Yet another shooting thread

[Derec]

That's why you can't buy a new Ford Pinto anymore.

And if a gun explodes while being fired, injuring or killing the operator, then the firearm is defective and the manufacturer would be liable.
Just like with a defective car like the Pinto.

But if somebody uses a Ford Escape, a ski mask from Target and a Glock 17 to rob a store, and all products perform well, then neither manufacturer (nor retailer) should be liable for the owner criminally misusing their product.

 

[Derec]

Shooting people is not a misuse of the product. It's the intended use of the product.

Criminally shooting people is a misuse of the product.
Shooting somebody in self-defense is not.

That's what makes guns different from heavily regulated cars. Much less kitchen knives. Guns are designed to kill.
Tom

That does not mean that criminal use is the intended use of the product or that manufacturers should be liable for criminal use.
It's just silly anti-gen extremism. And I say that as someone open to common sense solutions like registration and licensing. But not suing manufacturers or banning certain firearms because Dems irrationally hate them.

 

[TomC]

Criminally shooting people is a misuse of the product.
Shooting somebody in self-defense is not.

So, how about the people who put guns into people's hands take responsibility for their decisions?

That's what I'm talking about here.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

No glock has the killing power of an AR.

My point was not about firepower, but the fact that rifles of any kind are rarely used to kill people - less often than "hands, fists and feet". Unlike handguns, that kill many. So why are Dems so monomaniacally obsessed with certain "scary looking" rifles? Because illegal handguns are often used by their voters?

Wounds From Military-Style Rifles? ‘A Ghastly Thing to See’ (Published 2018)

Trauma surgeons tell what it is really like to try to repair such devastating injuries. “Bones are exploded, soft tissue is absolutely destroyed,” one said.

www.nytimes.com

Wounds are a function of ballistics. Bullet size, powder load and barrel length. Any .223 rifle will have the firepower of an AR15 and cause similar wounds at the same range. And any .308 rifle will have the firepower and cause similar wounds to the AK47 at the same range.

Remington .223:

.308 Winchester:

It has nothing to do with being a scary "assault weapon" that Dems so desperately want to ban.

None of those guns have huge magazines. Some are even bolt action so the gun must be re-cocked to fire the next shot.

None of those weapons have the killing capability of the modern AR and it's ilk.

And I also believe handguns should be seriously regulated as well.

 

[Derec]

So, how about the people who put guns into people's hands take responsibility for their decisions?

If you sell a gun to somebody who should not have it, you should be liable. Also possibly criminally in that case, depending on severity.
If you have your gun unsecured in the car making it easy to steal, you should be liable.
If you do not secure your weapons and your kid gets access and shoots their sibling, you should be liable. Also criminally in that case.
All these cases have people who acted illegally and/or irresponsibly.

But Glock GmbH should not be liable for bad actions of others.

That's what I'm talking about here.
Tom

And I make a distinction between making a well-made legal product and people or companies (like gun stores) acting negligently and irresponsibly.

 

[robnisch]

No glock has the killing power of an AR.

My point was not about firepower, but the fact that rifles of any kind are rarely used to kill people - less often than "hands, fists and feet". Unlike handguns, that kill many. So why are Dems so monomaniacally obsessed with certain "scary looking" rifles? Because illegal handguns are often used by their voters?

Wounds From Military-Style Rifles? ‘A Ghastly Thing to See’ (Published 2018)

Trauma surgeons tell what it is really like to try to repair such devastating injuries. “Bones are exploded, soft tissue is absolutely destroyed,” one said.

www.nytimes.com

Wounds are a function of ballistics. Bullet size, powder load and barrel length. Any .223 rifle will have the firepower of an AR15 and cause similar wounds at the same range. And any .308 rifle will have the firepower and cause similar wounds to the AK47 at the same range.

Remington .223:

.308 Winchester:

It has nothing to do with being a scary "assault weapon" that Dems so desperately want to ban.

Those seem to be bolt action, big difference from an AR style.

Zipr beat me.

 

[Elixir]

The assertion that “any .308 rifle will have the firepower and cause similar wounds to the AK47 at the same range” is sheer bullshit.
A skilled user could kill ten people with an AR in the time it takes to re-chamber a round in that bolt action 308.
Of course an AR30-10 would pack a bigger punch than either. So would a fucking bazooka.
Outlawing semi auto weapons would NOT produce double digit percentage reductions in overall gun deaths, nor would it impact any legitimate use of guns. But it would take a major bite out of the mass murderer horrors that plague the nation.

