|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,747
I've got more guns than you. 6000+ posts
|
|
I've got more guns than you. 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,747 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
What's wrong with Pariah's point, insofar as it points out that many objects can be dangerous in the wrong hands?
absolutely anything can be lethal in the right hands. You see a plastic bottle, I see something that can be melted into a spearhead. You see a nailgun, I see a semi-automatic pistol. You see a fluorescent lightbulb, I see a world of possibilities. Granted, I don't always think like this, but, if one were creative enough, they could commit murder with almost anything.
"Ah good. Now I'm on the internet clearly saying I like tranny cleavage. This shouldn't get me harassed at all." -- Lothar of the Hill People
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
......Which is the point....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
Quote:
PCG342 said:
Interesting point, penwing. Let's say I go fucking insane. I drive over several people in a Hummer. I don't just hit 'em, but run them all over -repeatedly.- Now, I've had said vehicle for three years now. I decide, after my vehicular killing spree, that I want to blow up said vehicle in a crowded public place. By MagicJay's reasoning, the car dealer, as well as the manufacturer, would be liable.
Yup. If I understand that legal mumbojumbo definition that Jay posted, then all of the above is correct. 
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,747
I've got more guns than you. 6000+ posts
|
|
I've got more guns than you. 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,747 |
"Ah good. Now I'm on the internet clearly saying I like tranny cleavage. This shouldn't get me harassed at all." -- Lothar of the Hill People
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
PenWing said:
Quote:
magicjay said:
Quote:
PenWing said:
Um...how is the manufacturer negligent? Seriously, take me through this, step by step. Talking about guns here, nothing else.
Negligence Claims :
In a negligence claim a plaintiff must show that a manufacturer, seller, wholesaler or other party involved in the distributive chain or group had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the process of manufacturing or selling a product and failed to fulfill that duty, resulting in injury to the plaintiff. Negligence consists of doing something that a person of ordinary prudence would not do under the same or similar circumstances or failing to do something that a person of ordinary prudence would do under the same or similar circumstances. This can take the form of negligence in drawing up or reviewing plans for a product, negligence in maintaining the machines that make the component parts of the product, negligence in failure to anticipate probable uses of the product, negligence in failure to inspect or test the product adequately, negligence in issuing no warnings or instructions or inadequate warnings or instructions, negligence in releasing the product into the stream of commerce, or any other aspect of the manufacturing or distribution process where due care is not used.
I am not going to read that. I am not a lawyer, and I don't want to be handed text book definitions from some law book. I want it spelled out in simple English.
Please, explain to me, in your own words, how the manufacturer is negligent? This definition, if I understand it correctly, means I can sue Ford Motor Company if someone injures my person by running me over while I'm walking on the sidewalk. I see slippery slope, and I know that's not what the law wants here.
So you're telling me that a concise and accurate answer to your question is insufficient. So, let's see if I can simplify it for you. A person of normal intelligence and wisdom should be able to forsee the consequinces of their actions. Gun violence is a forseeable consequence of manufacturing and selling firearms. That renders the maker and sellar negligent.
Besides the immeadiate victims of gun violence, third parties are also injured. My argument is for the taxpayers of the states which bare the cost through Medicaid of the consequences of gun violence. I don't argue to ban gun sales. Merely to hold financially responsible the negligent parties, makers and sellars, for past damage to taxpayers, who are third party victims. Further, that in the future makers and sellars of a hazardous product indemnify the taxpayers against future loss. That is they have a duty to provide insuance against loss to future victims. In my narrow argument only third party victims the taxpayers would gain relief.
For your Hummer analogy, the driver has a responsibilty to carry liability insurance as a requirement of licensure, at least in California. Another requirement is a sound mind. The states' granting of the driver a licence relieves automakers from liability to the states. The automakers are actually an excellant case in point. Why do you think we have all the safety features on cars today that have greatly reduced mortality and injury of passengers?
The arms makers can sell bazookas to geeky middle school boys in puberty if they want. They simply must pay for the consequinces to society of such commerce.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
PenWing said:
Quote:
PCG342 said:
Interesting point, penwing. Let's say I go fucking insane. I drive over several people in a Hummer. I don't just hit 'em, but run them all over -repeatedly.- Now, I've had said vehicle for three years now. I decide, after my vehicular killing spree, that I want to blow up said vehicle in a crowded public place. By MagicJay's reasoning, the car dealer, as well as the manufacturer, would be liable.
