Where did the gun regulations sticky go?

[william]

Is this the same Bible which gave us the Dark Ages, The Crusades and the Catholic Church?

Yes it is. But fortunately it's also the same Bible that provides us guidance in moments of uncertainty, such as the following:

King Arthur: Consult the Book of Armaments.
Brother Maynard: Armaments, chapter two, verses nine through twenty-one.
Cleric: [reading] And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, "O Lord, bless this thy hand grenade, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy." And the Lord did grin. And the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths, and carp and anchovies, and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit-bats and large chu...
Brother Maynard: Skip a bit, Brother...
Cleric: And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
Brother Maynard: Amen.
All: Amen.
King Arthur: Right. One... two... five.
Galahad: Three, sir.
King Arthur: Three.

Credit to Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

[Raymond odle]

The only true solution to the worlds misery is the intake and acceptances of Bible Doctrine.

Is this the same Bible which gave us the Dark Ages, The Crusades and the Catholic Church?

Lets stick to the subject of gun legislation eh?

I thought the subject was stopping mass murders.

[justadude]

JamesH wrote:

Raymond odle wrote:
The only true solution to the worlds misery is the intake and acceptances of Bible Doctrine.

Is this the same Bible which gave us the Dark Ages, The Crusades and the Catholic Church?

Lets stick to the subject of gun legislation eh?

I thought the subject was stopping mass murders.

Oh yes, sticking to the topic of stopping mass murders through gun legislation. : )

[FredB]

The only true solution to the worlds misery is the intake and acceptances of Bible Doctrine.

Is this the same Bible which gave us the Dark Ages, The Crusades and the Catholic Church?

Lets stick to the subject of gun legislation eh?

What a great example of the saying, "When your only tool is a hammer, every problem is a nail." If you step back to look at mass murder commonalities you see:

1. almost invariably they are committed by males;
2. almost invariably they are committed by people who have shown prior signs of mental stress;
3. almost invariably in the US they are committed in advertised "gun-free" zones (also true in much of the rest of the world by default);
4. in many of them, but not almost invariably, the killers use guns.

In response, the politicians and media a priori reject the tools to deal with numbers 1 and 2, because of their cost and complexity, and have a strong mental bias against the tool to deal with number 3. So they are left with what they believe is a tool to deal with number 4, "gun control", even though that tool, like a hammer used to cut wood, will not work and will make a mess of things. And many of the public, conditioned by the avalanche of gun control verbiage from politicians and media, chime in, seeing only the one totally inadequate "solution". Thanks JamesH for demonstrating that for us.

FredB

[zuckerman]

why is it that in the US, only the gun industry has a law passed that gives them the legal right to be free from liability lawsuits? why are they allowed to build and sell products that have great potential to kill, yet are free from any liability lawsuits?

[Gerard]

As faith keeps cropping up in this discussion - and not just any faith but the Judeo-Christian type, as apparently Buddha nor Allah nor any other flavour of mystic being have a role here it seems - I'm curious as to any existing proofs that the Bible and the various thousands of interpretations of it through so many churches and cults actually offers any statistical reduction in rates of violence. We all know that religions have done both good and harm throughout their recorded histories, that much is above debate. But can it be shown conclusively that any faith has actually reduced violent crime after some duration of being taken up in any region, or preferably in a large number of cases? Missionary activities among stone age cultures have surely offered many promises, but have they delivered? Or pushes to re-religify areas which have faltered, how has that worked out in terms of violent assaults and murders being reduced? Seems I recall hearing the Bible used to justify homophobia, slavery, spousal and child abuse, genocide in the case of the usurpation of North and South America from the millions of natives there, in Australia, much of Africa, and on and on. There seems no end to the flexibility of the Book throughout the ages. Has this adaptability also aided in reducing harm to populations as a whole? If not, I'd suggest abandoning it as a useless tool in at least the discussion on the table.

And in a related question, one of which George Bush the younger was famously fond, when faced with the question of gun-user-initiated violence in a primarily 'Christian' area as the USA seems to be (though that is fading rather quickly), what do you think Jesus would do? Or at least suggest... as I rather doubt he'd be stocking up on ammunition.

[Isabel1130]

why is it that in the US, only the gun industry has a law passed that gives them the legal right to be free from liability lawsuits? why are they allowed to build and sell products that have great potential to kill, yet are free from any liability lawsuits?

Well, if this was true, it would be interesting, but it is not. Liability law is designed to hold businesses responsible when their products malfuction, not when they are used as intended.

We don't hold gun manufacturers liable for misuse of their product anymore than we hold Ford Motor Company liable, when some drunk crashes one of the trucks they built into a bridge.

