happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,512
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 8, 2015 9:47:08 GMT -5
You can file a lawsuit over anything. Yes it's a pain but if you are innocent (in theory) you prevail.
Are you proposing that we make it a law that you can't sue any negligent parents because we don't want to upset the parents who haven't been that negligent? Sorry, but parents already get sued for what their kids do, even parents that might not have been very negligent. That horse has left the barn.
Do you understand that there are different degrees of negligence? Do you see a difference between a woman who keeps a single handgun in her nightstand for home protection in a bad neighborhood and a woman who lives in a nice neighborhood yet stockpiles an arsenal of guns and ammo in the same place where her son, who she previously hospitalized with MH issues, lives? Sure the family of the person who was killed by the poor woman's son might still decide to sue, but 1) her level of negligence is low, especially if her kid had no prior known MH issues, so winning the case would be hard, and 2) as a poor person, she probably would have very little to sue for. As a lawyer once told me, you don't get blood from a stone.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 8, 2015 10:46:46 GMT -5
This is a bit of a side debate, but I think this is becoming more of a problem -- people who assume that it is fine to fire their gun at a person when no mortal threat exists. You see someone committing a non-violent crime and decide to shoot at them? Is shoplifting a capital offense now? The attitude of "if someone is (potentially) breaking the law, I can stop them with deadly force" seems to be becoming more and more pervasive, at least where I live.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,444
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Oct 8, 2015 11:29:45 GMT -5
This is a bit of a side debate, but I think this is becoming more of a problem -- people who assume that it is fine to fire their gun at a person when no mortal threat exists. You see someone committing a non-violent crime and decide to shoot at them? Is shoplifting a capital offense now? The attitude of "if someone is (potentially) breaking the law, I can stop them with deadly force" seems to be becoming more and more pervasive, at least where I live. I know a lot of pro-gun proponents like to ignore the "well-regulated" part of the second amendment, but I think it is relevant when we talk about restrictions on ownership. I would support restrictions in type, capacity, overall number, and who can legally have access. You do have the right to bear arms, however, I don't think it should be without restriction or regulation. If you prove yourself to be irresponsible and reckless with firearms, you should absolutely see your right to own and carry them be restricted. We already restrict felons from legally owning a gun, why not idiots who shoot at people over shoplifting. I am not anti-gun, however, the mentality of a lot of the pro-gun set scares the crap out of me. It is not about protecting yourself and your family, its about meting justice as they see fit. I was debating getting a handgun a few years ago since I was contemplating taking up target shooting. I could have walked in, had a basic background check run, given them a few hundred bucks, and walked out with a gun. I would also like to see a mandatory safety and handling course before you can purchase. The idea that a person with no gun knowledge can walk out with a gun is not really reassuring.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 8, 2015 11:35:07 GMT -5
Are you proposing that we make it a law that you can't sue any negligent parents because we don't want to upset the parents who haven't been that negligent? Sorry, but parents already get sued for what their kids do, even parents that might not have been very negligent. That horse has left the barn. I'm saying that of all the possible things people can file lawsuits over, families of murder victims would be the most irrational, vindictive, vengeance-driven abusers of the courts we've ever seen, bar none. In terms of a consuming desire for vengeance, no other crime compares. Generally speaking, plaintiffs aren't going to care whether the parent is reasonably liable, whether they have a hope of winning the suit, whether the parent has any ability to pay even if they do win. Not all of them, of course. Some will see reason. But everything I've seen says the staid and reasonable ones will be a distinct minority. Do you understand that there are different degrees of negligence? Do you see a difference between a woman who keeps a single handgun in her nightstand for home protection in a bad neighborhood and a woman who lives in a nice neighborhood yet stockpiles an arsenal of guns and ammo in the same place where her son, who she previously hospitalized with MH issues, lives? Sure the family of the person who was killed by the poor woman's son might still decide to sue, but 1) her level of negligence is low, especially if her kid had no prior known MH issues, so winning the case would be hard, and 2) as a poor person, she probably would have very little to sue for. As a lawyer once told me, you don't get blood from a stone. I don't know how hard winning the case would be. You're assuming a "low level" of negligence will get her off with some payable debt, but we don't know that. Regardless, being sued is a huge time and financial burden, win or lose. I have no doubt that even the costs of mounting a defense could bankrupt somebody. Especially somebody who's recently had to deal with the trial and conviction of their child.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,512
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 8, 2015 13:32:25 GMT -5
I actually can't believe you said that.
