Sandy Hook lawsuit against gun maker can move forward.

a reply to: Ansuzrune

You do realize all countries disarmed suffered tyrants that wiped out populations.

No, that is completely untrue. The ownership of firearms is tightly controlled in most civilized countries, yet there are no tyrants wiping anybody out in these countries.

If you do not like it here leave.

Kid, right now I wouldn't live in America if you paid me. Your country has come to a frightening place in its history.

You guys are not going to be able to shoot your way out of this one. Other methods will be needed.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: pteridine

What arguments have you made?

Premise 1: there is a long, bloody trail of evidence to show that guns are too dangerous to allow private individuals to own and use them.

Premise 2: guns are habit-forming, and addictive. This addiction is so widespread in America that it forecloses rational understanding of the problem -- that is why the rest of the civilised world looks on in appalled incomprehension while you argue over the obvious.

Premise 3: the situation, like much else in the world nowadays, is unsustainable. Very soon there will be a huge reaction -- an overreaction, if you prefer -- and private gun ownership in America will be history.

Mark my words.

Mark your words? How dramatic. The Wicked Witch wanted Dorothy to mark her words, too. There used to be all sorts of word marking going on in the world but it doesn't seem to be very popular now. Who keeps track so an official "I told you so" can be delivered to the markee?

There is a long, bloody trail of evidence to show that people are too dangerous to allow private individuals to exist.

There seems to be no evidence that guns are any more habit-forming or addictive than any other physical object. Carol Vaughn, from Birmingham, UK, collected more than 5,000 bars of soap. Graham Barker collected his own belly button lint and has the largest collection of it at over 22 grams. David Morgan of the UK has 137 unique traffic cones, the largest collection of traffic cones in the world. We could go on as it seems that people will collect practically anything that is habit-forming, and addictive. I may start a bellybutton lint collection just to pad the case of my Oerlikon.

Amazingly enough, the rest of the world's appalled incomprehension really won't affect anything. The situation is unsustainable because the market is saturating. Production will be reduced. Manufacturers may go out of business because of it. No need for yet another nanny state.

a reply to: earthling42

How does it pave the way for an act of violence?

I've been shooting for over forty years, and reloading my own ammunition for nearly thirty-five. I've yet to use my weapons in an act of violence against my fellow man...and I fervently pray fairly often to be spared the opportunity. I'm not even certain I could save under the most severe conditions...my nieces, or sisters in danger would qualify, certainly myself...if some young nitwit wants my TV badly enough to break in to steal it, unless he tries to kill/hurt me in the process, I'm probably going to let him have it.

In my circle of friends and acquaintances, many of whom are shooters like myself, none, not one has used his/her weapon in an act of violence, save in various wars (wwII, Korea, Vietnam, Africa, and the ME). Nor are we likely to, as we are adults who think before we act.

Quite frankly, I'm getting rather tired of the constant refrain from the anti-gun types that goes something like this: "Oh, you're just waiting to use your gun to kill someone so you can feel manly..." Or words to that effect. I, and most like me, have done nothing to raise any concerns of that sort, yet we're the ones targeted. We're the ones having our thoughts read, and our behaviour analyzed...wrongly I might add.

Possessing a gun(s) doesn't make one more likely to do anything untoward. They are, after all, inanimate objects incapable of influencing behaviour in any fashion what so ever.

a reply to: pteridine

There seems to be no evidence that guns are any more habit-forming or addictive than any other physical object. Carol Vaughn, from Birmingham, UK, collected more than 5,000 bars of soap. Graham Barker collected his own belly button lint and has the largest collection of it at over 22 grams. David Morgan of the UK has 137 unique traffic cones...

Are you presenting this as a serious rebuttal? It is not the physical object people are addicted to, but the power high of holding a gun and perpetrating acts of violence with it. How many shots of heroin does an addict need at a time? Do alcohol addicts collect full bottles of booze?

Here is a list of signs and symptoms of addiction. It has nothing to do with guns per se, but which of these signs do gun owners not show?

Let’s see.

• The person takes the substance and cannot stop. This one is self-evident. All that talk of ‘cold, dead fingers’, the desire to have a gun about one’s person at all times (e.g. in church) and so forth.
  
  
• Withdrawal symptoms: cravings, bouts of moodiness, bad temper, poor focus, a feeling of being depressed and empty, frustration, anger, bitterness and resentment. I think this thread, and the activities of gun lovers in general, amply bears this out. Gun lovers, faced with the prospect of not having their guns, display every single one of these symptoms.
  