Yup. If I understand that legal mumbojumbo definition that Jay posted, then all of the above is correct.
Another victim of the ad hoc ergo propter hoc fallicy.
I hear antibiotics help
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
The gun manufacturer makes guns. Guns are weapons. They are made to kill. Some are made for hunting animals. Most are made for killing people. There is no negligence here. They know what they are making them for. The gun does just that. That is it's purpose. Guns are made to kill.
You're saying the manufacturers are negligent because the gun falls in the wrong hands and is used to kill illegally. You're also saying the dealers are negligent for selling a gun to the wrong person.
There is a thing called a gun license. It is issued by the state. A person cannot purchase a firearm without this license. Well, that's not true, a person can purchase some guns, and that's the problem. Still, there is a government system (highly flawed, but it's there) that gives people deemed confident a license to own firearms.
Now, based on this, the same argument that you used to remove negligence from the automakers and retailers can be used to remove negligence from the gun manufactures and retailers.
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
PenWing makes an interesting argument. Using jay's logic, the state that is trying to sue the manufacturer is also liable. The state issues licenses to people who either (a) use the guns to kill people; or (b) allow their guns to be lost or stolen and then used to kill people. If the manufacturer is negligent then state is also. And if the state is also liable why shouldn't they have to pick up the tab for gun violence?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
Which in turn leads to the people suing actually footing part of the bill.
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
 "Precisely, old chum!"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
PenWing makes an interesting argument. Using jay's logic, the state that is trying to sue the manufacturer is also liable. The state issues licenses to people who either (a) use the guns to kill people; or (b) allow their guns to be lost or stolen and then used to kill people. If the manufacturer is negligent then state is also. And if the state is also liable why shouldn't they have to pick up the tab for gun violence?
good point G-geezer! I would say the state is actually more liable from that argument.
And in the event that they issued a licence to someone where they had evidence to suggest they were not fit to have one then I would say they would actually be properly liable. But I would imagine that is pretty unlikely. I hate the compensation culture. Passing the buck bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
PenWing makes an interesting argument. Using jay's logic, the state that is trying to sue the manufacturer is also liable. The state issues licenses to people who either (a) use the guns to kill people; or (b) allow their guns to be lost or stolen and then used to kill people. If the manufacturer is negligent then state is also. And if the state is also liable why shouldn't they have to pick up the tab for gun violence?
Shame on you! I guess we won't have to worry about the G-man getting a Supreme Court appointment anytime soon. How much of illegal gun violence is committed by licensed gun owners? Not very if what the NRA tells us is true. The gun trade is certainly entitled to file a counter suit and see what the courts decide.
No one is seeking to take your guns away. My position is really about economics. Gun violence is a negative external cost of the commerce in firearms. I seek to place that cost back in the market where it belongs. The result would be that firearms would be more expensive, including their true cost. Guns would bear a price reflective of their risks with the insurance industry enforcing standards by way of the market.
I'll wager Robert Bork would sign on to that logic. It represents a free market solution to a societal problem. Privatisation if you will. Consumers of gun products, not taxpayers, will bear the cost of gun violence.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Steve T said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
PenWing makes an interesting argument. Using jay's logic, the state that is trying to sue the manufacturer is also liable. The state issues licenses to people who either (a) use the guns to kill people; or (b) allow their guns to be lost or stolen and then used to kill people. If the manufacturer is negligent then state is also. And if the state is also liable why shouldn't they have to pick up the tab for gun violence?
good point G-geezer! I would say the state is actually more liable from that argument.
And in the event that they issued a licence to someone where they had evidence to suggest they were not fit to have one then I would say they would actually be properly liable. But I would imagine that is pretty unlikely. I hate the compensation culture. Passing the buck bullshit.
Why are you so anxious to pay for the costs of gun violence? The commercial interests reep the rewards, shall they not carry the costs?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
How much of illegal gun violence is committed by licensed gun owners? Not very if what the NRA tells us is true. The gun trade is certainly entitled to file a counter suit and see what the courts decide.
Then, to use your own analogy, the responsibility of car accidents should be placed back onto the auto industry for unlicensed or uninsured drivers.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet." Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
PenWing said:
The gun manufacturer makes guns. Guns are weapons. They are made to kill. Some are made for hunting animals. Most are made for killing people. There is no negligence here. They know what they are making them for. The gun does just that. That is it's purpose. Guns are made to kill.
