^ it's probably not their fault, but people should legally be able to sue whoever they want and judges should be able to throw the cases out.

I would like to see gun makers investing more in technologies to make guns safer and marketing these things, so if lawsuits can have this intended effect, then I am not against the lawsuits.

2/22/2016 11:38:44 AM

The standards for keeping cases alive is ridiculously low except in certain situations where there are laws to weed out bad cases early (e.g. Anti-SLAPP laws). In most events, frivolous lawsuits that aren't comical on their face, cost 5-6 figures and years of time to defend against.

2/22/2016 12:26:04 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/10/health/gun-laws-background-checks-reduce-deaths/

Study saying these laws could reduce gun deaths.

3/11/2016 12:57:48 AM

from the article:

Quote :

"However, there are weaknesses even in state universal background check laws. Purchasers can sometimes drive into another state that does not require these background checks, Kalesan said."

This is illegal. Sales across state lines, that is, sales where the buyer and seller are residents of different states, are required to go through an FFL, and FFL sales must have a NICS check.

3/11/2016 9:13:14 AM

also almost impossible to control since you are relying on private parties with little accountability, universal background checks would close that gap.

3/11/2016 9:23:31 AM

so what stops individuals from selling directly to one another after UBCs are passed?

3/11/2016 9:48:36 AM

it will still happen, it will happen a lot less. almost no law is guaranteed to stop all criminal activity, if that is the standard you have to apply then we would have almost no laws. for example the law you cite above shouldn't have been passed by that standard. This is one of the dumbest arguments that gets made in regards to gun control.

also with UBC there will also be no doubt that the seller is also a criminal. right now it is often difficult to prosecute sellers in illegal straw sales because they can claim that they followed the rules and did not know the buyer was not legally able to own a gun, to prosecute a seller they usually need to track multiple purchases to make their case. UBC is a disincentive for straw sales because it puts the seller at greater risk.

[Edited on March 11, 2016 at 10:02 AM. Reason : .]

3/11/2016 10:02:02 AM

Oh, ok

3/11/2016 10:20:39 AM

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article65357677.html

3/11/2016 10:42:30 AM

shouting "you're going to have to shoot me" while repeatedly reaching for a gun

those stupid motherfuckers are lucky they didn't all die. listening to them they live in a fantasy world

[Edited on March 11, 2016 at 12:18 PM. Reason : .]

3/11/2016 12:14:43 PM

meanwhile black guy with a pear in his hand had it coming. lmao.

3/11/2016 12:17:55 PM

holy shit all the laser sights at the very end when the young girl was getting out

you stupid motherfuckers thought that you were just above it all. and then shedding tears for the guy who spent the last 6 minutes of his life literally begging to get shot.

[Edited on March 11, 2016 at 12:21 PM. Reason : .]

3/11/2016 12:20:40 PM

http://www.vice.com/read/are-lawsuits-against-gunmakers-the-answer-to-americas-mass-shooting-epidemic?utm_source=vicefbus

People should be free to sue gun makers, and everyone else, it should be up to the courts to decide if a suit has merit.

4/18/2016 11:23:39 AM

Frivolous lawsuits are expensive, but gun companies can afford it.

4/18/2016 4:24:05 PM

Remington arms is as responsible for sandy hook about same amount GM is for drunk drivers. slime ball lawyers shouldnt be able to profit off dead kids imo

4/19/2016 10:56:30 AM

Then they would just lose the lawsuit. No need for a special law pushed through by gun lobbyists is there?

Historically, Law suits have actually helped make cars safer, so in that case, the system works. I'm not sure Gun nut types want to use cars as an example, especially in a few years when technologies that can eliminate the potential harms of drunk drivers become mandatory...

[Edited on April 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM. Reason : ]

4/19/2016 11:00:24 AM

are there any successful lawsuits where an auto manufacturer is sued because of a drunk driver that are not related to some kind of safety failure or similar?

4/19/2016 1:11:20 PM

I doubt it, i don't think anyone would be dumb enough to sue an automaker if they were driving drunk.

I could see someone suing an BAC interlock manufacturer that didn't lock them out, and they got in an accident or something, but I don't specifically know if this ever happened.

4/19/2016 4:18:28 PM

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

Anti-gun groups were drowning manufacturers in lawsuits in order to put them out of business. Cuomo called it "death by 1000 cuts" at the time. That's why they received protection. And it's not a blanket protection. It includes reasonable exceptions. 59 Democrats voted for it.

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-industry-immunity-policy-summary/

It's something that should apply to all manufacturers, not sure why it doesn't.

[Edited on April 19, 2016 at 4:44 PM. Reason : .]

4/19/2016 4:39:56 PM

a thousand cuts? oh no, scary talking points!

4/19/2016 4:48:48 PM

It's a metaphor by the Democratic governor of New York, dipshit. And he was speaking against the PLCAA, threatening manufacturers.

[Edited on April 19, 2016 at 4:52 PM. Reason : .]

4/19/2016 4:51:13 PM

speaking meaningless talking points

4/19/2016 6:13:40 PM

ok man. ignore the rest of my post because you didn't like Cuomo's metaphor.

4/19/2016 6:20:05 PM

You should know better than to discuss anything with dtowntroll

4/19/2016 6:28:24 PM

cuomo isn't a judge, he is a politician

4/19/2016 6:53:21 PM

even goalielax did a better job arguing. still wrong though.