Nuisance law suits designed to put gun manufacturers out of business became a problem, so Congress passed a law to exempt them from these sorts of spurious claims. Considering that the US and state governments are the biggest purchasers of rifles, and handguns, it is unsurprising that they would protect them, as they have many other businesses who have multiple government contracts.

Nuisance lawsuits are designed, not to collect actual damages but to bankrupt a company by continuously suing them, forcing them to run up unsustainable legal attorney and court costs.

[william]

We don't hold gun manufacturers liable for misuse of their product anymore than we hold Ford Motor Company liable, when some drunk crashes one of the trucks they built into a bridge.

The sad fact is that gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers lobbied Congress for - and received - almost total immunity from liability lawsuits. And then there's the Tiahrt Amendment which makes it impossible for any government agency to compile statistical information about guns used in crimes.

The industry lives in a legal cocoon. Hypothetically, if X manufacturer's guns were responsible for 90% of homicides in the US, and if Y distributor knowingly sold them in such a way as to assure that hundreds of them ended up in criminals' hands, X and Y would still be untouchable.

As Yakov Smirnov used to say: "America! What a country!"

[Isabel1130]

We don't hold gun manufacturers liable for misuse of their product anymore than we hold Ford Motor Company liable, when some drunk crashes one of the trucks they built into a bridge.

The sad fact is that gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers lobbied Congress for - and received - almost total immunity from liability lawsuits. And then there's the Tiahrt Amendment which makes it impossible for any government agency to compile statistical information about guns used in crimes.

The industry lives in a legal cocoon. Hypothetically, if X manufacturer's guns were responsible for 90% of homicides in the US, and if Y distributor knowingly sold them in such a way as to assure that hundreds of them ended up in criminals' hands, X and Y would still be untouchable.

As Yakov Smirnov used to say: "America! What a country!"

So,let me get this stright William. If you as a private citizen makes or sells any legal product, not just a gun, but a lawn mower, a chain saw, a truck, or an axe, and the person you sold it to uses it to hurt or kill someone, you are fine with the government (or the injured party) coming after you in court?

What if you as a gas station owner were to sell a product, that was later found to cause cancer? You would be willing to be pay up for that too?

Tort law, is already way out of control in some states in the U.S, and then people wonder why no one is willing to manufacture anything in the US anymore.

William, there must be some perfect place in the world, where the rooms are all made of rubber, and people never make or sell anything that could possibly hurt someone. When you find it, let me know ok?

[william]

So,let me get this stright William. If you as a private citizen makes or sells any legal product, not just a gun, but a lawn mower, a chain saw, a truck, or an axe, and the person you sold it to uses it to hurt or kill someone, you are fine with the government (or the injured party) coming after you in court?

What if you as a gas station owner were to sell a product, that was later found to cause cancer? You would be willing to be pay up for that too?

Completely inappropriate comparisons, completely.

You ignore the FACT that neither the manufacturers of lawn mowers, axes, chain saws, trucks, etc. nor the owners of gas stations have legal immunity from liability law. You also ignore the fact that a chain saw, used according to its manufacturer's instructions, will not kill a human being (let alone 26 of them). Finally you ignore the poisonous Tiahrt Amendment which makes it impossible for anybody to even know who is being killed by what.

If you want to use the example of a gas station owner and "later found to cause cancer," maybe you should consider comparing to the asbestos industry whose product was known to be a carcinogen for decades before they were required to stop selling it. And if you want to go on a rant about abuses of tort law, maybe you ought to save it for a forum for product liability attorneys.

[FredB]

Hypothetically, if X manufacturer's guns were responsible for 90% of homicides in the US, and if Y distributor knowingly sold them in such a way as to assure that hundreds of them ended up in criminals' hands, X and Y would still be untouchable.

William:

If X manufacturer's guns by themselves were responsible for 90% of homicides (say, by exploding when fired), then of course X could, and would, be sued, probably successfully. That would be a pretty clear-cut example of product liability. But if people using guns manufactured by X were responsible, then how do you justify suing X? Do you believe that the guns by themselves are responsible for any actions? Do you believe that the gun manufacturer somehow induces a person to purchase the gun in order to use it to commit murder, an illegal act? Why would a manufacturer want to encourage the commission of illegal acts? This appears to be the Bloomberg theory behind his nuisance lawsuits, and for me it doesn't pass the smell test.

FredB

[Isabel1130]

So,let me get this stright William. If you as a private citizen makes or sells any legal product, not just a gun, but a lawn mower, a chain saw, a truck, or an axe, and the person you sold it to uses it to hurt or kill someone, you are fine with the government (or the injured party) coming after you in court?

What if you as a gas station owner were to sell a product, that was later found to cause cancer? You would be willing to be pay up for that too?

Completely inappropriate comparisons, completely.

