Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns

[Walsingham]

But I'm saying that there's a direct contradiction. If the purpose of the weapons is to combat the State then assault weapons are an absolute necessity, not a luxury.

 

As an aside, we were discussing this last night over much good Yankee ale, and it occurred to me that Zimbabwe is another argument which I hadn't considered before. Handguns might not stop the 1st Armoured, but they would make it much more difficult for bands of bully boys to threaten you.

[Laozi]

I don't like the idea of punishing a company for the bad acts of individuals who happen to end up with their products. If I were to rob a bank and in the process shoot a guard with a Ruger pistol, fining Sturm-Ruger would make as much sense as fining Chevrolet if I used one of their cars as a get away, or Nike if I was wearing their shoes as I ran out.

 

 

Once again a gun and a pair of shoes obviously aren't the same thing and the fact that our government, when chartered, put specific wording in its Bill of Right pertaining to guns shows that they saw a pretty big difference. If you leave your car parked out in front of you house or a pair of shoes on your front porch and they're used in a crime theres no culpability, but if you leave your gun lying around then you'd be lucky if you just lost your shirt in civil litigation.

 

 

The point of fining companies isn't to abstract large amounts of money from them, its to make them highly motivated to take an active hand in what happens to their products when they hit the market. That way when law enforcement is like, We've got a Taurus .45 used in a car jacking, they can go to the Taurus and find out how the gun ended up where it did. If the gun company can show that someone else broke the law in the criminal's acquisition of the gun (very likely) then the company wouldn't be subject to fine. This is a pretty tangible responsibility if you're selling a product that allows someone to kill 12-15 people with something that fits into a jacket pocket. Plus doing this way puts up a wall between the information of who has guns and state and federal governments forcing them to show that a crime has been committed before accessing the information.

[random n00b]

But I'm saying that there's a direct contradiction. If the purpose of the weapons is to combat the State then assault weapons are an absolute necessity, not a luxury.

"Assault weapons" are not assault rifles, as far as this discussion is concerned. They are just some semi auto weapons that "look militaristic". And anyway, assault rifles alone aren't very good at making a credible threat out of a civilian militia at any rate - "destructive devices", which are already heavily restricted (or banned altogether in some places) would be. Is there anyone pushing for the freedom to own a M72 LAW or .50 M2 Browning? Heh...

[Walsingham]

But I'm saying that there's a direct contradiction. If the purpose of the weapons is to combat the State then assault weapons are an absolute necessity, not a luxury.

"Assault weapons" are not assault rifles, as far as this discussion is concerned. They are just some semi auto weapons that "look militaristic". And anyway, assault rifles alone aren't very good at making a credible threat out of a civilian militia at any rate - "destructive devices", which are already heavily restricted (or banned altogether in some places) would be. Is there anyone pushing for the freedom to own a M72 LAW or .50 M2 Browning? Heh...

 

 

I already said that I thought the defence was stretching creidbility. But if a citizen militia is going to be credible it is completely impossible that it would be armed with handguns. And yes, frankly if you're serious about it then citizes should be encouraged to keep support weapons like mortars, and anti-tank. They should probably also own CBRN masks as well. Because you know war has moved on a bit since 1780.

[random n00b]

Yeah, I was actually agreeing with you.

 

So, since adhering to the intent of the Amendment, rather than the letter, would be insane (I don't think they had RPG-7s and SAWs in mind when it was passed), what's the point anymore? It's obvious that the right to possess firearms as a sort of "deterrent" against a would-be oppressive government is obsolete.

 

I guess that, nowadays, the "point" is simply that guns in general have become just another consumer good, and cracking down on that would be Bad for Business...

[Walsingham]

Yeah, I was actually agreeing with you.

 

So, since adhering to the intent of the Amendment, rather than the letter, would be insane (I don't think they had RPG-7s and SAWs in mind when it was passed), what's the point anymore? It's obvious that the right to possess firearms as a sort of "deterrent" against a would-be oppressive government is obsolete.