I don't think the arms industry would make that argument. That's admitting they are negligent.
Quote:
You're saying the manufacturers are negligent because the gun falls in the wrong hands and is used to kill illegally. You're also saying the dealers are negligent for selling a gun to the wrong person.
I never said any such thing. I said that a reasonable person can see the consequences of their participation in the commerce of firearms. But then you already conceded that they're negligent in the previous paragraph, so what difference does it make? Even the G-man will concede that negligence is a valid cause for action.
Quote:
There is a thing called a gun license. It is issued by the state. A person cannot purchase a firearm without this license. Well, that's not true, a person can purchase some guns, and that's the problem. Still, there is a government system (highly flawed, but it's there) that gives people deemed confident a license to own firearms.
See previous post.
Now, based on this, the same argument that you used to remove negligence from the automakers and retailers can be used to remove negligence from the gun manufactures and retailers.
Sorry, but my argument is that a prudent person could forsee the consequences of their action. GM cannot be expected to forsee that PenWing is a crazy asshole that drives Hummers over pedestrians. 
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
Quote:
thedoctor said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
How much of illegal gun violence is committed by licensed gun owners? Not very if what the NRA tells us is true. The gun trade is certainly entitled to file a counter suit and see what the courts decide.
Then, to use your own analogy, the responsibility of car accidents should be placed back onto the auto industry for unlicensed or uninsured drivers.
I did just that, Doc, and Jay sidestepped my whole point.
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,747
I've got more guns than you. 6000+ posts
|
|
I've got more guns than you. 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,747 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Quote:
PenWing said:
The gun manufacturer makes guns. Guns are weapons. They are made to kill. Some are made for hunting animals. Most are made for killing people. There is no negligence here. They know what they are making them for. The gun does just that. That is it's purpose. Guns are made to kill.
I don't think the arms industry would make that argument. That's admitting they are negligent.
Wait! how the fuck does that make them negligent? If they're manufacturing these objects to kill, and that's what they're doing, then the manufacturer is doing his job. If they've designed guns for some purpose other than killing, (I'd love to know what it is) and they're being used for murder, and the manufacturers are doing nothing about it, they're being negligent.
Quote:
You're saying the manufacturers are negligent because the gun falls in the wrong hands and is used to kill illegally. You're also saying the dealers are negligent for selling a gun to the wrong person.
Quote:
I never said any such thing. I said that a reasonable person can see the consequences of their participation in the commerce of firearms. But then you already conceded that they're negligent in the previous paragraph, so what difference does it make? Even the G-man will concede that negligence is a valid cause for action.
But you did say such a thing. I'll let it slide. Where did PenWing reinforce your statements about negligence? He plainly stated that gun manufacturers are producing a product that serves its one purpose: to kill. I'll be damned if I'm going to get a license, and a handgun permit, buy a Magnum Research Desert Eagle .50AE [legally, mind you], and then use it as a paperweight.
Quote:
There is a thing called a gun license. It is issued by the state. A person cannot purchase a firearm without this license. Well, that's not true, a person can purchase some guns, and that's the problem. Still, there is a government system (highly flawed, but it's there) that gives people deemed confident a license to own firearms.
Quote:
ABORT! ABORT!
Indeed. Not only does one need a gun license to purchase a rifle or shotgun, but another license is needed to purchase handguns, and yet another license is needed to legally conceal said handguns.... well, you could do it with a sawed-off shotgun, but such modifications are illegal anyway, and would then make legally concealing such a firearm a moot point. Also, you need a state-issued license to drive, which further reinforces the whole "potentially lethal" thing. Most reasonably dangerous things are regulated. Drugs, cars, and guns come to mind.
Quote:
Now, based on this, the same argument that you used to remove negligence from the automakers and retailers can be used to remove negligence from the gun manufactures and retailers.
Quote:
Sorry, but my argument is that a prudent person could forsee the consequences of their action. GM cannot be expected to forsee that PenWing is a crazy asshole that drives Hummers over pedestrians.
Then, how the fuck are weapons manufacturers supposed to know what their eventual customers plan on shooting!? Prudency and prediction of the future are two distinctly things.
By the way, the Hummer thing was mine, not PenWing's. It was a hypothetical situation. I have no intention of doing such a thing.