  
• Addiction continues despite health problem awareness. American gun proponents are deaf and blind to the damage guns do. Accidents, gun crimes, massacres and all the rest happen on a regular basis, but they are determined to go on indulging all the same.
  
  
• Social and/or recreational sacrifices made in order to continue using. American gun addicts regularly sacrifice public safety and the lives of their children in order to go on playing with their guns.
  
  
• Maintaining a good supply. Hence the furore over any move to limit availability or use.
  
  
• Taking risks (1) to make sure of obtaining the substance, (2) while under the influence. Again, this is self-evident. In fact, with guns, it’s the basis of the problem.
  
  
• Feeling one needs their drug to deal with their problems. The safety and constitutionality arguments are symptoms of this.
  
  
• More and more time and energy focusing on ways of getting hold of their substance, and in some cases how to use it. The rest of the world calls this ‘American gun culture’.
  
  
• Secrecy and solitude. This one, I concede, does not apply. American gun addiction is public.
  
  
• Denial — refusing to acknowledge that one has a problem. See this thread, and a zillion other arguments just like it.
  
  
• Excess consumption. Privately owned guns outnumber gun owners in America. Gun violence is everywhere.
  
  
• Dropping hobbies and activities. Hard to define this in context, since it varies from individual to individual. That doesn’t mean it is inapplicable.
  
  
• Having stashes. Some call them an armoury, some an arsenal. Some make do with a gun rack.

The site lists a few subsidiary signs that are specific to drug use, such as financial problems, trouble with the law, etc. These, too, are largely applicable.

The prosecution rests. For the moment.

a reply to: seagull

An armed and aroused population is not something any govt. wants against it...and you're smart enough to know this.

I hope I’m smarter than that — smart enough, at least, to realize that such an argument is naive and fantastical.

Imagine, for a minute, that a future American government starts behaving in a despotic or unconstitutional manner. Will all or even most Americans unite to form a single front against it? No, people will have different opinions about the government’s actions and what to do about them. They will split into dozens or even hundreds of different — armed — camps, each with its own ideas about the situation and its own plan for dealing with it. Some will support the government.

What will happen next? Obviously, the armed camps will turn on each other. The government will promote these confrontations, and wait to pick off the survivors. If it waits too long, it will be supplanted by the last rebel faction standing. Which will then govern tyrannously, because it has no other choice.

That is the reality of the situation, because such is human nature. I witnessed it all at first hand during the early stages of my own country’s civil war. For modern history students, the progress of the Russian Revolution provides the textbook example of the process, but the same was also seen in many African and Latin American countries during the twentieth century. You will also note, conversely, that the unarmed citizens of the Communist bloc in Europe had no difficulty overthrowing their tyrannous governments.

*

Legal access to firearms gives citizens absolutely absolutely no protection against state oppression. The amount of firepower your military can deploy far exceeds what civilians could ever muster. Above and beyond that, those who understand statecraft understand that it doesn’t matter. Because if it ever comes to a point where people are driven to armed revolt, guns will be found. They always, always are.

Gun proponents constantly point out that if guns were illegal, it would give criminals an advantage over law-abiding citizens. Criminals, they insist, will always be able to find guns. Well, the same argument applies to rebels. They’ll get them from North Korea if they need to.

The right to bear arms is no prophylactic against an over-mighty state. Access to arms just increases the bloodiness of any confrontation. Civil conflict is not avoided, it is exacerbated.

I saw the reality of civil war for thirty years. What I bring to discussions like these is real-life experience; Americans only have theories, because most of you have forgotten the lessons of your own long-ago civil war. How did the armed citizen rebels fare against the state in that one, remind me again?

Should (an attempt at a comprehensive ban) happen, well there will be portions of these United States that will be not so united any longer.

That, my friend, is precisely the subtext of my participation in this thread. I believe it has already begun.

As I said earlier, the constitutional experiment has gone on long enough, and the results are in.

a reply to: seagull

I've yet to use my weapons in an act of violence against my fellow man...and I fervently pray fairly often to be spared the opportunity.

You are a lucky fellow. But all you have to do is throw your gun away, and the opportunity will be removed for good.

a reply to: seagull

Don't get rather tired, expand your horizon beyond the personal mirror.

It is not about the majority, it is about the percentage of loonies 'who do' use it in violent ways.

To be honest, it is rather difficult to tell who is sane in the brain and who is not, people easily hide behind a mask and not showing their true face.

