marimoose
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,282
Jul 22, 2014 2:10:14 GMT
|
Post by marimoose on Apr 15, 2016 17:01:51 GMT
Can we be friends lol??? You think like I think. I could think of dozens of other examples to add to the list. Why not make the comparison for the accountability of tobacco companies? I actually agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by Delta Dawn on Apr 15, 2016 17:16:08 GMT
(Just thinking here but where would you use an assault rifle big gun if you weren't in the military? Shooting range maybe? Collector's piece? Just had to have it thing?) disregarding the fact that 'assault rifle' IS a meaningless term (we've had that discussion before, so I won't do it again here no matter how tempting), the answer to your questions is YES, to all of the above. Shooting range, just as a collector's piece, etc. are valid reasons for someone to own any gun that's legal to purchase. And the bar serving alcohol to someone drunk is different than suing the brewery for manufacturing the beer. That analogy for guns would be more like a gun shop selling a gun to someone who didn't pass their background check. The gun manufacturer still isn't liable in that situation, either. I changed my wording. I didn't mean this in sarcasm. I don't have another word for it--semi-automatic weapon is better maybe? It's still a big gun. You need a safe to keep it in, right? It would need a decent sized space to keep safe. It might be as much reason to own as my mom's former limited edition Swarovski crystal figurine habit. They cost a fair amount and she/we keep them in a safe place. She didn't display them because? She just had to have them.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 15:05:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2016 17:41:56 GMT
Tobacco companies aren't a good comparison. There is no use of tobacco that isn't dangerous to your health. The product itself - no matter how it is used - is dangerous.
A more accurate comparison would be car companies.
Just because a vehicle's speedometer goes to 100, 120 and above, doesn't mean that the vehicle is meant to be used in that manner. No one thinks to sue an auto manufacturer when there is a car accident because someone used the car while drinking or acting recklessly outside of how the car was intended to be used.
Should we try to stop people from buying cars or collecting cars because some people have used them recklessly or even intentionally used them in an unsafe way? Should we sue the manufacturer because the ability to use them that way exists?
|
|
jenkate77
Full Member
Posts: 427
Jun 26, 2014 1:33:16 GMT
|
Post by jenkate77 on Apr 15, 2016 17:58:09 GMT
Just waiting for someone to drop in and point out that the term assault rifle is wrong/meaningless or whatever and therefore no one knows what they're talking about..... Well, I mean it IS, but you already knew that. The perception of non-gun owners is made based on how the guns look. I could show you an AR-10 and a gun that works the exact same way, but that's made from wood instead, and you'd think that the wood rifle was somehow less threatening than the AR-10. And yet, they do the exact same thing. No one owns automatic weapons - to get them as a civilian is just about impossible. You have to pull the trigger to fire every time on every gun that anyone can walk into a store to buy.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Apr 15, 2016 18:09:09 GMT
(Just thinking here but where would you use an assault rifle if you weren't in the military? Shooting range maybe? Collector's piece? Just had to have it thing?) disregarding the fact that 'assault rifle' IS a meaningless term (we've had that discussion before, so I won't do it again here no matter how tempting), the answer to your questions is YES, to all of the above. Shooting range, just as a collector's piece, etc. are valid reasons for someone to own any gun that's legal to purchase. And the bar serving alcohol to someone drunk is different than suing the brewery for manufacturing the beer. That analogy for guns would be more like a gun shop selling a gun to someone who didn't pass their background check. The gun manufacturer still isn't liable in that situation, either. I was going to make the same point. And no, I don't think that tobacco companies should be sued for making and selling their product as it is legal. Want something to change, your elected officials need to step in and change the law (although I don't believe they should in most cases). Punishing a company for doing what is legal shouldn't prevail. Since, in this case, the gun was never bought by the shootet, how are the gun makers liable? If the mother was alive, she probably should be liable, but she was killed too.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 15:05:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2016 18:38:20 GMT
The term "assault rifle" is a generic term to describe a specific type of rifle. Kind of like the the generic terms "sport cars" "SUV" describe specific types of cars.
Per Dictionary.com the definition of assault rifle: 1. A military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire utilizing an intermediate power cartridge. 2. A non military weapon on military assault rifle, usually only modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.
This fuss of is there or is there not such a thing as an assault rifle is nothing but a distraction from the real question which is should military or modified military rifles be sold to private citizens.
In my world the answer is no. While I strongly believe we should invent and equip our soldiers with the most powerful weapons we can for the battlefield I believe those military grade weapons only belong on the battlefield. And I also feel the same about modified military type weapons.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 15:05:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2016 19:45:17 GMT
The NRA Eddie Eagle GunSafe firearm accident prevention program has reached over 25 million children, making it the most widely taught prevention program in the world. The program teaches children that if they see a gun, they should "STOP! Don't Touch. Leave The Area. Tell An Adult." ...it is important to recognize the value the NRA provides in educating millions of Americans on the safe use and storage of guns." The NRA counts each "click" on their Eddie Eagle website towards their "25 million children" statistic. I just clicked on it so I guess the count is 25 million and 1 except that I am not a child. I won't get into the millions of dollars the NRA PAC sends to politicians and the millions they spend in fighting reasonable gun control or laws to close loop holes. I'm not sure where you get your info, but the program is not entirely on-line. Teachers and law enforcement officers teach it and the number is now up to 28 million since that Huffington Post article. And just because you only clicked on it to discredit the NRA, doesn't mean others aren't learning from it. But the point was that verdepea said the NRA does little to nothing to increase safety and that's just not true. Gun accidents involving children is down 75% in the last 25 years. Now if you want to point fingers at who is doing nothing to promote gun safety, look at Everytown For Gun Safety. They're all about banning, not safe gun use. And the Violence Policy Center likes to condemn the Eddie Eagle Program, but has no gun safety programs of their own. Hence the comparison to the ridiculous abstinence only programs taught by some sex ed programs.
|
|