So if your wife got run over by an 18 wheeler piloted by a drunk driver, you think the courts should turn you away because your desire to sue the driver and the company that employed him is irrational and vengeance driven?
Our courts allow anyone to sue anyone. For whatever reason. If it's a frivolous lawsuit it gets tossed, or the person won't be able to find a lawyer to represent him, because the lawyer knows it's a crap case. Suggesting we need some kind of monitor over who gets to sue someone to cull out the people who are 'only' suing because someone murdered their loved one is outrageous.
Does your dislike of vengeance bleed over to other things? If your wife cheated on you with your best friend, would you forgive them and keep on like nothing happened? If your neighbor stole your antique sports car and wrapped it around a tree, would you forgive him and go on? Or is it just the families of murder victims who need to stop being vengeful?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,512
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 8, 2015 13:36:25 GMT -5
She will be charged for sure- they may give her a pass and go for a lesser charge than what she is guilty of- but they cannot let it go- because it would send a message to every irrational gun owner that it is perfectly fine to shoot into a moving vehicle based on assumptions and lack of need to defend themselves or others. An assault with a deadly weapon conviction and confiscation of her gun(s) would be a good start. I've seen police officers being interviewed who worry about this very thing. Untrained armed citizens shooting it out in public, catching innocent victims in the cross fire and causing all kinds of property damage. She was really, really lucky she didn't hit some innocent person on her vigilante rampage.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 8, 2015 13:55:54 GMT -5
I actually can't believe you said that. So if your wife got run over by an 18 wheeler piloted by a drunk driver, you think the courts should turn you away because your desire to sue the driver and the company that employed him is irrational and vengeance driven? I'm saying that 'I', the common man in a state of extreme grief, will quite possibly sue the owner of the grocery store where the driver bought his last sixpack of beer despite the owner's having no reasonable way of foreseeing the danger. I'd find a lawyer willing to take my money, and I'd go after that son of a gun owner to avenge my wife. Our courts allow anyone to sue anyone. For whatever reason. If it's a frivolous lawsuit it gets tossed, or the person won't be able to find a lawyer to represent him, because the lawyer knows it's a crap case. Suggesting we need some kind of monitor over who gets to sue someone to cull out the people who are 'only' suing because someone murdered their loved one is outrageous. All I'm suggesting is that we not make it any easier for victims' families to sue people tangentially related to murderers. I'm suggesting we leave well enough alone. Even in this latest shooting, would mom locking up the guns up in a cabinet have stopped it? There's no logical reason to expect the answer is "yes", especially if the shooter had access to the cabinet (i.e. had been told where the key was). In spite of this fact, if there was the faintest hope of suing mom without an instant dismissal, do you think any of the victims' families would care that not locking away the weapons was irrelevant to the shooting? I'm saying 'no'. They wouldn't win, but they'd at least try to sue her blind.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Oct 8, 2015 14:54:13 GMT -5
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,512
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 8, 2015 16:12:42 GMT -5
I actually can't believe you said that. So if your wife got run over by an 18 wheeler piloted by a drunk driver, you think the courts should turn you away because your desire to sue the driver and the company that employed him is irrational and vengeance driven? I'm saying that 'I', the common man in a state of extreme grief, will quite possibly sue the owner of the grocery store where the driver bought his last sixpack of beer despite the owner's having no reasonable way of foreseeing the danger. I'd find a lawyer willing to take my money, and I'd go after that son of a gun owner to avenge my wife. Our courts allow anyone to sue anyone. For whatever reason. If it's a frivolous lawsuit it gets tossed, or the person won't be able to find a lawyer to represent him, because the lawyer knows it's a crap case. Suggesting we need some kind of monitor over who gets to sue someone to cull out the people who are 'only' suing because someone murdered their loved one is outrageous. All I'm suggesting is that we not make it any easier for victims' families to sue people tangentially related to murderers. I'm suggesting we leave well enough alone. Even in this latest shooting, would mom locking up the guns up in a cabinet have stopped it? There's no logical reason to expect the answer is "yes", especially if the shooter had access to the cabinet (i.e. had been told where the key was). In spite of this fact, if there was the faintest hope of suing mom without an instant dismissal, do you think any of the victims' families would care that not locking away the weapons was irrelevant to the shooting? I'm saying 'no'. They wouldn't win, but they'd at least try to sue her blind. No, you would not have sued the grocery store because your lawyer would tell you they had no negligence. Dead end. The driver of the truck, who has training on drug abuse, and is tested periodically for drugs and alcohol, was liable for driving drunk. If the owner of the company failed to do drug tests like he was supposed to per the DOT laws, or if he failed to do driving records checks required by the DOT to see whether or not this truck driver had any DUI's in his personal car, the lawyer would have sued the hell out of the business owner, because he has deeper pockets than the driver. I don't know if you really understand the idea of negligence? A