Hillary Clinton's Gun Plan
-
The car-gun-analogy doesn't work, here's why: To drive a car you need to prove you're able to do so by taking a test. Any idiot person can by a gun without proof of the ability how it's to be handled.
Kitty at my foot and I waAAAant to touch it...
Power Puff Boy wrote:
proof of the ability how it's to be handled.
that doesn't work either. You can prove you know how to shoot a gun and handle a gun. Then 3 weeks later, that person kills 9 people, and then themselves. What studies are starting to show is that "some" of these people should have been institutionalized for life, and could have been done a long time ago. However, we have no laws or checks and balances for bat shit crazy people in this country.
-
Power Puff Boy wrote:
proof of the ability how it's to be handled.
that doesn't work either. You can prove you know how to shoot a gun and handle a gun. Then 3 weeks later, that person kills 9 people, and then themselves. What studies are starting to show is that "some" of these people should have been institutionalized for life, and could have been done a long time ago. However, we have no laws or checks and balances for bat shit crazy people in this country.
Actually there are now guidelines (if not laws) that say we cannot lock people up for being "different". Who can it be now?
Mongo: Mongo only pawn... in game of life.
-
Actually there are now guidelines (if not laws) that say we cannot lock people up for being "different". Who can it be now?
Mongo: Mongo only pawn... in game of life.
Good point. Very dangerous territory, defining "different" from bat shit "shoot everyone in the theatre" crazy. However, I think we (America) need to dedicate some serious recon into this path of action. I should not have to give up my guns because of my bat shit crazy neighbor's actions.
-
Here[^] "Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is set to unveil a sweeping gun control proposal Monday that would include closing the "gun show loophole" and allowing victims of gun violence to sue firearm manufacturers." Does that mean I can sue a car manufacturer if a drunk drier hits me? Another stupid knee-jerk reaction to gun violence that will have no effect.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
Can I sue a match company if my house catches fire?
-
Here[^] "Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is set to unveil a sweeping gun control proposal Monday that would include closing the "gun show loophole" and allowing victims of gun violence to sue firearm manufacturers." Does that mean I can sue a car manufacturer if a drunk drier hits me? Another stupid knee-jerk reaction to gun violence that will have no effect.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
But people are allowed to sue cigarette manufacturers. By that logic, if someone produces a product which can cause injury/death to people, we should be able to sue him. PS. Is there any purpose to which a handgun could be put that doesn't cause injury or death? Target shooting is merely practice for shooting at people.
-
But people are allowed to sue cigarette manufacturers. By that logic, if someone produces a product which can cause injury/death to people, we should be able to sue him. PS. Is there any purpose to which a handgun could be put that doesn't cause injury or death? Target shooting is merely practice for shooting at people.
You could hunt with it. :laugh: But you need to be close.
Mongo: Mongo only pawn... in game of life.
-
But people are allowed to sue cigarette manufacturers. By that logic, if someone produces a product which can cause injury/death to people, we should be able to sue him. PS. Is there any purpose to which a handgun could be put that doesn't cause injury or death? Target shooting is merely practice for shooting at people.
Vivic wrote:
Target shooting is merely practice for shooting at people.
That is the dumbest thing I have heard in quite some time.
-
Good point. Very dangerous territory, defining "different" from bat shit "shoot everyone in the theatre" crazy. However, I think we (America) need to dedicate some serious recon into this path of action. I should not have to give up my guns because of my bat shit crazy neighbor's actions.
Slacker007 wrote:
I should not have to give up my guns because of my bat sh*t crazy neighbor's actions.
Indeed, indeed! Bat shít crazy neighbours would demand owning a gun or two. Cheers!
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
-
Slacker007 wrote:
I should not have to give up my guns because of my bat sh*t crazy neighbor's actions.
Indeed, indeed! Bat shít crazy neighbours would demand owning a gun or two. Cheers!
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
Are citizens of Germany allowed to own guns?
-
Are citizens of Germany allowed to own guns?
-
Are citizens of Germany allowed to own guns?
There is quite some buerocratic overhead involved (a massive understatement) to even just own a gun here in Germany, let alone carry one. Actually anything which can be used as a weapon is regulated by German Law. You can browse it here to your hearts content: Weapons Act (WaffG)[^] Cheers!
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
-
There is quite some buerocratic overhead involved (a massive understatement) to even just own a gun here in Germany, let alone carry one. Actually anything which can be used as a weapon is regulated by German Law. You can browse it here to your hearts content: Weapons Act (WaffG)[^] Cheers!
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
I already researched Germany's gun laws after my reply to you.
-
I already researched Germany's gun laws after my reply to you.