 

I guess that, nowadays, the "point" is simply that guns in general have become just another consumer good, and cracking down on that would be Bad for Business...

 

Well, like I also said, they're not a deterrent against the Army, but Zimbabwe shows how a much more likely tool of oppression (to begin with) would be bully boys. Small arms really are a credible deterrent to that sort of thing.

[random n00b]

But is it? If the citizenry were actually able to defend themselves, martial law or similar extraordinary emergency measures could be adopted, essentially producing the same situation, or worse. Seems to me like he's got everything nailed down pretty neatly unfortunately...

[Walsingham]

But is it? If the citizenry were actually able to defend themselves, martial law or similar extraordinary emergency measures could be adopted, essentially producing the same situation, or worse. Seems to me like he's got everything nailed down pretty neatly unfortunately...

 

You mean if citizens started shooting the thugs then our Dictatormatic could declare martial law?

[taks]

Sure, everyone misunderstands you because you're so much more advanced than anyone else. No matter how many university points everyone else has in the exact same subject.

as far as i can tell, nobody does, since they didn't catch the problem as i did. i keep hearing correlation equals causation from the likes of you, xard and krezack, and nobody but me manages to see why such statements are nonsense.

 

Keep living in your little bubble. Makes it a lot easier to 'discuss' things if you can just dismiss people as knowing less than you based on a few university credits.

got nothing to do with university credits. as i noted, multiple times during the discussion of your strawman, it's because nobody catches such things. you top the list for the nonsense. my argument was never that i know more, just that i'm the only one that seems to see these idiotic statements for what they are. if you knew so much, why do you continue to defend ridiculous arguments? if there are so many others with such a background, why do they never notice the obvious?

 

The US has a lot more guns out in the wild than most civilized, non-warmongering countries. Yet the US also has one of the highest death-rates by gun related deaths than any other civilized non warmongering country. The only people not clever enough to realize the connection are the Americans themselves.. so I guess Darwin's theory is in full effect in the US. Good for you! Shoot more, you deserve it!

one of the most, one of highest, yet not "the most" or "the highest." you really don't understand much. i dismiss you as not understanding anything because you simply never make an argument that has either a) any basis in reason or fact or b) demonstrates any understanding of what reason or fact is.

 

taks

[taks]

I don't like the idea of punishing a company for the bad acts of individuals who happen to end up with their products. If I were to rob a bank and in the process shoot a guard with a Ruger pistol, fining Sturm-Ruger would make as much sense as fining Chevrolet if I used one of their cars as a get away, or Nike if I was wearing their shoes as I ran out.

the whole concept of "justice" is based on responsibility for ones own actions. what would be next? old school justice in which the sins of the father pass on to his children?

 

taks

[Walsingham]

Well, you could argue - not unreasonably in my view - that responsibilty for some crimes does not solely accrue to the individual. If a kid shoots someone who's to blame? Shared accountability could be very interesting.

[mkreku]

as far as i can tell, nobody does, since they didn't catch the problem as i did. i keep hearing correlation equals causation from the likes of you, xard and krezack, and nobody but me manages to see why such statements are nonsense.

And instead of crushing us with an effective counter-argument, based on your untouchable statistics skills, you merely dismiss us as "not understanding" the oh so complex world of gun ownership and potato chips. Right.

 

got nothing to do with university credits. as i noted, multiple times during the discussion of your strawman, it's because nobody catches such things. you top the list for the nonsense. my argument was never that i know more, just that i'm the only one that seems to see these idiotic statements for what they are. if you knew so much, why do you continue to defend ridiculous arguments? if there are so many others with such a background, why do they never notice the obvious?

As I've noted multiple times during this "discussion" of yours, you never actually mention the flaws everyone around you makes. You just keep repeating "strawman", "you don't understand as much as I do" and other trolling material of the same pathetic worth. How about you, for once, stop telling everyone that they understand so much less than you, and actually explain what it is that's so wrong. You know, a concrete example.

 

one of the most, one of highest, yet not "the most" or "the highest." you really don't understand much. i dismiss you as not understanding anything because you simply never make an argument that has either a) any basis in reason or fact or b) demonstrates any understanding of what reason or fact is.