grocery store selling a six pack to an adult = perfectly legal, no negligence. In this latest shooting, if the mom had locked her guns in a gun safe and hadn't told her son the combination, it would have been a hell of a lot harder for him to get his weapons. He would have had to have the money for his own guns and ammo (something that might have been an issue for a guy with no job, living home with his mom). And if the mom was actually doing her job, as an observant parent, she would have picked up on the fact that her mentally ill and violent son was creating his own stockpile of weapons in his room and she might have been able to get him back into a mental health facility, or at least taken his weapons away again. I guarantee that, every day, there are diligent parents keeping their kids from doing stuff that would harm the rest of us. They aren't mentioned in the papers because their kids don't get a chance to drive drunk or walk into a school with guns. If all parents took the same relaxed attitude towards parenting their troubled kids as this woman did we'd be screwed. I actually feel more sorry for her son, for being mentally ill and living with a woman who was oblivious to his problems, than I do for the mom.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 28, 2024 10:13:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2015 16:28:19 GMT -5
This is a bit of a side debate, but I think this is becoming more of a problem -- people who assume that it is fine to fire their gun at a person when no mortal threat exists. You see someone committing a non-violent crime and decide to shoot at them? Is shoplifting a capital offense now? The attitude of "if someone is (potentially) breaking the law, I can stop them with deadly force" seems to be becoming more and more pervasive, at least where I live. Deadly force is not becoming more and more pervasive. Here is a link. Could you provide one for your statement, please?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 28, 2024 10:13:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2015 16:32:07 GMT -5
Are mentally ill people more prone to murder someone? I thought that was just a bigoted fallacy against the mentally ill.
It makes no sense to me that the mentally ill cannot use mental illness to mitigate responsibility after committing a crime but could have their rights denied them because of mental illness when not accused of committing any crime.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 8, 2015 16:37:05 GMT -5
This is a bit of a side debate, but I think this is becoming more of a problem -- people who assume that it is fine to fire their gun at a person when no mortal threat exists. You see someone committing a non-violent crime and decide to shoot at them? Is shoplifting a capital offense now? The attitude of "if someone is (potentially) breaking the law, I can stop them with deadly force" seems to be becoming more and more pervasive, at least where I live. Deadly force is not becoming more and more pervasive. Here is a link. Could you provide one for your statement, please? I said "the attitude of deadly force" is becoming pervasive, not deadly force itself. I am basing that on comments I have heard from people IRL and read online, as well as stories like the one posted. Many people appear to see no problem with the use of potentially lethal force on others for crimes like burglary, robbery, and child molestation. Perhaps this attitude is not spreading, and it is simply that people who feel that way are becoming more vocal about it.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,512
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 8, 2015 16:39:35 GMT -5
Are mentally ill people more prone to murder someone? I thought that was just a bigoted fallacy against the mentally ill. It makes no sense to me that the mentally ill cannot use mental illness to mitigate responsibility after committing a crime but could have their rights denied them because of mental illness when not accused of committing any crime. The great majority of mentally ill people are NOT violent. There are SOME mentally ill people, usually the ones that are paranoid/delusional, who MAY become violent if they aren't on the right meds, or if stressful/frightening things are going on in their lives. Kind of like how a lot of post partum women suffer from some level of depression (I did) but almost none of them are so severely depressed they kill their own children. And actually if you can prove mental illness you can mitigate responsibility after a crime. It is very hard to do because you have to be able to demonstrate that essentially you didn't know right from wrong at the time the crime was committed, but it can be done. The Aurora Colorado shooter was mentally ill and had actually been going to a therapist who was alarmed about some of the things he said/did - but she wasn't sure about whether she should tell the campus police that this guy might be a problem. There are a whole lot of people now who wish she had said something, even if it meant this guy would have been detained and sent to a facility for a while.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 28, 2024 10:13:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2015 16:40:11 GMT -5
Deadly force is not becoming more and more pervasive. Here is a link. Could you provide one for your statement, please? I said "the attitude of deadly force" is becoming pervasive, not deadly force itself. I am basing that on comments I have heard from people IRL and read online, as well as stories like the one posted. Many people appear to see no problem with the use of potentially lethal force on others for crimes like burglary, robbery, and child molestation. Perhaps this attitude is not spreading, and it is simply that people who feel that way are becoming more vocal about it.Or perhaps the attitude is not spreading and people are got becoming more vocal about it. Perhaps you just notice more for whatever reason. Without something to back up what you claim, it is nothing more then a personal anecdote. Or am I misunderstanding?