Now, your mention of legal and illegal purchase and use of firearms brings about an interesting point... the same one I used to declare the assault weapons ban pointless. The assault weapon ban was put in place to reduce violence, particularly within gangs. These are gangs, people! They're already breaking the law! They don't give a shit wether their guns are legal or not! Their weapons are already probably not registered to them, and they're using these guns for illegal purposes. What's another law broken going to mean?
Last edited by PCG342; 2005-08-04 10:37 PM.
"Ah good. Now I'm on the internet clearly saying I like tranny cleavage. This shouldn't get me harassed at all." -- Lothar of the Hill People
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Sorry, but my argument is that a prudent person could forsee the consequences of their action. GM cannot be expected to forsee that PenWing is a crazy asshole that drives Hummers over pedestrians.
Are you saying that after 100 years of automotive manufacturing and selling that the concept of a car crashing and causing property damage, injury, and even death is unforseeible to GM, Ford, or Chevy?
They must have never of heard of James Dean, Ted Kennedy, and countless other incidents that, according to your extremely broad interpretation of neglegience, they should be held legally accountable for.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet." Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
Don't forget that a lot of the guns already on the street are stolen from people who have a state issued license to own said gun. So, is it the state to blame for issuing a license to someone who was robbed, or is the person who was robbed at fault for losing the gun?
Is the state to blame for the automobile that was stolen from a person who had a state issue license, and said automobile was used in a hit and run? Or is the person who owned the vehicle at fault?
Clearly, in the case of he automobile, we hold the criminal at fault. Not owner. Not the state. Not the manufacturer. Not the dealer.
The same should be with guns. It's the person who uses it illegally that is to blame. No one else.
And, yes, guns are made to kill. Handguns are sold to private citizens for self defense. They are purchased with the intent of killing a home intruder.
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
No one is seeking to take your guns away. My position is really about economics. Gun violence is a negative external cost of the commerce in firearms. I seek to place that cost back in the market where it belongs. The result would be that firearms would be more expensive, including their true cost. Guns would bear a price reflective of their risks with the insurance industry enforcing standards by way of the market.
The result OF THAT would be a marked increase in the number of firearms purchased from illegal, lower cost sources without that pesky license.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,747
I've got more guns than you. 6000+ posts
|
|
I've got more guns than you. 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,747 |
right. Refer back to my assault-weapon comment a few posts back.
"Ah good. Now I'm on the internet clearly saying I like tranny cleavage. This shouldn't get me harassed at all." -- Lothar of the Hill People
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
thedoctor said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
How much of illegal gun violence is committed by licensed gun owners? Not very if what the NRA tells us is true. The gun trade is certainly entitled to file a counter suit and see what the courts decide.
Then, to use your own analogy, the responsibility of car accidents should be placed back onto the auto industry for unlicensed or uninsured drivers.
You can't get there from here. Ya gotta go somewheres else first! 
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
thedoctor said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Sorry, but my argument is that a prudent person could forsee the consequences of their action. GM cannot be expected to forsee that PGP is a crazy asshole that drives Hummers over pedestrians.
Are you saying that after 100 years of automotive manufacturing and selling that the concept of a car crashing and causing property damage, injury, and even death is unforseeible to GM, Ford, or Chevy?
They must have never of heard of James Dean, Ted Kennedy, and countless other incidents that, according to your extremely broad interpretation of neglegience, they should be held legally accountable for.
Apples and oranges, doc. If the injuries of and deaths are a result of some negligent act on the part of automakers, then they are indeed, negligent and liable. Take Firestone tires as an example. Firestone made the defective tires but Ford, et al, failed to notify customers and recall vehicles in a timely manner. They were liable for the injuries, too. That goddamn prudent man rule popping up again. That is what the courts found.
I am argueing that innocent third parties should not suffer as a result of the commerce in arms. Why are you willing to pay higher taxes so that arms makers earn greater profits?
A special note to PenWing: Legal mumbo jumbo is what the rules are all about. Deal with it.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
No one is seeking to take your guns away. My position is really about economics. Gun violence is a negative external cost of the commerce in firearms. I seek to place that cost back in the market where it belongs. The result would be that firearms would be more expensive, including their true cost. Guns would bear a price reflective of their risks with the insurance industry enforcing standards by way of the market.
The result OF THAT would be a marked increase in the number of firearms purchased from illegal, lower cost sources without that pesky license.
So, you are arguing that because criminals will attempt to cirumvent the laws, we should not make and enforce them? Why not legalize murder and forget about the whole thing? 