No, of course I don't understand as much as you do. Noone does. Why? Because it's your only way of "discussing" things. Your only defence is sitting on a high horse pretending to understand much more than anyone else without ever actually proving that is the case.

 

As usual, you avoid the correlation between accessibility of guns and gun related deaths. How this time? I didn't provide a number. So your argument becomes "it's not THE MOST so it's not a problem". Yeah, I am sure Zimbabwe suffers more than the US. Does that mean the US does not have a problem? I mean, it's not the NUMBER ONE country in the world when it comes to gun related deaths per capita, therefore the problem does not exist?

 

Pointless.

[taks]

Well, you could argue - not unreasonably in my view - that responsibilty for some crimes does not solely accrue to the individual. If a kid shoots someone who's to blame? Shared accountability could be very interesting.

different scenario because someone has implied responsibility for the child in this case. i.e., a parent or guardian is supposed to be watching what the child is up to, and therefore assumes responsibility for what the child does. if the child shoots someone, it is thus the fault of the parent/guardian since children are generally assumed not mature enough to fully understand the consequences for their actions. same goes for mental patients (somebody is a responsible guardian), etc.

 

taks

[Guard Dog]

Well, you could argue - not unreasonably in my view - that responsibility for some crimes does not solely accrue to the individual. If a kid shoots someone who's to blame? Shared accountability could be very interesting.

 

No I totally disagree. If the someone uses a hammer to kill someone is the company who made the hammer liable? Responsibility begin and ends with the individual. I don't give a damn about economic circumstances, or if your dad beat you as a kid. Everyone knows you are not supposed to kill other people. If you know that and do it anyway it does not matter what weapon you used, everything that transpired resulted from a choice YOU made.

 

If I got drunk and hit and killed a pedestrian while driving home who is to blame for their death? Knob Creek for making the booze I drank? They did not put it in my glass or put the glass in my hand. Ford Motors for making my truck? How can they be responsible if I misuse their product by doing something the owners manual tells you not to do (it's on page 2 of the Mercury Mountaineer book). Is the bar I drank in responsible? They would have been glad to call a cab if I asked. And as I walked out the door how do they know I was not getting a cab, or getting on a bus? So who is ultimately responsible for the pedestrians death? I am. Everything that happened resulted from choices only I made. Does it really make sense to apply collective responsibility here? I don't think so.

 

To answer Laozi's point; suppose a company like Ruger makes a lot of say 100 handguns to fulfill an order from a gun store. The serial numbers of all of them are recorded along with the invoice number of the transaction and the gun store they are sold to. Once they are delivered they are now the legal property of the store that bought them. Suppose they sell one of them to me. They record the transaction and register their invoice and serial number with the state. Ruger hears nothing about this and why would they? It's not their property any more. Suppose after a few years I sell the gun to someone else. I keep a receipt for my records but I don't tell the state because its a private transaction and I don't tell the gun store or Ruger because why would I? It's not their property. Now suppose the gun is stolen from the new owner and is then used by the thief to rob and kill someone else. Who is to blame here? Ruger? The gun store? Me? The guy who had the gun stolen from him? How about the only one in this chain who actually did something wrong, the P.O.S. who stole a gun and used it to kill someone.

 

Applying criminal penalties to parties who did no wrong is totally unjust. Moreover, seeking to spread the blame away from the people who deserve 100% of it is more than a little dumb. It is tantamount to saying you are not really responsible for you actions if you used a gun to murder someone. Logic does not support it.

Edited June 30, 2008 by Guard Dog

[random n00b]

You mean if citizens started shooting the thugs then our Dictatormatic could declare martial law?

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. In good conscience (HA!), Mugabe couldn't allow an election to proceed with shootouts happening on the streets that are related to groups attempting to alter said election results.

 

 

Well, you could argue - not unreasonably in my view - that responsibilty for some crimes does not solely accrue to the individual. If a kid shoots someone who's to blame? Shared accountability could be very interesting.