You ignore the FACT that neither the manufacturers of lawn mowers, axes, chain saws, trucks, etc. nor the owners of gas stations have legal immunity from liability law. You also ignore the fact that a chain saw, used according to its manufacturer's instructions, will not kill a human being (let alone 26 of them). Finally you ignore the poisonous Tiahrt Amendment which makes it impossible for anybody to even know who is being killed by what.

If you want to use the example of a gas station owner and "later found to cause cancer," maybe you should consider comparing to the asbestos industry whose product was known to be a carcinogen for decades before they were required to stop selling it. And if you want to go on a rant about abuses of tort law, maybe you ought to save it for a forum for product liability attorneys.

William, there is no such thing as absolute immunity in tort law or anywhere else. If a gun manufacturer builds a gun that explodes and injures people, with factory ammo designed for that caliber, they are going to be liable.

You have made several assertions here that are absolutely false and I am afraid, if I don't explain how legal liability operates, I am going to be viewed as just another ranter.

If you don't want to be bothered with the actual facts, that is fine by me, but I won't let Brady Campaign propagnada go unchallenged.

[Raymond Odle]

As faith keeps cropping up in this discussion - and not just any faith but the Judeo-Christian type, as apparently Buddha nor Allah nor any other flavour of mystic being have a role here it seems - I'm curious as to any existing proofs that the Bible and the various thousands of interpretations of it through so many churches and cults actually offers any statistical reduction in rates of violence. We all know that religions have done both good and harm throughout their recorded histories, that much is above debate. But can it be shown conclusively that any faith has actually reduced violent crime after some duration of being taken up in any region, or preferably in a large number of cases? Missionary activities among stone age cultures have surely offered many promises, but have they delivered? Or pushes to re-religify areas which have faltered, how has that worked out in terms of violent assaults and murders being reduced? Seems I recall hearing the Bible used to justify homophobia, slavery, spousal and child abuse, genocide in the case of the usurpation of North and South America from the millions of natives there, in Australia, much of Africa, and on and on. There seems no end to the flexibility of the Book throughout the ages. Has this adaptability also aided in reducing harm to populations as a whole? If not, I'd suggest abandoning it as a useless tool in at least the discussion on the table.

And in a related question, one of which George Bush the younger was famously fond, when faced with the question of gun-user-initiated violence in a primarily 'Christian' area as the USA seems to be (though that is fading rather quickly), what do you think Jesus would do? Or at least suggest... as I rather doubt he'd be stocking up on ammunition.

I will let other faiths speak for themselves rather than, like you, attack them. You have yet to answer what is wrong with teaching "thou shall not murder"? Isn't this the heart of this discussion?

You asked "what do you think Jesus would do?". I can only say what He did. We force unprotected children into unprotected schools leaving them to the whim of evil men. Though we mortals are placed in a world inhabited by evil we are not left unprotected. God provided protection for our souls through the death of Jesus Christ. He is a respecter of our freedom of choice. You and I are free to believe as we see fit. You choose to put your faith where ever, I choose to put my faith in the Almighty. We both will live and die with our choice.

I do not believe the innocent children should die just because some adults have faith in a failed ideology, that a gun free zone is more civilized.

[Richard H]

So you make the assumption that before Moses came down with the 10 Commandments killing was looked upon as favourable, and that was the first utterance of that being a bad thing?

So you prefer the "thou shalt not murder" to the "thou shalt not kill". It makes it much easier to square some things if you use the first one.

[Isabel1130]

http://www.nssfblog.com/nssf-corrects-g ... and-plcaa/

For those who want to know what it Really did: the Tiahrt amendment

[Gerard]

I will let other faiths speak for themselves rather than, like you, attack them. You have yet to answer what is wrong with teaching "thou shall not murder"? Isn't this the heart of this discussion?

I've yet to answer it? Funny, seemed obvious that I'm on the side against murder, of all sorts in fact. Factory farming is right up there in my books, alongside 'sport' hunting of any sort, torture and murder of pet animals for kicks, and of course killing of a human being.

I've no problem at all with that teaching, though the wording seems somewhat out of date considering 'thou' isn't taught in schools and hasn't been for some time. What about 'don't kill people'? Or from my personal standpoint - highly personal as I'm not preaching it, but it's where I stand on the question as a reference point - what about 'don't kill animals of any kind unless it is to alleviate suffering.' Didn't I just read earlier in this thread that Gandhi had once shot a cow which was in horrible pain? Maybe it was in some related reading elsewhere, but no matter, it presented a good point. Sometimes killing, or for that matter assisting suicide, is simply the most kind thing to do. Of course such things should not be rushed into blindly, rather given as much contemplation, and preferably discussion among relevant people in the vicinity so as to ensure the decision is the right one. And I'd offer that such a decision to kill out of a sense of mercy could extend in a limited way to certain kinds of people who have been proven beyond any possible doubt (not just the opinion of a judge or an amateur jury, but including any scientific evidence available) this person's guilt. Brevik seems an obvious example, as does this Holmes fellow. But that's just my opinion. Most executions in the US seem unwarranted and unnecessarily cruel considering recent published reports on the actual mental state and experience of pain under lethal injection. By comparison hanging might be merciful.