Consider it beneficial for your safety and the safety of your family and friends as well.
Sure, despite a restriction on gun ownership there will still be the possibility of a loony with a gun, however now it is a certainty and after every shooting the answer is more guns to protect oneself against the loonies.

I hope you see the stupidity behind this, sanity would be to disarm those loonies through restriction of gun laws.

And because people can easily hide behind a mask, gun laws should be aimed at all gun owners for the safety of all.
This obviously means it will affect you as a gun owner, keep it in a safe storage and bullets apart from the gun.
That is how we preserve our guns at home if we are not shooting at a shooting club.

Those who own a gun here in the Netherlands are registered and have their weapon registered in their name.
They (certainly the new owners) sometimes get a visit to see if they have stored the gun in a safe place as required so that a burglar or some angry family member cannot steal it and use it against people.

a reply to: earthling42

It is not about the majority, it is about the percentage of loonies 'who do' use it in violent ways.

To be honest, it is rather difficult to tell who is sane in the brain and who is not, people easily hide behind a mask and not showing their true face.

Exactly. Public safety is more important than individual freedom.

Yes, it is the argument used by all tyrants; but it remains true all the same. The devil is in the application.

a reply to: AlexandrosTheGreat

Thanks for posting, I am familiar with the story, but it works great as a prop to make my point. It is very well known so it makes it easy to discuss my point. Maybe I need to find another ridiculous lawsuit.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Exactly. Public safety is more important than individual freedom.

Yes, it is the argument used by all tyrants; but it remains true all the same.

So you support all tyrants. Got it.

No? Alright.

Hyperbole (such as my statement above, and your continual misuse of the term addict(s) in this thread) does nothing to promote rational discourse.

I understand that you do not live in the U.S., your misconceptions about U.S. culture make that abundantly clear, but you must understand that your opinions, assumptions, and hyperbole on the matter lack a full understanding of the issue since you lack the first hand experience of living here.

Taking guns away from law abiding citizens doesn't disarm criminals. Criminals don't care about the law, and will do what they do regardless.

a reply to: redmage

Drink driving is illegal.

Public safety > Individual freedom, no?

Is Australia's government tyrannical? Incompetent, yes, like every government on this planet it would seem, but not tyrannical.

a reply to: redmage

Hyperbole (such as my statement above, and your continual misuse of the term addict(s) in this thread) does nothing to promote rational discourse.

There is no hyperbole in my own posts. I cannot speak for the posts of others.

As you will see from my second post from the top on this page, I do not misuse the term ‘addict’, I use it advisedly based on a set of actual criteria.

you must understand that your opinions, assumptions, and hyperbole on the matter lack a full understanding of the issue since you lack the first hand experience of living here

There is no need for a ‘full understanding of the matter’. The problem and the remedy are patently obvious to anyone not blinded by emotion or self-interest. People are the same all over the world. There is nothing special about Americans.

Taking guns away from law abiding citizens doesn't disarm criminals. Criminals don't care about the law, and will do what they do regardless.

I debunked this argument in my third post from the top above; I wasn’t the first to do it either. If you don’t wish to read the whole thread, at least read all my posts before replying to me. Otherwise you’re just butting in, aren’t you?

How dumb must one be not to realize that murderers do not give one damn about gun laws?

a reply to: craterman

How dumb must one be to not realise that murderers are not murderers from birth?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: pteridine

There seems to be no evidence that guns are any more habit-forming or addictive than any other physical object. Carol Vaughn, from Birmingham, UK, collected more than 5,000 bars of soap. Graham Barker collected his own belly button lint and has the largest collection of it at over 22 grams. David Morgan of the UK has 137 unique traffic cones...

Are you presenting this as a serious rebuttal? It is not the physical object people are addicted to, but the power high of holding a gun and perpetrating acts of violence with it. How many shots of heroin does an addict need at a time? Do alcohol addicts collect full bottles of booze?

Here is a list of signs and symptoms of addiction. It has nothing to do with guns per se, but which of these signs do gun owners not show?

Let’s see.

• The person takes the substance and cannot stop. This one is self-evident. All that talk of ‘cold, dead fingers’, the desire to have a gun about one’s person at all times (e.g. in church) and so forth.
  
  
• Withdrawal symptoms: cravings, bouts of moodiness, bad temper, poor focus, a feeling of being depressed and empty, frustration, anger, bitterness and resentment. I think this thread, and the activities of gun lovers in general, amply bears this out. Gun lovers, faced with the prospect of not having their guns, display every single one of these symptoms.
  