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Quote:
thedoctor said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Sorry, but my argument is that a prudent person could forsee the consequences of their action. GM cannot be expected to forsee that PGP is a crazy asshole that drives Hummers over pedestrians.
Are you saying that after 100 years of automotive manufacturing and selling that the concept of a car crashing and causing property damage, injury, and even death is unforseeible to GM, Ford, or Chevy?
They must have never of heard of James Dean, Ted Kennedy, and countless other incidents that, according to your extremely broad interpretation of neglegience, they should be held legally accountable for.
Apples and oranges, doc. If the injuries of and deaths are a result of some negligent act on the part of automakers, then they are indeed, negligent and liable. Take Firestone tires as an example. Firestone made the defective tires but Ford, et al, failed to notify customers and recall vehicles in a timely manner. They were liable for the injuries, too. That goddamn prudent man rule popping up again. That is what the courts found.
I am argueing that innocent third parties should not suffer as a result of the commerce in arms. Why are you willing to pay higher taxes so that arms makers earn greater profits?
A special note to PenWing: Legal mumbo jumbo is what the rules are all about. Deal with it.
My example with vehicles is the same as yours with guns. This latest argument about Firestone and the tires is what brings up the apples and oranges tag. Those are defects of the product that makes the merchandise not perform properly. You have not given comparable evidence that all firearms are defective.
I address the issue based on your definition of legal negligence. Now you're trying to down play that and just bring up tax rates. Nice try to shift your argument.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet." Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
Quote:
thedoctor said:
My example with vehicles is the same as yours with guns. This latest argument about Firestone and the tires is what brings up the apples and oranges tag. Those are defects of the product that makes the merchandise not perform properly. You have not given comparable evidence that all firearms are defective.
I address the issue based on your definition of legal negligence. Now you're trying to down play that and just bring up tax rates. Nice try to shift your argument.
He never claimed the guns were defective. That's why his argument makes no sense, based on his definition of negligence.
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
A special note to PenWing: Legal mumbo jumbo is what the rules are all about. Deal with it.
That may be, but when you start bringing defective tires into this you should realize that they have nothing to do with the argument at hand. Logic also is what the rules are all about. Your argument is illogical.
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
So, you are arguing that because criminals will attempt to cirumvent the laws, we should not make and enforce them? Why not legalize murder and forget about the whole thing?
I'm not saying we shouldn't make and enforce gun laws. I hadn't even broached the subject.
I'm saying I believe your price hike would backfire. Many Americans feel that the ability of the private citizen to own firearms is not only a justly given right, but also a necessity. If price goes up, demand will remain high while the public's willingness to get these guns through the proper means will go down.
It's too easy to get guns illegally for a price hike to be the answer, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
PenWing said:
Quote:
thedoctor said:
My example with vehicles is the same as yours with guns. This latest argument about Firestone and the tires is what brings up the apples and oranges tag. Those are defects of the product that makes the merchandise not perform properly. You have not given comparable evidence that all firearms are defective.
I address the issue based on your definition of legal negligence. Now you're trying to down play that and just bring up tax rates. Nice try to shift your argument.
He never claimed the guns were defective. That's why his argument makes no sense, based on his definition of negligence.
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
A special note to PenWing: Legal mumbo jumbo is what the rules are all about. Deal with it.
That may be, but when you start bringing defective tires into this you should realize that they have nothing to do with the argument at hand. Logic also is what the rules are all about. Your argument is illogical.
Fine. Cars weren't my idea to begin with. You da mod, PW. Let's ban all metaphors using analogy.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
You didn't originally come up with that analogy; but you did try to argue around it. Unsuccesfully, I might add. The car analogy as was originally offered is good because it reflect a duplicate application of how you'd like negligence to be used in civil proceedings. People on this board that I remember argueing for stricter gun laws are against your interpretation of the law. I'm not saying that your overall belief is wrong; but the avenue of debate that you're trying to use to justify your position is.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet." Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
And I'm one of the posters on this board who want's a stricter gun policy. But I don't think that has anything to do with the argument at hand.
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
thedoctor said:
You didn't originally come up with that analogy; but you did try to argue around it. Unsuccesfully, I might add. The car analogy as was originally offered is good because it reflect a duplicate application of how you'd like negligence to be used in civil proceedings. People on this board that I remember argueing for stricter gun laws are against your interpretation of the law. I'm not saying that your overall belief is wrong; but the avenue of debate that you're trying to use to justify your position is.