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 8, 2015 16:44:36 GMT -5
I said "the attitude of deadly force" is becoming pervasive, not deadly force itself. I am basing that on comments I have heard from people IRL and read online, as well as stories like the one posted. Many people appear to see no problem with the use of potentially lethal force on others for crimes like burglary, robbery, and child molestation. Perhaps this attitude is not spreading, and it is simply that people who feel that way are becoming more vocal about it.Or perhaps the attitude is not spreading and people are got becoming more vocal about it. Perhaps you just notice more for whatever reason. Without something to back up what you claim, it is nothing more then a personal anecdote. Or am I misunderstanding? My first sentence of the original post you quoted included "I think." I was unaware I needed a source to justify what was clearly stated as an opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 28, 2024 10:13:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2015 16:46:39 GMT -5
Or perhaps the attitude is not spreading and people are got becoming more vocal about it. Perhaps you just notice more for whatever reason. Without something to back up what you claim, it is nothing more then a personal anecdote. Or am I misunderstanding? My first sentence of the original post you quoted included "I think." I was unaware I needed a source to justify what was clearly stated as an opinion. I am just asking if what you said was something you could back up with a link or not. I do not get to tell you whether or not a source is needed. If it was clear to me what you meant, I would not have asked . To be clear, though you characterized your post as "I said the attitude of deadly force is becoming more pervasive"
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 8, 2015 16:49:28 GMT -5
My first sentence of the original post you quoted included "I think." I was unaware I needed a source to justify what was clearly stated as an opinion. I am just asking if what you said was something you could back up with a link or not. I do not get to tell you whether or not a source is needed. If it was clear to me what you meant, I would not have asked . Sorry for the misunderstanding. I think I read your post in a tone different than intended. I honestly don't know if there is any data to back it up. I will do some digging when the kid goes to bed.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 28, 2024 10:13:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2015 16:54:56 GMT -5
Here is how to get rid of guns in America
Step 1: Elect. For a gun-free America, the first thing you'll need is two-thirds of Congress. So elect a minimum of 67 Senators and 290 Representatives who are on your side.
Step 2: Propose. Then, have them vote to propose an amendment to the Constitution which repeals Second Amendment gun rights for all Americans.
Step 3: Ratify. Then convince the legislators of 38 states to ratify that change.
At this point, the Second Amendment is history, but you've done nothing to decrease gun violence. All you've done is remove the barrier for Congress to act.
Step 4: Legislate. You need to enact "common sense" reform.
....
Step 5: Enforce. Guns won't just disappear because you passed a law. You need to confiscate some 350 million guns scattered among 330 Million Americans.
from reason.com
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 8, 2015 16:56:35 GMT -5
I don't know that anyone here is seeking a gun-free America. If there is someone here like that, I don't know who it is.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 28, 2024 10:13:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2015 17:06:01 GMT -5
A Washington Post article is calling for a "gun free society". I did not quote or refer to anyone here and was talking of gun violence suggestions happening on the national level.
|
|
Robert not Bobby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 29, 2013 17:45:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,392
|
Post by Robert not Bobby on Oct 8, 2015 17:08:56 GMT -5
I think we should take care of those of us, who have mental problems.
