going to cost as many votes as the media wants one to believe because those people aren't going to research that kind of stuff and the candidates know how their constituants will vote. Romney knew what he was talking about. They are a powerful lobby, no doubt about it, and I think needed to retain our second ammendment but lots of smoke and mirrors and ...... well, that's what politics are, smoke and mirrors.

Legit gun shows are not the big outlet for all these guns on the black market. They just aren't. Most shows and auctions are responsible. Our wonderful country is full of thugs and crazies and people filled with apathy and resentment at whatever you can think of. It is also full of responsible people trying their best. We have tradition, heritage, and common sense and that should prevail. I didn't follow what passed or didn't pass, all or nothing or whatever. Not that some of it wasn't reasonable but I don't think it really would have changed much as it doesn't deal with what really needs dealt with. 

You make more laws restricting gun ownership.....the bad guys aren't going to have any less guns. You make more laws about drunk driving......the drunks are still going to drive drunk. We are still going to do what we want to do (hopefully)......just some are more responsible, thoughtful, smart, stupid, thoughtless, hateful, or whatever than others.

[JeanG]

27% of Democrat senators voted against the assault weapon ban.

Today's vote had nothing to do with assault weapons, it was about background checks.  The senators who voted against it were Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

Actually, several gun control measures were voted on today.

And yes, 27% of Democrat senators did in fact vote against the Assault Weapon Ban today.

AND, an NRA backed bill, which would have massively increased the number of concealed carry permits around the country, fell just three votes short. Bloomberg derided the proposal as likely to "Turn Time Square into the OK Corral." Yes, this proposal got more votes than did the "compromise gun control bill" to expand background checks.

All in the Senate, which the Democrats control.

[TEX_SUP]

Some traffic stats:

This table means very little.  You have left out population numbers, miles driven, total number of accidents, etc. 

If anything this table proves that airbags, crumple zones, anti lock brakes, etc save lives.  You could even use the numbers to show that a crappy economy saves lives as fatalities are lower during recessions.