I recall that I mentioned autos to illustrate the positve effect of litigation in improving car safety. It puts the onus of enforcement on the industry and away from legislative initiative. I never said that guns were defective. Only that a prudent person could forsee the consequinces of the commerce there in. That is the point of negligence.
In previous post I asked the question 'Why should the taxpayers (you & I) be expected to bear the cost of gun violence while the arms industry profits? The post about market externalities was completely avoided except to say that it would increase the black market for guns! You don't like the insurance idea, fine. The revenues can also be collected through taxes and tariffs.
Why should the taxpayers (you & I) be expected to bear the cost of gun violence while the arms industry profits?
Why should the taxpayers (you & I) be expected to bear the cost of gun violence while the arms industry profits?
Answer the goddamn question! 
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
BTW Fox news reports research at the Stanford School of Medicine has conclusivly shown that men with great big guns have little tiny penises that they haul around in their SUVs. Dr Harry Weiner, MD, PhD., said yesterday that the Ford Explorer has replaced the Corvette and Porsche as vehicle of choice for small dick men.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,747
I've got more guns than you. 6000+ posts
|
|
I've got more guns than you. 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,747 |
Hey, MagicJay! Quote:
PCG342 said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Quote:
PenWing said:
The gun manufacturer makes guns. Guns are weapons. They are made to kill. Some are made for hunting animals. Most are made for killing people. There is no negligence here. They know what they are making them for. The gun does just that. That is it's purpose. Guns are made to kill.
I don't think the arms industry would make that argument. That's admitting they are negligent.
Wait! how the fuck does that make them negligent? If they're manufacturing these objects to kill, and that's what they're doing, then the manufacturer is doing his job. If they've designed guns for some purpose other than killing, (I'd love to know what it is) and they're being used for murder, and the manufacturers are doing nothing about it, they're being negligent.
Quote:
You're saying the manufacturers are negligent because the gun falls in the wrong hands and is used to kill illegally. You're also saying the dealers are negligent for selling a gun to the wrong person.
Quote:
I never said any such thing. I said that a reasonable person can see the consequences of their participation in the commerce of firearms. But then you already conceded that they're negligent in the previous paragraph, so what difference does it make? Even the G-man will concede that negligence is a valid cause for action.
But you did say such a thing. I'll let it slide. Where did PenWing reinforce your statements about negligence? He plainly stated that gun manufacturers are producing a product that serves its one purpose: to kill. I'll be damned if I'm going to get a license, and a handgun permit, buy a Magnum Research Desert Eagle .50AE [legally, mind you], and then use it as a paperweight.
Quote:
There is a thing called a gun license. It is issued by the state. A person cannot purchase a firearm without this license. Well, that's not true, a person can purchase some guns, and that's the problem. Still, there is a government system (highly flawed, but it's there) that gives people deemed confident a license to own firearms.
Quote:
ABORT! ABORT!
Indeed. Not only does one need a gun license to purchase a rifle or shotgun, but another license is needed to purchase handguns, and yet another license is needed to legally conceal said handguns.... well, you could do it with a sawed-off shotgun, but such modifications are illegal anyway, and would then make legally concealing such a firearm a moot point. Also, you need a state-issued license to drive, which further reinforces the whole "potentially lethal" thing. Most reasonably dangerous things are regulated. Drugs, cars, and guns come to mind.
Quote:
Now, based on this, the same argument that you used to remove negligence from the automakers and retailers can be used to remove negligence from the gun manufactures and retailers.
Quote:
Sorry, but my argument is that a prudent person could forsee the consequences of their action. GM cannot be expected to forsee that PenWing is a crazy asshole that drives Hummers over pedestrians.
Then, how the fuck are weapons manufacturers supposed to know what their eventual customers plan on shooting!? Prudency and prediction of the future are two distinctly things.
By the way, the Hummer thing was mine, not PenWing's. It was a hypothetical situation. I have no intention of doing such a thing.
Now, your mention of legal and illegal purchase and use of firearms brings about an interesting point... the same one I used to declare the assault weapons ban pointless. The assault weapon ban was put in place to reduce violence, particularly within gangs. These are gangs, people! They're already breaking the law! They don't give a shit wether their guns are legal or not! Their weapons are already probably not registered to them, and they're using these guns for illegal purposes. What's another law broken going to mean?
You gonna bark all day, little doggy, or are you gonna bite? 
