does gun control work - a keep the debate in one thread idea

Coltsfan2theend

Custom Titles, we don't need no custom titles
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
9,626
Reaction score
2,141
Points
113
Do we hold Chevy, Ford, ETC liable for actions done with cars by idiots? No, the car (or in this case the gun) does not commit the crime. They were designed to do one thing, what people do with the one thing is a personal choice and I imagine most firearm makers do not like their products being used for evil purposes. As for the "assault weapon" part. Here is the interesting part. You take a Ruger Mini 14, leave it 100% stock with a wood stock. Not an "assault weapon". Now if you change out the stock from a wood stock to a "tactical stock", it is an "assault weapon". Now, nothing about the firearm has changed in terms of how it functions. It still functions 100% as a non "assault weapon", it just looks different.
 

shecolt

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
639
Reaction score
565
Points
93
Do we hold Chevy, Ford, ETC liable for actions done with cars by idiots? No, the car (or in this case the gun) does not commit the crime. They were designed to do one thing, what people do with the one thing is a personal choice and I imagine most firearm makers do not like their products being used for evil purposes. As for the "assault weapon" part. Here is the interesting part. You take a Ruger Mini 14, leave it 100% stock with a wood stock. Not an "assault weapon". Now if you change out the stock from a wood stock to a "tactical stock", it is an "assault weapon". Now, nothing about the firearm has changed in terms of how it functions. It still functions 100% as a non "assault weapon", it just looks different.

Thank you for explaining about the stock . . . not that I know what a "stock" is; but it makes sense that it hasn't changed the function of the gun and therefor shouldn't make any difference other than that I'm thinking it may make one gun look more sinister than another.

I'm in agreement with you regarding that we don't and shouldn't hold the manufacturers of cars (or knives, or even baseball bats) liable when they are used to inflict harm on another. So, I'm struggling to understand why the same shouldn't be the case with guns. Unless, of course, the motive is to eliminate guns by bankrupting those who manufacture them.
 

BostonTim

IIWII
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
34,299
Reaction score
5,619
Points
113
Age
73
I've said it before and I'll say it again . . . my knowledge of guns is extremely limited. So, I have a question in regards to Biden's recent call for gun control legislation. In the below article, you will see where he has called for the ban of assault weapons. I'm not sure what one would categorize as an assault weapon, but I'm thinking that he would be referring to something like an AR-15. The article isn't clear on whether or not he would just ban the future sale of such weapons or if he would want to also confiscate all such weapons currently owned.

My question revolves around Biden wanting to eliminate immunity for those who manufacture guns. I can understand that if he was referring to anyone who continued to manufacture a banned gun, but I can't understand how that would work in regards to guns that are currently legal to own. I don't want to be flippant here, but this makes about as much sense to me as to hold an auto manufacturer liable because someone used their vehicle to harm/kill another.

So, can anyone explain to me why those who manufacture guns should be held liable?

It would add greatly to the cost of guns even if it didn't put the gun makers out of business. And they can and will argue, disingenuously of course, that it's intent is to protect you and me if something bad happens.

A skilled pickpocket does not just take your wallet; he directs your attention elsewhere. When you notice you have been robbed, you blame someone else.

The purpose is simply to advance gun control while profiting the insurance industry. JMO

Cheers
 
Last edited:

aloyouis

at least generally aware
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
7,333
Reaction score
1,747
Points
113
Location
Michigan
I've said it before and I'll say it again . . . my knowledge of guns is extremely limited. So, I have a question in regards to Biden's recent call for gun control legislation. In the below article, you will see where he has called for the ban of assault weapons. I'm not sure what one would categorize as an assault weapon, but I'm thinking that he would be referring to something like an AR-15. The article isn't clear on whether or not he would just ban the future sale of such weapons or if he would want to also confiscate all such weapons currently owned.

My question revolves around Biden wanting to eliminate immunity for those who manufacture guns. I can understand that if he was referring to anyone who continued to manufacture a banned gun, but I can't understand how that would work in regards to guns that are currently legal to own. I don't want to be flippant here, but this makes about as much sense to me as to hold an auto manufacturer liable because someone used their vehicle to harm/kill another.

So, can anyone explain to me why those who manufacture guns should be held liable?

Leaving out the constitutional aspects of Biden‘s “gun control“ your post is extremely cogent and well written. I agree wholeheartedly.

Edit: every response was excellent.
 

Coltsfan2theend

Custom Titles, we don't need no custom titles
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
9,626
Reaction score
2,141
Points
113
Thank you for explaining about the stock . . . not that I know what a "stock" is; but it makes sense that it hasn't changed the function of the gun and therefor shouldn't make any difference other than that I'm thinking it may make one gun look more sinister than another.

I'm in agreement with you regarding that we don't and shouldn't hold the manufacturers of cars (or knives, or even baseball bats) liable when they are used to inflict harm on another. So, I'm struggling to understand why the same shouldn't be the case with guns. Unless, of course, the motive is to eliminate guns by bankrupting those who manufacture them.
To better explain a stock. This photo has three guns. They all function 100% the same. The first wouldn’t be illegal. The others would.
 

