Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

You can purchase a large meat cleaver online without a background check. It is capable of severing raw meat, tendon, and bone, effortlessly.

Should the meat cleaver manufacturer be held liable for somebody that uses it to do serial murder?



You can purchase scopolamine based motion sickness pills. When taken with alcohol, they cause rapid loss of consciousness. People routinely use them to sexually assault women at parties.  Should the makers of the motion sickness pills be liable for the actions of the rapists?

[Micro102]

I specifically used the word "efficiently" to prevent this bad argument. We need meat cleavers for society to function, and for every 1 person a meat clever can kill, a gun can kill 5 more at least. It also let's the potential criminal get away more easily.

Other than that, I see what the problem here is. You think I mean gun manufacturers should be suable by people shot with guns. No, I want the regulations and protections on those manufacturers changed. They should not have the same protections. They should have different ones.

[wierd]

We need guns for society to function.

Not everyone lives in a city, nor should they.


Guns are a tool, and that tool has valid uses outside of killing people.



One can use pool chemicals to efficiently kill lots of people too. (Which is why chlorine gas is banned by the geneva convention.)  Should people's pools become breeding grounds for dangerous aquatic organisms?  (This comes with a MASSIVE warning to NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER do this!!  All you need to make a very deadly cloud of very high concentration chlorine gas, is a large pool chlorination tablet, a sealed container, and a bottle of sulfuric acid (which you can get at automotive stores.)  Drop the tablet in, inside an enclosed space, such as a subway, and you have one very deadly thing indeed. All the components are easily purchased without any kind of background check.)


The error you have, is that you assume that all people live the way you do, or have the same needs that you do.  You do not have a need for a gun, ergo- NOBODY has a need for a gun.


That is simply incorrect.

[Dunamisdeos]

I think you're arguing against yourself there, weird.

They're literally just suggesting that gun laws regarding manufacturers be changed, and specifically said that they should remain in a state to allow people who need them to have them. You seem to be having a fight with nobody about how not everyone lives the same way and guns can't be banned because bears.

To quote a respectable gentleman:

Sir, Please back away from the a-priori conclusion. It's dangerous, and wrong.

[None]

Whataboutisms aside, what does increased gun regulation look like? Skills/safety examinations, licensing, mandatory consultation, mental health evaluation, purchase/carry limitations, a ban on 'the shoulder-thing that goes up,' a prohibition of secondhand sales without a licensed middle-man, some sort of regulatory body to inform when crossing state borders?

Folks out in the boonies who need rifles for bears never won't need rifles for bears unless we remove bears, and that's terrible for ecology, but I reckon that sort of rifle isn't the one that's the subject of talks of regulation.

[wierd]

The argument, is specifically against this statement--

I would say giving gun manufacturers the same defenses as other manufactories is protection from civil litigation. Other industries don't make items designed to kill large groups of people.

Again, pool chlorination tablets.  The chemical in question (Calcium hypochlorite) was manufactured in WW1, to kill people very efficiently.

It just so happens to ALSO be very good at bleaching textiles, and disinfecting pools.



The argument I am tendering, is that the gun is like the chlorine tablet.  It is a tool.  It has valid uses, AND invalid ones.

Simply because it CAN be used to efficiently kill lots of people, does not justify its being banned.

[wierd]

Whataboutisms aside, what does increased gun regulation look like? Skills/safety examinations, licensing, mandatory consultation, mental health evaluation, purchase/carry limitations, a ban on 'the shoulder-thing that goes up,' a prohibition of secondhand sales without a licensed middle-man, some sort of regulatory body to inform when crossing state borders?

Folks out in the boonies who need rifles for bears never won't need rifles for bears unless we remove bears, and that's terrible for ecology, but I reckon that sort of rifle isn't the one that's the subject of talks of regulation.

You would be incorrect, as the same rifles used, can and are, used by the military to take out armored humans, using different ammunition, and are often mentioned in "Assault weapon" bans.