 

[bilby]

No glock has the killing power of an AR.

My point was not about firepower, but the fact that rifles of any kind are rarely used to kill people - less often than "hands, fists and feet". Unlike handguns, that kill many. So why are Dems so monomaniacally obsessed with certain "scary looking" rifles? Because illegal handguns are often used by their voters?

Wounds From Military-Style Rifles? ‘A Ghastly Thing to See’ (Published 2018)

Trauma surgeons tell what it is really like to try to repair such devastating injuries. “Bones are exploded, soft tissue is absolutely destroyed,” one said.

www.nytimes.com

Wounds are a function of ballistics. Bullet size, powder load and barrel length. Any .223 rifle will have the firepower of an AR15 and cause similar wounds at the same range. And any .308 rifle will have the firepower and cause similar wounds to the AK47 at the same range.

Remington .223:

.308 Winchester:

It has nothing to do with being a scary "assault weapon" that Dems so desperately want to ban.

You are absolutely right; Banning AR-15s will have no significant effect on any gun owners or gun enthusiasts. They will still be able to achieve the exact same effects legally, using other rifles.

So there's no problem whatsoever with such a ban, which will make some people happy, and have zero impact on others.

I am glad that you concur that an AR-15 ban is a win-win, and look forward to you voting accordingly in the future.

 

[bilby]

Criminally shooting people is a misuse of the product.
Shooting somebody in self-defense is not.

Shooting somebody in self defence isn't actually a thing.

Shooting somebody in retaliation, that's a thing.

Shooting somebody as a disproportionate response to a transgression, that's a thing.

Shooting somebody preemptively, because you're scared that they might shoot you, that's a thing.

But shooting somebody in self defence is a myth inspired by Hollywood and pulp cowboy novels. It's not actually a thing, even though US culture says it should be.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Shooting people is not a misuse of the product. It's the intended use of the product.

Criminally shooting people is a misuse of the product.
Shooting somebody in self-defense is not.

That's what makes guns different from heavily regulated cars. Much less kitchen knives. Guns are designed to kill.
Tom

That does not mean that criminal use is the intended use of the product or that manufacturers should be liable for criminal use.
It's just silly anti-gen extremism. And I say that as someone open to common sense solutions like registration and licensing. But not suing manufacturers or banning certain firearms because Dems irrationally hate them.

Wanting to prevent at least a number of mass murders isn't irrational.

What was irrational was the claim that the nation wouldn't become more dangerous allowing these weapons to be sold. The normalization of mass murders thanks to these weapons is proof of how irrational those claims were.

 

[Elixir]

But shooting somebody in self defence is a myth inspired by Hollywood and pulp cowboy novels. It's not actually a thing, even though US culture says it should be.

You say that, but there has never been a single instance where someone tried to hold me up by pointing a gun at me from several yards away or more, and where I didn’t whip out my trusty Glock and shoot the gun right out of their hands.
^ Gospel Truth

 

[ZiprHead]

But shooting somebody in self defence is a myth inspired by Hollywood and pulp cowboy novels. It's not actually a thing, even though US culture says it should be.

You say that, but there has never been a single instance where someone tried to hold me up by pointing a gun at me from several yards away or more, and where I didn’t whip out my trusty Glock and shoot the gun right out of their hands.
^ Gospel Truth

Gospel is going to vouch for you???

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You’ll need to expand a bit on what “minimize media coverage” means here, because it sounds a lot like you’re advocating censorship

What I would like to see is that any news outlet would be restricted to covering any given fact about such incidents once a year, other than as needed to provide consistency. You can say it, you just can't keep saying it. They don't get the attention the shooters crave. Give it the sort of coverage that 4 hours of traffic deaths (the equivalent of the Maine shooter) get.

It’s bizarre to me, to think that that’s more easily achievable or effective than reforming gun legislation.

Gun legislation can't remove the hundreds of millions of guns out there. Something sufficiently strict could get rid of most of them but the ones that would remain would by definition be in criminal hands. And guns in the hands of the law-abiding are a very minor part of crime statistics.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My guess, Glocks don’t have enough magazine capacity to suit him. And before you say whatever you’re about to say, make youy you run it past, “so why diudn’t he use that?” Because something about the AR15 was part of the draw for him.

Of course, but that won't change the end result. If they can't get their preferred method it won't stop them.

For most people a truck is cheaper and easier to obtain than a gun.