Well, I hope you enjoyed it! ;P
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
-
Here[^] "Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is set to unveil a sweeping gun control proposal Monday that would include closing the "gun show loophole" and allowing victims of gun violence to sue firearm manufacturers." Does that mean I can sue a car manufacturer if a drunk drier hits me? Another stupid knee-jerk reaction to gun violence that will have no effect.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
Kevin Marois wrote:
Does that mean I can sue a car manufacturer if a drunk drier hits me?
Your analogy doesn't make much sense. What would be more appropriate is if the car could easily be converted into a bomb that laid waste to a building with numerous people in it, and then YES absolutely we would hold said manufacturer responsible for putting such a dangerous item into the public. If a nerf gun caused serious injury we would allow toy purchasers to sue the manufacturer. The only grey line you have trenched across is an actual gun is intended to actually kill people. How does that justify corporations outputting the arsenals as they have been causing over flooding and illegal weapons trades? Bear in mind all illegal weaponry is legally manufactured. Why not put the responsibility on said manufacturer as we do with ALL dangerous items? Fertilizer companies are responsible for monitoring who is purchasing their product and how much in that the product must be serialized and then reported to authorities. Said product could also be argued as a "right to bear arms" as some peoples armament is more of a BOOM BOOM vs. a pop pop. In no way does the 2nd amendment justify such callousness. The only reason people think so is due to NRA lobbying and the only reason the NRA does such lobbying is $.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
But people are allowed to sue cigarette manufacturers. By that logic, if someone produces a product which can cause injury/death to people, we should be able to sue him. PS. Is there any purpose to which a handgun could be put that doesn't cause injury or death? Target shooting is merely practice for shooting at people.
Vivic wrote:
But people are allowed to sue cigarette manufacturers.
Those lawsuits were mostly based on the manufacturers lying and saying their products were harmless. Guns are more sold based on how much damage they can do.
Vivic wrote:
someone produces a product which can cause injury/death to people, we should be able to sue him
Can I sue the water company if I drown in their product? :rolleyes:
Hold my drink and watch this.
-
Power Puff Boy wrote:
proof of the ability how it's to be handled.
that doesn't work either. You can prove you know how to shoot a gun and handle a gun. Then 3 weeks later, that person kills 9 people, and then themselves. What studies are starting to show is that "some" of these people should have been institutionalized for life, and could have been done a long time ago. However, we have no laws or checks and balances for bat shit crazy people in this country.
I used the wrong wording. Instead of "handling" I should have said "knowlegde of its intended use and knowing when it's leagal to use, not legal to use and the consequences you will face if you break the rules etc.", but that seemed to long. Going back to the car analogy: Let's say you have a license to drive. This means that you have passed a test, showing that you know how to handle the car, but you have also passed the test proves that you e.g. if you drive drunk an get caught you'll get in trouble. That's what a gun license should include: legal consequences after you fire the darn thing. This license test should be designed to be very hard to pass. IMHO.
Kitty at my foot and I waAAAant to touch it...
-
Vivic wrote:
But people are allowed to sue cigarette manufacturers.
Those lawsuits were mostly based on the manufacturers lying and saying their products were harmless. Guns are more sold based on how much damage they can do.
Vivic wrote:
someone produces a product which can cause injury/death to people, we should be able to sue him
Can I sue the water company if I drown in their product? :rolleyes:
Hold my drink and watch this.
thrakazog wrote:
Can I sue the water company if I drown in their product? :rolleyes:
Only if you can find a lawyer who's willing to take instructions via a Ouija board. :-D
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
I used the wrong wording. Instead of "handling" I should have said "knowlegde of its intended use and knowing when it's leagal to use, not legal to use and the consequences you will face if you break the rules etc.", but that seemed to long. Going back to the car analogy: Let's say you have a license to drive. This means that you have passed a test, showing that you know how to handle the car, but you have also passed the test proves that you e.g. if you drive drunk an get caught you'll get in trouble. That's what a gun license should include: legal consequences after you fire the darn thing. This license test should be designed to be very hard to pass. IMHO.
Kitty at my foot and I waAAAant to touch it...
I believe in making it more difficult to own a gun. I just don't want some socialist pig telling me what gun I can own and how many. Phuck them. I believe that owning a gun should be more of a privilege, but still a right...with caveats.
-
Here[^] "Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is set to unveil a sweeping gun control proposal Monday that would include closing the "gun show loophole" and allowing victims of gun violence to sue firearm manufacturers." Does that mean I can sue a car manufacturer if a drunk drier hits me? Another stupid knee-jerk reaction to gun violence that will have no effect.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