Kids aren't responsible for their actions because their judgement isn't fully formed - the same reason they aren't allowed to vote. Unless a qualified professional certifies otherwise, as soon as one is an adult, they assume full and exclusive responsibility for their actions, as it should be.

 

Should everyone be tested to see if they are actually fit to exercise their rights as adults, instead of assuming they are by default? I'm not going to touch this one...

[Enoch]

To answer Laozi's point; suppose a company like Ruger makes a lot of say 100 handguns to fulfill an order from a gun store. The serial numbers of all of them are recorded along with the invoice number of the transaction and the gun store they are sold to. Once they are delivered they are now the legal property of the store that bought them. Suppose they sell one of them to me. They record the transaction and register their invoice and serial number with the state. Ruger hears nothing about this and why would they? It's not their property any more. Suppose after a few years I sell the gun to someone else. I keep a receipt for my records but I don't tell the state because its a private transaction and I don't tell the gun store or Ruger because why would I? It's not their property. Now suppose the gun is stolen from the new owner and is then used by the thief to rob and kill someone else. Who is to blame here? Ruger? The gun store? Me? The guy who had the gun stolen from him? How about the only one in this chain who actually did something wrong, the P.O.S. who stole a gun and used it to kill someone.

 

Applying criminal penalties to parties who did no wrong is totally unjust. Moreover, seeking to spread the blame away from the people who deserve 100% of it is more than a little dumb. It is tantamount to saying you are not really responsible for you actions if you used a gun to murder someone. Logic does not support it.

I generally agree. Causation is not sufficient to establish either criminal or civil liability-- at the very least, there must also be some wrongful or negligent action (save in rare "strict liability" situations). But it's important to never say never, and recognize that there could be factual circumstances that extend liability to other parties. To take the above example, but imagine that: 1) Ruger knew or ought to have known that this particular retailer ignores various regulations and sells the weapons on the black market, but sold to him anyway; 2) The retailer sells to a mentally ill buyer; 3) Gun is "stolen" because the buyer, as consequence of his illness, left it sitting on the sidewalk; 4) Woman finds gun on sidewalk, believes it is a sign, and takes it home to shoot her abusive husband. Criminally, only the woman is liable for the shooting itself, but all the others involved could be liable for related lesser crimes (although the mentally-ill buyer and possibly the woman could have valid affirmative defenses).

 

"Shared accountability," as Wals puts it, usually comes into the picture in civil cases. A civil court in the example as I've laid it out could very well find everyone up to and including Ruger at least partly responsible for the husband's wrongful death. That means $ rather than jail time, but it does capture the concept at least a little bit.

[Guard Dog]

To take the above example, but imagine that: 1) Ruger knew or ought to have known that this particular retailer ignores various regulations and sells the weapons on the black market, but sold to him anyway; 2) The retailer sells to a mentally ill buyer; 3) Gun is "stolen" because the buyer, as consequence of his illness, left it sitting on the sidewalk; 4) Woman finds gun on sidewalk, believes it is a sign, and takes it home to shoot her abusive husband. Criminally, only the woman is liable for the shooting itself, but all the others involved could be liable for related lesser crimes (although the mentally-ill buyer and possibly the woman could have valid affirmative defenses).

 

Not to nitpick details here, but I do have a question. If the the manufacter (Ruger in this case) sells to a dealer that has a valid license but that dealer does not practice due dilligence (i.e. background checks and waiting periods as required by state law) how does civil liability extend beyond the dealer who sold the gun to the mentally ill buyer withput a background check? In other words, if the dealer has a state license in good standing how could Ruger be blamed even in civil court for the bad business practice of another party? Or could they? What I'm getting at here is can civil liability be assigned to a party that did no wrong?

[Enoch]

To take the above example, but imagine that: 1) Ruger knew or ought to have known that this particular retailer ignores various regulations and sells the weapons on the black market, but sold to him anyway; 2) The retailer sells to a mentally ill buyer; 3) Gun is "stolen" because the buyer, as consequence of his illness, left it sitting on the sidewalk; 4) Woman finds gun on sidewalk, believes it is a sign, and takes it home to shoot her abusive husband. Criminally, only the woman is liable for the shooting itself, but all the others involved could be liable for related lesser crimes (although the mentally-ill buyer and possibly the woman could have valid affirmative defenses).