"Ah good. Now I'm on the internet clearly saying I like tranny cleavage. This shouldn't get me harassed at all." -- Lothar of the Hill People
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
PCG342 said:
Hey, MagicJay!
You gonna bark all day, little doggy, or are you gonna bite?
Every question you brought up, I've already answered. You just don't like the answers. I'm not teaching a course on tort law here. If you want to look at a comparable case look to the Tobacco MSA.
Why should the taxpayers (you & I) be expected to bear the cost of gun violence while the arms industry profits?
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
I recall that I mentioned autos to illustrate the positve effect of litigation in improving car safety. It puts the onus of enforcement on the industry and away from legislative initiative. I never said that guns were defective. Only that a prudent person could forsee the consequinces of the commerce there in. That is the point of negligence.
And gun manufacturers also make sure that their products are as safe as possible while still performing the job they're supposed to do. That's why they've made safeties, worked to prevent jamming, and reduced the risk of a gun going off accidentally when dropped and so forth. So, they do make the products as safe as possible. They cannot be negligent just because the user uses it to commit a homicide.
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
In previous post I asked the question 'Why should the taxpayers (you & I) be expected to bear the cost of gun violence while the arms industry profits? The post about market externalities was completely avoided except to say that it would increase the black market for guns! You don't like the insurance idea, fine. The revenues can also be collected through taxes and tariffs.
Why should the taxpayers (you & I) be expected to bear the cost of gun violence while the arms industry profits?
Why should the taxpayers (you & I) be expected to bear the cost of gun violence while the arms industry profits?
Answer the goddamn question!
Why do I have to work my ass off for little money to support a welfare state of which I take no benefit? Why do I have to pay taxes for an education system when I have no children of my own? Why? Why? Why? Because that's the way things work. I also pay for the medical costs of people who get involved in auto accidents and have no insurance. Should the automotive industry pay for that as well?
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet." Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
thedoctor said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
I recall that I mentioned autos to illustrate the positve effect of litigation in improving car safety. It puts the onus of enforcement on the industry and away from legislative initiative. I never said that guns were defective. Only that a prudent person could forsee the consequinces of the commerce there in. That is the point of negligence.
And gun manufacturers also make sure that their products are as safe as possible while still performing the job they're supposed to do. That's why they've made safeties, worked to prevent jamming, and reduced the risk of a gun going off accidentally when dropped and so forth. So, they do make the products as safe as possible. They cannot be negligent just because the user uses it to commit a homicide.
Proportionality, Doc. Since they profit from the trade, they have a greater financial responsibility. The costs to society of gun violence have until now been external to the market. The Industry has succesfully shifted that cost to society as a whole. I'm saying that gun consumers, merchants and manufacturers should pay the costs of the product. This is Econ 101 stuff.
Quote:
The Doctor said
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
In previous post I asked the question 'Why should the taxpayers (you & I) be expected to bear the cost of gun violence while the arms industry profits? The post about market externalities was completely avoided except to say that it would increase the black market for guns! You don't like the insurance idea, fine. The revenues can also be collected through taxes and tariffs.
Why should the taxpayers (you & I) be expected to bear the cost of gun violence while the arms industry profits?
Why should the taxpayers (you & I) be expected to bear the cost of gun violence while the arms industry profits?
Answer the goddamn question!
Why do I have to work my ass off for little money to support a welfare state of which I take no benefit? Why do I have to pay taxes for an education system when I have no children of my own? Why? Why? Why? Because that's the way things work. I also pay for the medical costs of people who get involved in auto accidents and have no insurance. Should the automotive industry pay for that as well?
Why should I have to pay for the war in Iraq! Why should my state face financial crises when it pays out far more in Federal taxes than it recieves in Federal benefits? It's completely off topic.
BTW, I am not anti-gun or gun ownership. The selling point for me is that if the gubmnt takes away peoples guns, then only gubmnt will have them! I probably fear the gov for different reasons than the guys in the militias, but I have those same fears.
Sincerely,
Bubbajay38
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Why should my state face financial crises when it pays out far more in Federal taxes than it recieves in Federal benefits? It's completely off topic.
Because you live in a "wealthy" state and the whole point of taxes, no matter what any one tells you, is to redistribute wealth.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
Why should my state face financial crises when it pays out far more in Federal taxes than it recieves in Federal benefits? It's completely off topic.
Because you live in a "wealthy" state and the whole point of taxes, no matter what any one tells you, is to redistribute wealth.
You ever here of a retorical question, G-omer-man?
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