If we don't, this will happen again and again. What a sad commentary on modern life.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 8, 2015 17:11:22 GMT -5
A Washington Post article is calling for a "gun free society". I did not quote or refer to anyone here and was talking of gun violence suggestions happening on the national level. I think that's a minority view, Hickle. Very few take that strong a stand. Most just want well-enforced regulation.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,206
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 8, 2015 17:26:45 GMT -5
Here is how to get rid of guns in America Step 1: Elect. For a gun-free America, the first thing you'll need is two-thirds of Congress. So elect a minimum of 67 Senators and 290 Representatives who are on your side. Step 2: Propose. Then, have them vote to propose an amendment to the Constitution which repeals Second Amendment gun rights for all Americans. Step 3: Ratify. Then convince the legislators of 38 states to ratify that change. At this point, the Second Amendment is history, but you've done nothing to decrease gun violence. All you've done is remove the barrier for Congress to act. Step 4: Legislate. You need to enact "common sense" reform. .... Step 5: Enforce. Guns won't just disappear because you passed a law. You need to confiscate some 350 million guns scattered among 330 Million Americans. from reason.com So is the goal getting rid of guns or reducing gun violence? I believe that if steps 1 through 3 were actually taken, the citizenship of the United States would have undergone a significant psychological change which would reduce gun violence as it was happening and violence would continue to decrease. Gun ownership doesn't concern me.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 8, 2015 18:51:38 GMT -5
happyhoix: You have a great deal more faith than I do that lawyers (of all people) will stop people from persecuting shooters' reasonably-not-responsible parents, especially if a few bad precedents get on the books. We'll agree to disagree on whether more counseling for this kid, guns being locked in safes, etc., would likely have prevented this tragedy. I can go as far as "there's a possibility" it would have prevented the shooting, but anything more than that strikes me as wishful thinking. Generally speaking, I really, really don't like the concept of punishing one person for the behaviour of another. With children, animals, and extreme cases of ideologues promoting violence and mayhem, I can see the logic in it. For grown adults, I balk at it. Too much opportunity for abuse; too little benefit to society to justify the risk. I don't want to live in a society where everything is locked down tight because everyone is terrified about facing punishment for what other people do. I don't want truckers to have to pee in a cup every 24 hours, or me to pee in a cup every 24 hours because my employer fears liability for me doing something stupid while drunk or high. I don't want to lock up all my knives, hide my gun in a safe where it's impossible to access it in a reasonable amount of time, run through metal detectors at work to make sure I'm not packing heat, have 14-foot railings between me and zoo exhibits because some idiot might jump over a 4-foot railing or sit their kid on top of it. I don't want waiters keeping a close eye on me to make sure I'm not drunk. I don't want to be forced to get every shot the CDC recommends lest I compromise "herd immunity". I don't want any of the anti-western, anti-establishment, anti-government, conspiracy websites I occasionally visit shut down by lawsuits because some mass shooter had them in his browsing history and said they were "great". If my sister steals my chainsaw and goes on a rampage, I don't want to be sued by 80 families outraged that I didn't have my chainsaw locked up in a cage and PIN protected. I don't want cameras on every street corner and cameras covering every inch of every public business and cameras on busses and cameras in bathrooms. I don't want to hide my razor blades or install CO detectors in my garage out of fear I'll be sued blind because I invited my depressed friend over and he committed suicide. I want to be able to buy or sell a giant Slurpee without worrying about being sued if it puts somebody into a diabetic coma. You get the point. I've said many times that the US is too litigious. You're sue-happy. Sue, sue, sue. That'll teach people responsibility. Everybody will be safe. Only you're a bloody police state and getting worse by the year. The whole western world seems to be getting dumber and more reliant on others' responsibility by the year. And that's saying something from a guy living in Banada, crucible of the nanny state.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,512
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 9, 2015 9:34:15 GMT -5
Here is how to get rid of guns in America Step 1: Elect. For a gun-free America, the first thing you'll need is two-thirds of Congress. So elect a minimum of 67 Senators and 290 Representatives who are on your side. Step 2: Propose. Then, have them vote to propose an amendment to the Constitution which repeals Second Amendment gun rights for all Americans. Step 3: Ratify. Then convince the legislators of 38 states to ratify that change. At this point, the Second Amendment is history, but you've done nothing to decrease gun violence. All you've done is remove the barrier for Congress to act. Step 4: Legislate. You need to enact "common sense" reform. .... Step 5: Enforce. Guns won't just disappear because you passed a law. You need to confiscate some 350 million guns scattered among 330 Million Americans. from reason.com Will never work. Won't get past Step 1 because most congress people are terrified of the NRA and their shit list of unacceptable congress people. Even the ones who are for more gun control probably won't admit that on the record.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 28, 2024 10:13:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2015 9:40:22 GMT -5