 

Not to nitpick details here, but I do have a question. If the the manufacter (Ruger in this case) sells to a dealer that has a valid license but that dealer does not practice due dilligence (i.e. background checks and waiting periods as required by state law) how does civil liability extend beyond the dealer who sold the gun to the mentally ill buyer withput a background check? In other words, if the dealer has a state license in good standing how could Ruger be blamed even in civil court for the bad business practice of another party? Or could they? What I'm getting at here is can civil liability be assigned to a party that did no wrong?

The key fact I inserted on that point is that the manufacturer knew or ought to have know about the dealer's shenanigans. Absent further info, reliance on a state license is probably fine to insure oneself from liability. But if that further info is present, a license isn't going to protect Ruger. (Indeed, depending on how the licensing statute/regulation is written, they may be under an obligation to report the dealer to the state authorities.)

[taks]

And instead of crushing us with an effective counter-argument, based on your untouchable statistics skills, you merely dismiss us as "not understanding" the oh so complex world of gun ownership and potato chips. Right.

i never made any such argument, actually. again with the strawman. i simply bemoaned the fact that simple concepts such as correlation are not taught to everyone.

 

As I've noted multiple times during this "discussion" of yours, you never actually mention the flaws everyone around you makes. You just keep repeating "strawman", "you don't understand as much as I do" and other trolling material of the same pathetic worth. How about you, for once, stop telling everyone that they understand so much less than you, and actually explain what it is that's so wrong. You know, a concrete example.

uh, i've said what the flaw is several times, you you cannot comprehend. correlation is not equal to causation, don't you get it? in the food thread, xard's "studies" cannot show that junk food causes obesity. in this thread, the mere fact that the US has more guns cannot show that this is the cause of higher crime. this is a simple concept, and i've repeated it. the fact that you claim i never actually mention such flaws is yet another strawman, as i have pointed these out multiple times. your additional strawman is claiming that i somehow said i know more about statistics than everyone else. i did not. i did, however, say that it seems i'm the only one that has a background to understand why the correlation/causation argument is so thin, which is based on the simple FACT that nobody else seemed to catch it. i'm quite certain there are others that have taken a statistics class, or even a first semester logic class, but they probably don't spend every waking hour studying such things, either, and hence don't pick up on things as readily (there are several i know do, but none had commented in the thread that that point).

 

again, you just don't get it.

 

No, of course I don't understand as much as you do.

you certainly don't.

 

Noone does.

another strawman. not what i said. plenty of others do, most don't.

 

Why? Because it's your only way of "discussing" things. Your only defence is sitting on a high horse pretending to understand much more than anyone else without ever actually proving that is the case.

my defense has been quite clear, that you cannot understand is not my fault.

 

As usual, you avoid the correlation between accessibility of guns and gun related deaths. How this time? I didn't provide a number.

i never denied the correlation exists. it does. read back through the thread if you're so smart. i made it quite clear that i understand this point. others have also pointed out that canada has lots of guns per capita, too, yet not nearly as high a violent crime rate. hence, the correlation is not causation is proven by example, as i have stated many, many, many times. you still don't get it after i've plainly defined it.

 

So your argument becomes "it's not THE MOST so it's not a problem".

no, my argument is the same now as it has always been, correlation is not causation. in this case, there are other causes, though it is difficult to pin it down to one factor alone, rather a multitude of related and unrelated factors.

 

Pointless.

debating you is, for sure, because you simply don't get it.

 

taks

Edited June 30, 2008 by taks

[taks]

The key fact I inserted on that point is that the manufacturer knew or ought to have know about the dealer's shenanigans. Absent further info, reliance on a state license is probably fine to insure oneself from liability. But if that further info is present, a license isn't going to protect Ruger. (Indeed, depending on how the licensing statute/regulation is written, they may be under an obligation to report the dealer to the state authorities.)

i agree that if a manufacturer is selling guns to a dealer he knows is doing something criminal, said manufacturer has assumed at least some culpability. same goes for the dealer committing such crimes.