4/19/2016 7:12:06 PM

so cuomo has input into what cases go forward? no? he's a democratic politician?

talking points

[Edited on April 19, 2016 at 7:18 PM. Reason : .]

4/19/2016 7:18:29 PM

considering it was the government suing them in many cases, yeah

read the wiki link

4/19/2016 7:28:35 PM

spoiler - andrew cuomo is not deciding what civil suits move forward

4/19/2016 7:31:15 PM

I laughed audibly when I read this headline http://wncn.com/2016/04/24/son-shoots-parents-parent-fires-back-all-3-injured-in-nc-shooting/

4/25/2016 9:43:24 AM

9th Cir. says there's no 2A right for the general public to carry concealed firearms in public. Of course this is California, but still relevant.

https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/3/10-56971/009128111226.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3D%22E.C.F.%209th%20Cir.%2010-56971%20dckt%20000333_000%20filed%202016-06-09.pdf%22&X-Amz-Expires=604800&X-Amz-Date=20160609T153038Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAJDK6JKKSMS3DQS4Q/20160609/us-east-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=b672fae1df6941d1b870c24958b2da82f02796a80a6df5940aca88f672855b13

6/9/2016 12:09:48 PM

Sometimes I wonder if the 9th circuit has ever even seen a copy of the constitution. Is there another district court that routinely gets there decisions overturned the way they do?

6/10/2016 3:53:46 AM

Did you read the full decision? It's pretty interesting, they base their decision on how Heller was decided.

6/10/2016 7:36:45 AM

quick google search on districts getting overturned turned up this on SCOTUS blog

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/scotus-for-law-students-sponsored-by-bloomberg-law-scoring-the-circuits/

Quote :

"There are other patterns that emerge in the four-year statistics for the Court’s decisions. The poorest records, albeit based on much less volume, belong to the Eighth and Sixth Circuits. With only eight cases reviewed, the Eighth Circuit was reversed 87.5% of the time – only one case was affirmed. The Sixth Circuit was reversed 87% of the time with three affirmances and twenty reversals. In each of the last four Terms, both of those courts stayed above the average reversal rate of 79.5%. Here, too, though, it would be hard to attribute the differences between the Court and the circuits to anything more than different approaches to often complex issues."

the constitution doesn't say you have a right to carry concealed weapons in public. it also doesn't say you don't have the right to do so. that's why we have things like amendments and court rulings. because, believe it or not, a document from 227 years ago doesn't actually hold every answer to everything.

6/10/2016 9:06:59 AM

The Constitution doesn't even give the General Government the right to regulate firearms. They only do so because of the bastardization of the commerce clause. Arguing things based on what the Constitution says is stupid at this point. No one in DC cares about it.

6/10/2016 8:39:46 PM

50 dead and 50 more injured at an Orlando gay nightclub.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-orlando-shooting-pulse-nightclub-story.html

6/12/2016 10:54:28 AM

that would never happen in the us. people would stand their ground and maybe only 1 or 2 would be dead.

6/12/2016 11:02:46 AM

Need more good gays with guns

6/12/2016 11:10:10 AM

^^Is that you sarcastically quoting someone else or thinking that Orlando isn't a part of this country?

[Edited on June 12, 2016 at 3:44 PM. Reason : ^]

6/12/2016 3:44:10 PM

yeah trump after paris

6/12/2016 3:47:24 PM

^Ah, got it

6/12/2016 4:34:21 PM

Great. New high score.


Of course, nothing will be done, and we'll be back in here in a few months when the next guy tries to break his record.

6/12/2016 4:59:24 PM

If only someone told Isis that it was a gun free gay club.

6/12/2016 5:22:03 PM

The shooter had a government license to buy fire-arms because he was a security guard for government property. I don't think people have government workers in mind when they think "Gun Control", but this is why we should oppose strict gun control. Because bad people are not opposed to taking a job just to get a gun, but good people won't do that.

I believe the operators of the nightclub had an obligation to make sure someone there was armed. Shooting back is the only counter we have to people trying to murder others.

6/12/2016 11:43:22 PM

^ there was a hired off duty officer that did shoot at the gunman. Didn't work in this case to stop the shooting.

6/12/2016 11:59:18 PM

Quote :

" but this is why we should oppose strict gun control"

Your logic is fucked.

[Edited on June 13, 2016 at 1:21 AM. Reason : In all the ways ]

6/13/2016 1:21:05 AM

Where are you seeing that he had a gun for his job? Most G4S employees are not armed. Why would he need to work for G4S to buy a gun, he can just buy a gun, his job has nothing to do with that.

6/13/2016 6:14:45 AM

I think it will be interesting to see the various government agencies try to explain away why this guy fell through the cracks, but it basically comes down to the fact that yea, he may have been investigated, but he hadn't been charged or diagnosed with anything that would have prevented him from making a purchase.

As others have posted before, government watch lists are just too random and subjective to use as an enforcement mechanism. Either find a way to better codify these watch lists, or change the gun laws to make it a little more difficult to get them.

Just out of curiosity, can you get a gun if you have a current restraining order out against you?

6/13/2016 7:24:20 AM

Quote :

"but this is why we should oppose strict gun control"

Can you explain this? What do you mean strict gun control? I'm not sure this incident presents any data as to why gun control should be opposed. In fact, it points to a flaw in the system - known extremists/unstable individuals gaining access to firearms. I'm not sure of the solution, but it certainly isn't less regulation.

6/13/2016 8:58:47 AM

dude literally thinks this guy was a government agent

dude's nuts

6/13/2016 9:05:23 AM