Skip to main content

View Diary: Jon Stewart rips NRA for blocking Obama's surgeon general nominee (125 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes, that's why many knife attacks end in injury (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caittus, i saw an old tree today

    but not death - because guns are the ultimate killer.

    "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

    by We Shall Overcome on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 05:41:35 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  And six times more murders than all rifles (0+ / 0-)

      combined.

      It would seem that your "ultimate killer boogeyman" is just that--a boogeyman.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 05:44:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, that's why the military insists that soilders (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Caittus, i saw an old tree today

        use their bare hands.

        "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

        by We Shall Overcome on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 06:09:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What the military has its soldiers carry is (0+ / 0-)

          irrelevant in a discussion of objects used to commit murder.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 06:26:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  a question for the both of you (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose

            you each seem exceedingly informed regarding your stance on this issue.

            i am unsure which way i ultimately fall. (i'll explain my background after my question, for those interested).

            my question is predicated on my understanding that firearm manufacturers and users are protected from civil actions regardless of how the firearm is used. If that is the case, then: Would it serve your side's interest, and the nation, if the automatic exemption were removed and the manufacturer and/or the user were capable of being sued for negligence or other causes?

            I would think this would put firearms back into the same category as automobiles (and knives and barefists) without touching the constitutional issue of the 2d A.

            For those interested in my background; retired Army, own no weapons (have a loaner shotgun that came in handy when I was out of town and my wife had a late night meth-head visitor driving in the backpasture. it took the county police 20 minutes to arrive and they hurried), have killed one living mammal (put down a very old, sick dog with the owner's pistol). live where 9 out of 10 of the people i know have more than 2 firearms and i've picked up errant arrows shot by stupid hunters that landed in our pastures.

            thanks for your considered responses in advance, and if i'm wrong about the liability insulation for manufacturers and users, then thanks for kindly correcting me.

            •  I'm all for making gun manufactures liable for (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              greengemini, Pale Jenova, Caittus

              their products, as well as gun owners being held liable for what their gun does.

              "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

              by We Shall Overcome on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:12:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  thnx for the reply (0+ / 0-)

                what do you think would be the longterm ramifications on firearms-caused-death and injury if this were enacted? would it get the country to where you think it should be or would it fail to achieve that objective?

              •  I believe he's talking about the PLCAA, not (0+ / 0-)

                liability for manufacturing defect (which gun manufacturers have).

                Unless you think that Ford should be liable for a drunk driver, you're going to have a hard time defending that viewpoint.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:29:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Gun manufacturers can be sued for mechanical (0+ / 0-)

              failure resulting in injury/death, but cannot be sued for misuse or criminal actions, just like with automobiles.

              The law, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) was written to prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation --lawsuits with little chance of being successful but designed to bankrupt & intimidate from having to defend against them.
              The law is analogous to Ford not being liable for a drunk driver.

              Whether one is for more gun control or more gun rights, the PLCAA is a fair law & it doesn't give gun manufacturers anymore protection than any other manufacturer has.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:27:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  thnx for the clarification (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FrankRose

                i think i would like to make my perfect world hold motor vehicle manufacturers liable for enabling the drunk to drive (i.e. "force" the installation of devices that detect impairment), but guess that'll wait until i'm elected king.

                so Frank, what path do you see as acceptable to providing the country with some sort of security from a perpetual "gunfail" column? because i worry about the amount of deer hunters who miss the four legged critters in my area, since the trees are perpetually being thinned, thus reducing my cover from poorly aimed projectiles

                •  Deaths from gun accidents are extraordinarily rare (0+ / 0-)

                  and has been consistently falling for a century.
                  From the CDC report commissioned by Pres. Obama

                  Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010

                  For comparison's sake
                  Accidental deaths per year:
                  Motor Vehicles: 42,000
                  Poisoning: 39,000
                  Falls: 25,000
                  Fire: 2,700
                  Choking: 2,500
                  Drowning: 2,000
                  Bicycles: 800
                  Firearms: 600

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:59:13 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  How many Sandy Hooks were committed barehanded? (2+ / 0-)

        Maybe we don't care about people murdering each other. That's always going to happen, regardless of gun laws.
        Maybe we care about people murdering lots and lots of kids at all once. Maybe every single person in the USA has to give up the pleasure of owning a high-cap assault rifle (like my beloved Mini-14) so that we don't have any more Sandy Hooks.
        I think that's a deal worth making. How about you?

        •  "How many 911s were committed without planning by (0+ / 0-)

          phone?"
          That is the argument used to justify warrantless wiretaps, Gitmo & torture.
          I didn't buy that argument then & I don't buy it now.
          I don't think it is good policy to base rights on rare & tragic events.

