• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Another shooting in Murica


This is so powerful, and he's not even talking about banning guns, or even banning just automatic weapons, simply asking for a law to be voted on for universal background checks. It's staggering that there would be opposition to this.
But we all know nothing will change. Rinse and repeat every single time.
 
Rorschach said:
If the victim's families could sue gun manufacturers, ownership would be regulated up the wazoo.
Click to expand...
It's tough to see a sensible result to that kind of legislation. Kitchen knife manufacturers could be sued out of existence,car manufacturers every time there's an accident. There could be no more baseball bats every time someone takes a bearing from one (possibly a good thing) or shoes next time someone takes a kicking.
 
scaramanga said:
It's tough to see a sensible result to that kind of legislation. Kitchen knife manufacturers could be sued out of existence,car manufacturers every time there's an accident. There could be no more baseball bats every time someone takes a bearing from one (possibly a good thing) or shoes next time someone takes a kicking.
Click to expand...
Fair points but these are objects whose primary use is not for killing things. You could bring your point a step further and say any object could cause death if you swing it hard enough. In the case of guns the object is being used exactly as intended, so you would think that would hold more weight legally. Ideally, it would result in legislation comparable to car driving for example - registration, tax and insurance, need training for certain vechicles, can't drive when blind, etc. That seems sensible to me.
 
Rorschach said:
Fair points but these are objects whose primary use is not for killing things. You could bring your point a step further and say any object could cause death if you swing it hard enough. In the case of guns the object is being used exactly as intended, so you would think that would hold more weight legally. Ideally, it would result in legislation comparable to car driving for example - registration, tax and insurance, need training for certain vechicles, can't drive when blind, etc. That seems sensible to me.
Click to expand...
The manufacturers would stand up in court and point out that those guns are not for killing people, just like all the other items. They would win too.
 
Rorschach said:
Maybe but guns are for killing things.
Click to expand...
My eldest owns a bow. The original intent/design of that item was for killing people - he uses it to shoot at foam targets and enter competitions.

You can't hold the maker responsible for the use case of the person who buys it - you have to make the user responsible.
 
completely ambivalent to it. Genuinely.

Texas and Greg Abbott lowered the age of gun ownership from 21 to 18, then an 18 year shoots kids in schools. And now we're meant to hold a minutes silence and crack on again tomorrow for another mass shooting.

Steve Kerr spoke eloquently on the issue but nothing will change.
 
Diamond Lights said:
completely ambivalent to it. Genuinely.

Texas and Greg Abbott lowered the age of gun ownership from 21 to 18, then an 18 year shoots kids in schools. And now we're meant to hold a minutes silence and crack on again tomorrow for another mass shooting.

Steve Kerr spoke eloquently on the issue but nothing will change.
Click to expand...

If you buy a gun second hand at a gun fair there is no age limit i believe.

 
scaramanga said:
My eldest owns a bow. The original intent/design of that item was for killing people - he uses it to shoot at foam targets and enter competitions.

You can't hold the maker responsible for the use case of the person who buys it - you have to make the user responsible.
Click to expand...
Remington coughed up 73mil for Sandyhook though that doesn't seem to have opened the floodgates. I reckon it will happen at some point on some technicality.
 
Rorschach said:
Remington coughed up 73mil for Sandyhook though that doesn't seem to have opened the floodgates. I reckon it will happen at some point on some technicality.
Click to expand...
Remington didn't cough up anything, the company was already in bankruptcy. The only reason anyone came to the table in that case is the insurers controlling parts of the bankruptcy wanting to keep a clean name.

Remington as a business, operating under its own control, would have told the families to go fudge themselves and won in court.
 
scaramanga said:
Remington didn't cough up anything, the company was already in bankruptcy. The only reason anyone came to the table in that case is the insurers controlling parts of the bankruptcy wanting to keep a clean name.

Remington as a business, operating under its own control, would have told the families to go fudge themselves and won in court.
Click to expand...
They settled for 73mil according to plenty of reports.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back