But this does present a difficult contradiction. Once society agrees that killing is wrong (and I'd have to question whether that has EVER Happened in human history, considering that killing for meat continues in almost all cultures and killing humans and other animals for fun in almost all, if not all), how can it violate its own proclamation and go around killing a chosen few? By definition such a culture is perverted, just as is virtually the entire organised Christian faith with its weapons and injustices. Heck, even Christ's teaching on poverty and basic kindness is rejected by so many of faith who believe something more along the lines of 'thou shalt pull thyself up by thine own bootstraps' over anything like the hackneyed 'Christian charity' myth.

I'm not sure how to work out what is to be done with the real monsters among us, that is the ones who don't save us the effort of dealing with them by blowing their own brains out. This needs a lot of consideration and discussion.

You asked "what do you think Jesus would do?". I can only say what He did. We force unprotected children into unprotected schools leaving them to the whim of evil men. Though we mortals are placed in a world inhabited by evil we are not left unprotected. God provided protection for our souls through the death of Jesus Christ. He is a respecter of our freedom of choice. You and I are free to believe as we see fit. You choose to put your faith where ever, I choose to put my faith in the Almighty. We both will live and die with our choice.

I do not believe the innocent children should die just because some adults have faith in a failed ideology, that a gun free zone is more civilized.

Wow, I agree with that last! The faith in a failed ideology thing, that's kind of what I was suggesting, that the mostly fake adherence to Christ's teachings of universal love and fellowship (where can one find examples of that kind of demonstration of faith, on any significant cultural scale?) is more a socially acceptable form of bigotry than it is any sort of moral guide. As I said earlier, morality does not have to come from a 'bible.' One only has to live in a community a while, in a family a while, to learn that healthy, mutually supportive behaviours are more conducive towards happiness than abusive, destructive behaviours. We have to learn to kill each other. And one of the great historical teachers regarding murder is that Bible you seem to be so attached to. A healthy, loved child does not want to kill or hurt. Those violent impulses are learned via unhealthy families, communities, and countries. And a lot of that illness comes from systems which seek to rob the family of opportunities for healthy interaction in the name of profit. Look around you. Is the spiralling drive to earn more and more money good for the average family? Is the cut throat competition for limited resources, locally and globally, good for building strong and loving 'christian' communities?

I think I've more than answered your question regarding morality lessons. How about answering mine regarding any historical example of a region experiencing a significant drop in violent crime due to the adoption of a faith? So many are trying to convince others that having a gun in your pocket is going to solve problems. I'm asking; is having a bible in your pocket, or Jesus in your heart as they say, really, provably the answer as well? By my reckoning both are part of the problem.

[FredB]

Gerard,

I don't disagree with a lot of what you find desirable, but your rationale for it is highly questionable. Homo sapiens is a predator animal, with a million years of killing history. The "noble savage" is a complete myth. It is civilization that moderates man's violent instincts, and civilization, among other things, usually includes some form of religion. The question of whether religion has provided a net good or not, over many centuries, has been debated endlessly; no answer is "provable". The same religion that was used to justify the Spanish Inquisition was also the impetus for Dante's Divine Comedy. The same religion that inspired the magnificent architecture of some Mid-East mosques was one source of the Fort Hood massacre. The question is not whether religion, as some isolated force, has improved man's behavior toward man and other animals. It's whether societies, as they have evolved and as they exist now, are capable of steering man's primal aggressive - and, yes, killing - instincts in more positive ways.

FredB

[zuckerman]

http://www.nssfblog.com/nssf-corrects-g ... and-plcaa/

For those who want to know what it Really did: the Tiahrt amendment

that is one viewpoint, here is another:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/09/us/nra-gu ... ?hpt=hp_t2

[zuckerman]

and here is an opposing opinion on the 2nd amendment:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey- ... 36549.html

643 gunshot deaths since sandy hook

[JamesH]

The only true solution to the worlds misery is the intake and acceptances of Bible Doctrine.

Is this the same Bible which gave us the Dark Ages, The Crusades and the Catholic Church?

Lets stick to the subject of gun legislation eh?

I thought the subject was stopping mass murders.

Of course, but the thread title is "Where did the gun regulations sticky go?"

I don't really see how anything other than gun regulation is going to prevent madmen getting hold of guns.

People with guns going mad is a different question, in most cases in hindsight its usually reasonably obvious the signs were there for a long time and nothing was done, and the person was either allowed to purchase or continue owning guns.