          Maybe every single person in the USA has to give up the pleasure of owning a high-cap assault rifle (like my beloved Mini-14) so that we don't have any more Sandy Hooks.
          Columbine happened during AWB1 & the largest mass murder in US history was committed with a gallon of gasoline.
          Forcing innocent people to give up their liberties & rights doesn't protect anybody.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:39:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  rifles (2+ / 0-)

        I am confused, you keep saying "rifles" but most people think of "guns"  meaning all guns, rifles and hand guns. I get the impression you are dodging the main issue - gun control for ALL types of guns not just rifles.

        •  1) The AWB bans rifles. (0+ / 0-)

          2) The discussion we were in at the time revolved around 'potency vs convenience' in regards to tools used for murder. A rifle is more potent than handguns, knives, clubs or bare hands yet all of those objects are used in more murders than rifles are (which is one of the things that makes the AWB & mag bans so infuriatingly foolish).

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 07:26:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Semi-auto + high cap mag = weapon of mass (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            i saw an old tree today

            destruction. Scalia agrees in Heller that dangerous and unusual weapons are and can be banned. Assault weapons fit that description. The terror and devastation they can inflict make them dangerous and unusual. That is why Federal courts have upheld AWBs in NY and Connecticut - public safety trumps common use in those rulings.

            Semi-autos + high cap mags have proven themselves to be on par with explosive devices that have been deemed weapons of mass destruction.

            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

            by We Shall Overcome on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 07:49:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Factually wrong. (0+ / 0-)

              A 'weapon of mass destruction' is a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon.
              Let's stick to the actual meanings of words, shall we?

              There is nothing 'unusual' about a semi-auto weapon, but no matter.
              It still has to be made law & judging by the spectacular failure of AWB2 on the national stage & the aftermath of a toothless mag ban in Colorado, such a ban isn't passing the electorate.

              "Federal courts have upheld...."
              They have upheld warrantless wiretaps & stop-and-frisk as well.
              I can only assume you support those issues as well in your frantic & wrong-headed search for 'public safety'.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 08:16:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Semi-auto + high cap mags have killed more people (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                i saw an old tree today

                than explosive devices in scores of mass shootings, for example, there were only two fatalities due to the two explosive devices used in the Boston bombing where as a semi-auto + high cap mag killed 26 in Newtown, 12 in Aurora, 32 at Virginia Tech, 8 in Tucson and so on.

                That's dangerous and unusual.

                "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                by We Shall Overcome on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 09:12:18 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Factually wrong: (0+ / 0-)

                  Oklahoma City bombing: 168 deaths 680 injuries.
                  Happy land fire: 87 deaths.
                  Bath School Disaster: 45 deaths.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 09:19:35 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, Newtown 26; Virginia Tech: 32; Aurora: 12/56 (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    i saw an old tree today

                    ... they fit right in among the examples you cite and are very good examples of dangerous and unusual weapons.  

                    "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                    by We Shall Overcome on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 09:29:28 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And all have significantly less deaths than (0+ / 0-)

                      a gallon of gasoline caused in the Happy Land Fire.
                      Looks like you have an awful lot of banning to do.
                      Conversely you can educate yourself & rid yourself of such ignorant fear.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 09:36:54 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Tell that to Justice "Dangerous and Unusual" (0+ / 0-)

                        Scalia - he agrees that dangerous and unusual weapons can and should be banned:

                        We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms” —“prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”
                        http://www.nytimes.com/...

                        "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                        by We Shall Overcome on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 09:45:17 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  And gasoline has proven to be more dangerous. (0+ / 0-)

                          Now all you have to do is convince the electorate.

                          Why not?
                          Trying to ban gas couldn't go much worse.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 09:53:26 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  That's an absurd arguement, but good luck with it. (0+ / 0-)

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 10:18:21 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh? Strange as you are citing death tolls (0+ / 0-)

                            from mass murder as your justification and the Happy Land Fire had a higher death toll.

                            But you are right about one thing; banning a legal object from innocent people because of the actions of a murderer is an absurd argument.
                            Glad you are starting to catch on.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 10:31:46 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Mumbo Jumbo - might as well type that in your (0+ / 0-)

                            comments over and over, that's about all you and the pro gunners have left to say:

                            Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo Mumbo Jumbo
                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            Like I said, you're argument is absurd - guns and gasoline are not one in the same, just ask Justice "Dangerous and Unusual" Scalia who supports gun bans, but not gasoline bans.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 10:45:17 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site