Attachments

  • 417927FE-0518-468D-851C-705EBC7F4B7F.jpeg
    417927FE-0518-468D-851C-705EBC7F4B7F.jpeg
    20.4 KB · Views: 10

rivshark86

Active member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
898
Reaction score
88
Points
28
I have a lot of fun shooting rifles. I live in a rural area and we have some metal targets that make a hell of a ring when you hit them in a ravine back in the woods. Between 70 to 150 yards away. We go out about four times a year and shoot AKs, ARs, and a bolt action my buddy has that shoots a .308
I’m about as opposed as anyone can be to Biden’s ideas on gun control. Unfortunately he’s already been successful as stopping us from shooting. Ammo prices are through the roof. I don’t know who can afford it, but I can’t anymore, and I’m not burning up what I have stocked up.

I live in VA where we are just two votes away from it all being illegal. They wanted to call any semi automatic an assault weapon and ban it. It got stopped by two Dems from rural mountain districts.
 

aloyouis

at least generally aware
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
7,333
Reaction score
1,747
Points
113
Location
Michigan
I have a lot of fun shooting rifles. I live in a rural area and we have some metal targets that make a hell of a ring when you hit them in a ravine back in the woods. Between 70 to 150 yards away. We go out about four times a year and shoot AKs, ARs, and a bolt action my buddy has that shoots a .308
I’m about as opposed as anyone can be to Biden’s ideas on gun control. Unfortunately he’s already been successful as stopping us from shooting. Ammo prices are through the roof. I don’t know who can afford it, but I can’t anymore, and I’m not burning up what I have stocked up.

I live in VA where we are just two votes away from it all being illegal. They wanted to call any semi automatic an assault weapon and ban it. It got stopped by two Dems from rural mountain districts.
I wish VA had banned them.
We need this in the SCOTUS ASAP.

And that is where the Commonwealth of Virginia would find themselves.
 

rivshark86

Active member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
898
Reaction score
88
Points
28
I don’t think the Supreme Court has taken a gun control case since Heller. I could be wrong, but if I am it hasn’t been a major one.
 

shecolt

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
639
Reaction score
565
Points
93
To better explain a stock. This photo has three guns. They all function 100% the same. The first wouldn’t be illegal. The others would.
Thank you! That does help me understand and confirms that my guess was correct because the only difference I see is that the second and third gun look more sinister whereas the first one looks like something that Rifleman would carry. Crazy that they would all function the same, but only the more evil looking ones would be banned.
 

Coltsfan2theend

Custom Titles, we don't need no custom titles
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
9,626
Reaction score
2,141
Points
113
Thank you! That does help me understand and confirms that my guess was correct because the only difference I see is that the second and third gun look more sinister whereas the first one looks like something that Rifleman would carry. Crazy that they would all function the same, but only the more evil looking ones would be banned.
You get it better then many pro gun control people. Amazing what an open minded person thinks when presented with evidence.
 

aloyouis

at least generally aware
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
7,333
Reaction score
1,747
Points
113
Location
Michigan

An Oakland liquor store owner tried to STOP A ROBBERY in front of his business by firing a warning shot into the air…

…And was ARRESTED by police for felony assault with a firearm.

'We don't want our business owners or others to begin to arm themselves," Oakland Police Chief LeRonne Armstrong said. "We want them to observe and report, and be good witnesses."

The 36-year-old shop owner reportedly shot four times into the air after seeing a woman being violently robbed in front of his place of business in Chinatown, prompting the alleged robber to run away with her camera.

Violent crime has been steadily escalating in the area, forcing more business owners to arm themselves and enlist volunteer security patrols.

Per Armstrong: “When weapons are fired into our community there could be unintended victims,”, “People hit by gunfire and we want to avoid that as much as we can.”
 

Undertaker #59*

Car'a'carn
Staff member
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Messages
25,444
Reaction score
2,604
Points
113
While I commend him for intervening and stopping the thug, and I support his right to carry, firing four shots into the air is incredibly irresponsible and reckless. Warning shots are not responsible gun handling and is a good example of people getting their training by watching Hollywood.

$0.02
 

HSanders

omitted out of respect to Mrs.Jastremski
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
26,673
Reaction score
5,116
Points
113
Location
on Pats Planet
Yeah, i'm not down with the warning shots either. but, had he drawn and pointed at the guy, not shooting and told someone to call 911, that would be fine by me. i do not agree with the police chief saying he doesn't want citizens to arm themselves legally, though i get why he says that, and maybe believes it .
 

aloyouis

at least generally aware
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
7,333
Reaction score
1,747
Points
113
Location
Michigan
While I commend him for intervening and stopping the thug, and I support his right to carry, firing four shots into the air is incredibly irresponsible and reckless. Warning shots are not responsible gun handling and is a good example of people getting their training by watching Hollywood.

$0.02

Yeah, i'm not down with the warning shots either. but, had he drawn and pointed at the guy, not shooting and told someone to call 911, that would be fine by me. i do not agree with the police chief saying he doesn't want citizens to arm themselves legally, though i get why he says that, and maybe believes it .
I agree with both of you.

Commendable to take action, but the action he took was wrong.

Same with the city, IMO. To charge the citizen and make the remarks the chief made is over board. "Thank you for trying to help. We appreciate it. You did it wrong. You must take a gun safety course." would have been the right response from the city. but this is Cali and if you are not making everything political and you are not pandering to the left and you are not virtue signaling then you will be cancelled.
 
Last edited:

Undertaker #59*

Car'a'carn
Staff member
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Messages
25,444
Reaction score
2,604
Points
113
I agree with the remarks being uncalled for and politicized, but the charges would not be unique to California. In many states, it would at least be reckless conduct, and in some cases the like this one it is aggravated assault.
 
Top