 

taks

[taks]

And instead of crushing us with an effective counter-argument, based on your untouchable statistics skills, you merely dismiss us as "not understanding" the oh so complex world of gun ownership and potato chips. Right.

btw, when someone makes the correlation equals causation argument, it is an effective counter-argument to state that correlation is not equal to causation, something else you don't understand. the onus is on the original poster, or you in this case since you're defending such things, to prove said correlation is equal to causation. granted, doing so is difficult since it is not really testable other than through observation of various cultures. however, in this case, a simple counter example suffices to disprove the original argument, e.g., canada. oops.

 

taks

[mkreku]

This is too funny to pass up on! Quoting myself:

 

You just keep repeating "strawman", "you don't understand as much as I do" and other trolling material of the same pathetic worth.

Hey, let's check just one post of yours against this statement of mine (not including other random failed trolling attempts)!

 

again with the strawman.

One.

 

you you cannot comprehend.

Not with English like this, no. Anyhow: two.

 

...yet another strawman...

Yes, it is! Three!

 

your additional strawman...

Another one! Four! It's like watching a child who've just picked up a new word.

 

again, you just don't get it.

Aha! Number five!

 

another strawman.

Geez, repeat much? Six!

 

that you cannot understand is not my fault.

Seven. Getting tired.

 

you still don't get it after i've plainly defined it.

Eight.

 

...because you simply don't get it.

Nine. You done yet?

 

And that is from one, single post of yours. Your lack of self insight and tiring predictability is almost disturbing.

 

Your self-proclaimed expertise in statistics takes a tumble the same second you try to claim that gun related deaths (of which the US has plenty) are unrelated to guns. And your argument is even more absurd! "There is another country with almost as many guns as the US per capita and they don't have this problem, therefore guns cannot be the problem of gun related deaths in the US!". Causation.. You keep repeating correlation/causation like some kind of mantra, yet cannot even break through the typical black-or-white thinking of a young child.

 

Sweden and Canada have the same amount of guns per capita, both countries being in the top ten in the world when it comes to gun ownership (both having roughly ONE THIRD of the guns per capita as the US does!). In which bizarro world does this tell you, according to your take on statistics, that the amount of guns in circulation amongst a population has nothing to do with the amount of gun related deaths in said population? You pick ONE country out of the set, conveniently chosen to suit your "argument", and claim you know statistics..?

 

There was a study done in 1998 that involved the 36 (or so) richest countries in the world. All countries submitted their internal statistics about gun ownership and gun related deaths, they graphed it and checked to see if the amount of guns could be one of the CAUSES behind gun related deaths. Guess what, the country with the most guns (the US) finished first, the country with the least guns (Japan) finished last. OF COURSE there are countries with more guns and less gun related deaths, it isn't a straight curve, noone knows the full picture, but the pattern emerging from the graph is easily read. Unless you pick out ONE country and try to draw conclusions based on that.

 

Noone has claimed that the amount of guns in the wild is the single cause behind this problem. It is one of the causes, seemingly a pretty important part of the puzzle. Yet, you type strawman a couple of hundred times and Canada a few others and dismiss it.. based on your knowledge of statistics.

 

Still pointless.

[mkreku]

however, in this case, a simple counter example suffices to disprove the original argument, e.g., canada. oops.

If only it was that easy.. One simple example.. Unfortunately we humans invented something called "statistics". That means choosing one simple example becomes pointless in the grand scheme of things. It's like saying, "Me and all my friends own PS3's, therefore the PS3 must be the most successful console". Anecdotal.

 

But hey, this is statistics we're talking about. The best thing about statistics is that it never proves anything definitely so there's always room for anecdotal evidence.

[random n00b]

Um. You are both arguing the same thing actually...

[SteveThaiBinh]

Let's keep it civil, eh?