  
• Addiction continues despite health problem awareness. American gun proponents are deaf and blind to the damage guns do. Accidents, gun crimes, massacres and all the rest happen on a regular basis, but they are determined to go on indulging all the same.
  
  
• Social and/or recreational sacrifices made in order to continue using. American gun addicts regularly sacrifice public safety and the lives of their children in order to go on playing with their guns.
  
  
• Maintaining a good supply. Hence the furore over any move to limit availability or use.
  
  
• Taking risks (1) to make sure of obtaining the substance, (2) while under the influence. Again, this is self-evident. In fact, with guns, it’s the basis of the problem.
  
  
• Feeling one needs their drug to deal with their problems. The safety and constitutionality arguments are symptoms of this.
  
  
• More and more time and energy focusing on ways of getting hold of their substance, and in some cases how to use it. The rest of the world calls this ‘American gun culture’.
  
  
• Secrecy and solitude. This one, I concede, does not apply. American gun addiction is public.
  
  
• Denial — refusing to acknowledge that one has a problem. See this thread, and a zillion other arguments just like it.
  
  
• Excess consumption. Privately owned guns outnumber gun owners in America. Gun violence is everywhere.
  
  
• Dropping hobbies and activities. Hard to define this in context, since it varies from individual to individual. That doesn’t mean it is inapplicable.
  
  
• Having stashes. Some call them an armoury, some an arsenal. Some make do with a gun rack.

The site lists a few subsidiary signs that are specific to drug use, such as financial problems, trouble with the law, etc. These, too, are largely applicable.

The prosecution rests. For the moment.

There are many reasons for Americans to own firearms. Your arguments for addiction are spurious; this may fit some but probably not many. Taking your arguments to the extreme it can be said that there is the power of owning the largest collection of something. Holding the world's largest collection of belly button lint is definitely a power trip. All those traffic cones can make one famous in the eyes of those who drink Irish stout.
You, and many like you, have wonderful simplistic solutions to problems you perceive. "We should immediately stop burning fossil fuels to counter CO2 in the atmosphere." What are the consequences of such? The twits who propose immediate cessation of fossil fuel combustion have no clue of consequences; they have no viable alternatives, no concept of costs to do such or the time required to achieve it. All they have is a feel good solution that is not a solution but they play as though they are "environmentalists." The dilettantes who deal in the "big picture" solutions are just that. The devil is always in the details and many do not know enough to know that there are details.

Now for the details. What is your plan for exactly how firearms are to be removed? Will the owners be compensated? At what level would you consider success? At the level of the faultless European countries or higher or lower? So far, you have been mute about the how and the details of the how may well help your arguments.

a reply to: pteridine

I think the poster indicated gun's removed by any means necessary including killing the owner if they are not giving it up..sounds real logical and not hypocritical at all(sarc off) I wonder what will be used to kill the reluctant to give it up gun owner?

a reply to: Astyanax

Sorry, but I'm mentally, and emotionally stable enough that I'm not going to have to worry about it.

If, and it's a big if, that time ever comes I certainly won't "throw" it away, as that would be rather irresponsible of me, wouldn't it? Oh, that's right, you already think I am.

As for the first point in the previous post, I'm not saying that possession of firearms is the sole reason that a tyrannical govt would have second thoughts, but it is, or will be, involved in the thought process. Not to mention the large numbers of trained folks behind 'em...

To think otherwise is as naive a thought process as you say I am practicing. A guerrilla war isn't what our Civil War was, where it was used, by Quantrill and his ilk, it was very successful. Nasty. Brutish. Oh, yes. The South didn't fight it right, and still came much closer to winning than many might think from the history books.

...and four/five generations aren't that long ago.

We've reached the point where we agree to disagree. I'm not going to change your mind, and you certainly aren't going to change mine. So, cheers, 'til we argue again.

originally posted by: earthling42
a reply to: seagull

Don't get rather tired, expand your horizon beyond the personal mirror.

It is not about the majority, it is about the percentage of loonies 'who do' use it in violent ways.

So I'm supposed to give up my freedom for the commonweal of others. Got it. Which one's next? All in the name of "public safety", of course.

To be honest, it is rather difficult to tell who is sane in the brain and who is not, people easily hide behind a mask and not showing their true face.

Of course it is. That's why you don't judge the whole for the actions of a few. Do you? Oh, wait, you're doing just that.

Consider it beneficial for your safety and the safety of your family and friends as well.
Sure, despite a restriction on gun ownership there will still be the possibility of a loony with a gun, however now it is a certainty and after every shooting the answer is more guns to protect oneself against the loonies.