And yet people aren’t using them that way. Do you have an excuse for why this man didn’t just use a truck, if it’s EASIER and CHEAPER? And before you say whatever you’re about to say, make youy you run it past, “so why didn’t he use that?” Because something about the AR15 was part of the draw for him to kill a whole lot of people.

But it won't stop them.

When you don't have enough extra space between the road and the buildings it's rare you could put such things. And it's exactly those areas that provide the biggest targets for rammers. Look towards the tall buildings in whatever city you're in--you'll almost certainly find there isn't enough space to put in bollards. And there are often considerable numbers of people walking around.

If there’s not enough space to put a bollard, then how many people will you be able to kill, anyway?
But either way, so then why aren’t killers just doing that easy thing? And before you say whatever you’re about to say, make youy you run it past, “so why didn’t he use that?” Because something about the AR15 was part of the draw for him.

I've seen plenty of crowds on sidewalks where there are buildings beside the sidewalk.

What I would like to see is that any news outlet would be restricted to covering any given fact about such incidents once a year, other than as needed to provide consistency. You can say it, you just can't keep saying it. They don't get the attention the shooters crave. Give it the sort of coverage that 4 hours of traffic deaths (the equivalent of the Maine shooter) get.

Right! Hey Maine people, there’s an armed killer on the loose! We’ll give an update next year.

How often does it make the news before it's over?? And I wouldn't count a government-initiated alert as news.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

there really is no point in trying to stop some murders if we won’t be stopping all or even most murder. Seems like too much of a bother.

In fact, such a small fraction of people die of murder it’s a wonder we even report on it at all.

The point is you should focus on the things with big returns rather than things with small returns.

Actually removing every rifle in existence would only amount to 5% of murders prevented even if there's no displacement and there certainly would be.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you sell a gun to somebody who should not have it, you should be liable. Also possibly criminally in that case, depending on severity.

Once again, I disagree with strict liability laws. So long as you took reasonable steps to verify that they were permitted that's good enough.

If you have your gun unsecured in the car making it easy to steal, you should be liable.

Agreed, but without adequate enforcement it's a bad law. I oppose how it works in practice even though I agree with the concept.

If you do not secure your weapons and your kid gets access and shoots their sibling, you should be liable. Also criminally in that case.
All these cases have people who acted illegally and/or irresponsibly.

We need certification of kid-resistance of storage systems--there have been too many cases of kids defeating poorly designed locks and getting at guns. And beware of excessive security requirements--requiring heavy safes precludes anyone who lives upstairs from having a gun. Locks, yes, safes, no.

But Glock GmbH should not be liable for bad actions of others.

That's what I'm talking about here.
Tom

And I make a distinction between making a well-made legal product and people or companies (like gun stores) acting negligently and irresponsibly.

Exactly. Punish the people who misbehave, not people who are simply in the supply chain. Your car is stolen, you're not responsible for what the thief does with it. Nor is the fault of the dealer who sold it to you.

So much of the issue about liability is an attempt to stealth ban guns, not about punishing misbehavior.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are absolutely right; Banning AR-15s will have no significant effect on any gun owners or gun enthusiasts. They will still be able to achieve the exact same effects legally, using other rifles.

So there's no problem whatsoever with such a ban, which will make some people happy, and have zero impact on others.

I am glad that you concur that an AR-15 ban is a win-win, and look forward to you voting accordingly in the future.

This about chipping away at gun rights. An AR-15 is basically an evil-looking skin on a varmint rifle.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Criminally shooting people is a misuse of the product.
Shooting somebody in self-defense is not.

Shooting somebody in self defence isn't actually a thing.

Saying this doesn't make it so.

 

[Elixir]

you should focus on the things with big returns rather than things with small returns.

I think addressing the terror associated with
mass-murder-by-AR15-type-semi-automatic-weapon is worth far more than even saving some of the lives lost to those mass murderers.
As a social ill, the terror has helped to wreak unforetold paranoia, division and violence among us. I favor any regs that can - or even might - help curtail it, if they don’t practically impact legal gun users.

 

[Shadowy Man]

there really is no point in trying to stop some murders if we won’t be stopping all or even most murder. Seems like too much of a bother.

In fact, such a small fraction of people die of murder it’s a wonder we even report on it at all.

The point is you should focus on the things with big returns rather than things with small returns.

Alternatively one could say focus on the things with some returns rather than things with no returns.

Actually removing every rifle in existence would only amount to 5% of murders prevented even if there's no displacement and there certainly would be.

You say that like it’s a bad thing.