A Washington Post article is calling for a "gun free society". I did not quote or refer to anyone here and was talking of gun violence suggestions happening on the national level. Some ONE person with a personal OPINION, printed in the Washington Post OPINION section is...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 28, 2024 10:13:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2015 9:42:59 GMT -5
A Washington Post article is calling for a "gun free society". I did not quote or refer to anyone here and was talking of gun violence suggestions happening on the national level. Some ONE person with a personal OPINION, printed in the Washington Post OPINION section is... We are all just one person with our own personal opinion. What are you saying?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,512
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 9, 2015 10:13:18 GMT -5
Yeah I get the point, you don't want people bossing you around. But then, if you create rules about who is allowed to sue, aren't you bossing people around even more? You have some regulation in place telling you whether or not you deserve to bring a case against someone? I would rather we stick with our current system - anyone can sue, but if it's a stupid case, it will most likely be kicked out or sent to arbitration. I prefer to error on the side of the victims. Yes it would be much more exciting to drive down our freeways with a bunch of high, drunk, nearly blind, frail or sick truck drivers behind the wheels of giant 18 wheelers. We could make it like a giant game of frogger - who can dodge the careening trucks while staying on the road? Extra points if you avoid hitting the school bus in your desperate attempt to not get squashed.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 28, 2024 10:13:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2015 10:20:49 GMT -5
Yeah I get the point, you don't want people bossing you around. But then, if you create rules about who is allowed to sue, aren't you bossing people around even more? You have some regulation in place telling you whether or not you deserve to bring a case against someone? I would rather we stick with our current system - anyone can sue, but if it's a stupid case, it will most likely be kicked out or sent to arbitration. I prefer to error on the side of the victims. Yes it would be much more exciting to drive down our freeways with a bunch of high, drunk, nearly blind, frail or sick truck drivers behind the wheels of giant 18 wheelers. We could make it like a giant game of frogger - who can dodge the careening trucks while staying on the road? Extra points if you avoid hitting the school bus in your desperate attempt to not get squashed. That is not what happens when government does not over regulate. Why don't you make an argument that is at least partially realistic?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,512
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 9, 2015 10:34:57 GMT -5
Yeah I get the point, you don't want people bossing you around. But then, if you create rules about who is allowed to sue, aren't you bossing people around even more? You have some regulation in place telling you whether or not you deserve to bring a case against someone? I would rather we stick with our current system - anyone can sue, but if it's a stupid case, it will most likely be kicked out or sent to arbitration. I prefer to error on the side of the victims. Yes it would be much more exciting to drive down our freeways with a bunch of high, drunk, nearly blind, frail or sick truck drivers behind the wheels of giant 18 wheelers. We could make it like a giant game of frogger - who can dodge the careening trucks while staying on the road? Extra points if you avoid hitting the school bus in your desperate attempt to not get squashed. That is not what happens when government does not over regulate. Why don't you make an argument that is at least partially realistic? Hickle, the US DOT has regulations that say that commercial drivers have to do pre hire, post accident and random drug tests. Their employers have to do annual checks on their DMV records. Drivers have to pass an annual physical. Why do you think they have to do all that? Because there was a time when they did NOT have to do that, and we had incidents where drivers had heart attacks or diabetic issues while driving. Or drove drunk or high and had accidents. Over the last twenty years or so, they've added rules about how many hours a driver can actually drive - guess why? Because drivers were spending 12, 14, 16 hours behind the wheel, and there were a series of horrible wrecks where the drivers fell asleep at the wheel. What would happen if the DOT took back all those rules tomorrow? Would companies keep following the rules just because it's a good idea? If you think they would, they you are the one being completely unrealistic.
|
|