[McTraveller]

If you want personal freedom, the cost is personal responsibility.  If you don't want personal responsibility, then don't complain if you lose personal freedoms.

Just because I am an Evil Person^TM and use Product X for malicious purposes, why should you have to jump through regulatory hurdles to use Product X for benign purposes?

Is the cost of hurdles times the million people using something benignly really worth offsetting the one person uses something maliciously?  Unless you are the one pocketing the cash from registrations or whatever (likely), or maybe if that revenue is used for a good public service (questionable).

[MrRoboto75]

who the fuck uses a lego glock to fend off bears

[None]

Pretty sure militaries aren't using hunting rifles to get around bans on military weapons to take out armored humans, weird. Also, pretty sure nobody brought up outright bans until you did, except for my pip on the 'shoulder-things'.

Without specification, this kind of incorrectness is silly, because we'll talk past each other about why the other's point of view is wrong, which is why I'd opened the question about what regulation looks like.

[wierd]

No, again, you would be incorrect.

https://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/hunting/2012/12/best-grizzly-guns-9-great-guns-brown-bear-hunting-and-defense/


Curiously, a Glock 20 is listed!  As is a .357 magnum pistol.  (imagine that... Its almost like I am telling the truth and not making shit up!)

Also listed, are various hunting rifles.

Such as the Remington Model 700-- which is also the same gun as the M24 Sniper Weapon System


So no, you are just wrong.

[McTraveller]

In other news:  more articles about how inflation is causing restaurants to close "and the government should help."

How do we deal with short-term system shocks to keep businesses afloat in times of duress, but not turn it into an unsustainable quagmire?  How do we start treating "rainy day funds" as an asset rather than a liability, so we encourage society to have enough savings to weather dramatic events?

We can't just keep "bailing people out" - how do we build in a true safety reserve instead of just kicking the can down the road?

[Micro102]

I can't believe I have to make this argument.

People need knives big enough to cut meat, to cut meat. We cannot feasibly require paperwork for everyone who wants to cut meat, nor is an item capable of cutting someone rare enough to make requiring paperwork something that will limit the use of that item.

Not everyone needs guns. We can feasibly require paperwork for them and there are few things that have as much killing potential that said paperwork will limit the deaths caused by guns.

Don't compare "going to Walmart, buying a gun and ammo, and shooting people" to "having knowledge of chemistry enough to know to mix sulfuric acid and chorine tablets, and find a method to expose people to said gas long enough to kill them".

There is a reason there are more gun deaths than chlorine gas bomb deaths. Because it's easier. There is a reason that school shootings are an epidemic in America. Every other country has regulations on guns.

does not justify its being banned.

And this right here just convinces me you aren't listening anymore. No one said "ban guns". The republican fear mongering is leaking out of your brain.

[None]

Look, I'm not polished up on firearms, so I'll accept that I'm just wrong, but we still haven't gone past the defense beyond outright bans and meat cleaver whataboutisms.

I'm also not trying to indicate that you're lying and making shit up, so I really don't know how to address this injustice.

[wierd]

Again, see the guns listed as the ones suitable for killing bears, then cross reference the ones most tendered to be banned.


The worst lie, is the half-truth.  Republicans are GREAT at telling half-truths.  They get lots of people that otherwise would rather not deal with religious nutzos and other idiocy, simply because of people that incorrectly assume that an "M24 sniper weapon system" is "Clearly something no ordinary citizen should have!!", (even though it is really just a Remington hunting rifle, with a special scope on it.)


Mostly, I am just triggered at the "Designed to kill people" rhetoric.  Again, a rifle is designed to fire a projectile. Nothing else.  How you use it, is another matter.  Again, see the Remington hunting rifle cited.  It is ALSO a military service rifle. Used to kill humans.  That does not change the fact that it was ACTUALLY designed to hunt things that are hard to kill-- like bear and moose.  The military just puts a special sight on it, and special ammo (which is already restricted) inside it.