Sorry but I'm not going to give up my rights in the name of some illusory "safety". Who is going to keep me, and mine, safe from the "loonies"? The police? Has the large amount of corruption endemic in police organizations escaped your notice? As for buying more guns after every shooting to protect myself from some, in the vast majority of cases, illusory shooter/loonie? I don't. But I have protected myself against one of those loonies, a would-be burglar in my case with a hand gun. Didn't have to shoot him, or even at him, thank God...just had to let him know I had it. He left...rapidly. What might have happened had I not had it, I don't know. He was a pretty big guy, so am I, he was armed with a hammer. I suspect it would have been painful. Oh, I could have called the cops, unfortunately, at the time I lived several miles outside of town...twenty minutes, or more, response time. Tell me again, how much better off I'd have been without a gun. Feel free.

I hope you see the stupidity behind this, sanity would be to disarm those loonies through restriction of gun laws.

Of course I see the thinking behind your thinking in this. My life experience tells me differently.

And because people can easily hide behind a mask, gun laws should be aimed at all gun owners for the safety of all.
This obviously means it will affect you as a gun owner, keep it in a safe storage and bullets apart from the gun.
That is how we preserve our guns at home if we are not shooting at a shooting club.

No. No. ...and, no. I'm certainly glad that y'all in the Netherlands can live like that, and are willing to. Good for you. Hope it never changes...though I have my doubts (but that's another thread, for another day.) Aimed at all gun owners. That's tyranny. You, and others, don't see it because you aren't effected. I store mine safely, as do the vast majority of folks.

Those who own a gun here in the Netherlands are registered and have their weapon registered in their name.
They (certainly the new owners) sometimes get a visit to see if they have stored the gun in a safe place as required so that a burglar or some angry family member cannot steal it and use it against people.

I'm not going to register my firearms. Just not going to. As for the visit? They'd better bring a search warrant, or the law suit will be pretty expensive for 'em...

My rights, as a free citizen of these United States, are protected by the Constitution. By numerous court decisions that support the Constitution.

Feel free to live at the behest of the folks who do have guns, if you choose. I choose to have an argument at hand. Plus I enjoy going to the range when the mood strikes me. ...and hunting in the proper season.

Again, as above, we've reached the point of agreeing to disagree.

originally posted by: Astyanax
There is no hyperbole in my own posts.

Unfortunately, there is.

originally posted by: Astyanax
As you will see from my second post from the top on this page, I do not misuse the term ‘addict’, I use it advisedly based on a set of actual criteria.

That was one of the many posts I was referring to. You did do a very thorough job attempting to rationalize your hyperbole, but one can rationalize most anything with enough effort an motivation.

originally posted by: Astyanax
There is no need for a ‘full understanding of the matter’.

If you want to be taken seriously by those with an opposing view, then having a full understanding is the most logical place to start. It's always easy to point fingers from the outside, but that doesn't promote an objective and rational discussion.

originally posted by: Astyanax
The problem and the remedy are patently obvious to anyone not blinded by emotion or self-interest.

Your statement is a fallacy. Furthermore, I'm not addressing this emotionally, nor am I even a gun owner.

originally posted by: Astyanax
People are the same all over the world. There is nothing special about Americans.

No, people are not the same all over the world. People across the world grow up with vastly different societal norms, which influence who they become, based upon where they are born and live. I agree there's nothing necessarily "special" about any one group; however, they are all unique, and should be recognized and acknowledged as being such.

Taking guns away from law abiding citizens doesn't disarm criminals. Criminals don't care about the law, and will do what they do regardless.

I debunked this argument in my third post from the top above; I wasn’t the first to do it either.

No, you didn't debunk the issue of "not disarming criminals" at all. Criminals don't care about the law, and will do what they do regardless.

You merely state your belief that guns won't protect citizens from a despotic government with superior firepower, and hypothesize that, if such a despotic situation should arise, "rebels" would somehow get weapons from N. Korea. None of that relates to disarming criminals.

a reply to: seagull

So I'm supposed to give up my freedom for the commonweal of others. Got it. Which one's next? All in the name of "public safety", of course.

I do fail to see how there is an infringement on your freedom!

The rule to drive max 30 miles an hour with your car on the road is also not an infringement on your freedom to drive, or is it?

Of course I see the thinking behind your thinking in this.

I doubt it, it seems you did not grasp what i meant.

I'm certainly glad that y'all in the Netherlands can live like that, and are willing to.

Me too, a lot safer for me and my family.