TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 195

Thread: Route 91 Harvest Music Festival Shooting - Gun Control Thread

  1. #151
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    yeah, and laws against murder are the reason why we no longer have murder.............................................. got a bridge for sale

  2. #152
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    I still think that's the stupidest argument on the face of the earth.

    No, murder laws don't prevent murder. BUT THEY SURE AS FUCK MAKE YOU CULPABLE IF YOU DECIDE TO MURDER SOMEONE!

    It's not so much about preventing as it is deterring.

  3. #153
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    like I said, we have those laws here in CA already, forgot how many states have the same laws regarding negligent discharge. still happens here............

  4. #154
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    It's done something. Negligent discharge deaths are fairly low across the country. Though I can't find any hard laws concerning trigger locks. They're more deeply emphasized suggestions than anything from what I've quickly googled.

  5. #155
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    I can support negligent discharge laws, those are a bit different than making "safe storage laws" where trigger locks are required ........

  6. #156
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    The justification for safe storage has only a little bit to do with negligent discharge. The main problem is suicides and homicides committed by people who got the gun from somebody who didn't secure it e.g. a parent.

    The point of having such laws isn't to have cops come in your house and check to make sure you have your guns locked up. The point is to deter gun owners from leaving their guns unsecured by the threat of criminal punishment and civil liability if something bad happens. If you leave a gun unsecured and your kid uses it to commit suicide, I think you should be thrown in jail on a felony conviction. If you lose it because somebody stole it, felony conviction. If your kid takes your gun and accidentally or intentionally shoots another kid, not only should you serve time, I think the family of the victim ought to sue your ass into a lifetime of destitution in civil court. If you can't handle that burden of responsibility, lock your shit up or don't keep a gun. That's what I think.

  7. #157
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    I am aware of the concerns people have raised about a "smart" gun failing when you need it to defend your home. However, that problem is hypothetical, and it's solvable through technology.

    A very real problem is that unsafeguarded guns are often deliberately or accidentally used by people who shouldn't have them, like your kids or their friends. That problem kills way more people than the number of justifiable homicides made in self defense.

    So solve the bigger problem first. If you want to keep a loaded gun in your dresser drawer for quick access if somebody breaks into your home, it should have a trigger lock or be a "smart" gun. Otherwise, it should be locked up in a proper container.
    Please keep in mind that the number of defensive gun uses outweighs the number of justifiable homicides by a huge margin. The conservative number (Violence Policy Center) is 100,000 DGUs per year, the highest number I've seen (Kleck, Gertz) is over 3 million. You're right, firearms kill accidentally more than they kill justifiably. But they're used justifiably, without killing, far more often than accidents occur. Food for thought.

    I would much sooner trust a biometric safe to store a handgun than a 'smart' handgun with biometric features. A biometric safe can be accessed virtually instantly, and if for whatever reason the biometrics don't work, you can use an old-fashioned key to open it. Once it's open you know the weapon is going to work. There is just too much room for error with a smartgun. Is it going to work if I have less-than-perfect grip because it's 3AM and I'm panicking? Is it going to work if I live in a humid area, or near the sea, where exposed electronics tend to degrade over time? Am I going to find that my gun is a paperweight because I slipped with the belt sander the week before and now my fingerprint isn't quite right?

    I like the idea of smartguns, but the devil's in the details, and KISS is the core of firearm design and especially self-defensive weapon design. Even police forces with notoriously little trust in their officers (eg New York City, where they stick excessively heavy triggers on their guns because they have virtually no firearm training and a tendency to negligently discharge with ordinary triggers) aren't clamoring for smartguns. Not to mention that thanks to New Jersey's law stating that the instant a smartgun is available for sale, no non-smartguns may be sold, the gun community is rabidly against smartguns simply because of the likelihood that they'll be legally mandated as gun control in spite of any demonstrable issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    Not necessarily. Regulating trigger locks as a necessity would cut down on accidental discharges at home, and would make shootings like Sandy Hook, where someone takes a gun that isn't theirs to go on a killing spree, considerably more difficult to pull off.
    Eh. In my head that hits the 'worst of both worlds' category of gun regulation proposals. Trigger locks are clumsy to operate if you need to do so in a hurry, they don't prevent theft, and they're very easy to break. They present an issue for a legitimate owner, but aren't hard to defeat by someone who means ill.

    Again, if we're mandating storage requirements, why not just a safe?

  8. #158
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    If you lose it because somebody stole it, felony conviction.
    I am 100% in favor of increasing liability when a stolen gun is used to commit a crime because it infuriates me to see people be cavalier about responsible gun storage. But, that said, a straight stolen gun = felony sounds like a strong incentive not to report stolen guns, which would hamper efforts to find them, and would also screw over the owner in the rare case of a burglar actually breaking through a safe (which sounds extreme, but does happen from time to time).

    I'd rather see mandatory storage requirements, with a felony in the event that an unsecured firearm is stolen and used to commit a violent crime. Doesn't make sense to punish the people following good practice for events out of their control.

  9. #159
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Even I have to admit that your suggestions are a little too strict, Heywood. This shouldn't be an if/then scenario. The police have to prove negligence. You don't want to create a situation where otherwise responsible gun owners are still brought to task because someone managed to bypass all their safety measures.

    Same with a stolen gun. The only time charges should be considered being pursed against a gun owner in that instance is if his gun is used to commit some random felony offense was never reported stolen. At face value, it'd look incredibly suspicious if the cops managed to trace a serial number of a weapon used back to its owner, and he responds with a "oh...yeah. It was...uh...yeah, it was stolen."

    Though even then, there are chances, slim though they may be, that someone could be missing a gun, and go entirely unaware of it for months or years. It'd be pretty unlikely, sure, but still well within the realm of possibility.

  10. #160
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    VPC is part of the Brady campaign

  11. #161
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    I said it in my last post, but bears repeating. If a chair manufacturer is liable for somebody standing on a chair (an expected misuse) and it breaking on them and they break their back, then gun manufacturers should be liable for somebody foreseeably misusing their weapon to cause injury and not taking steps to prevent such expected misuse.

    It's not like the exploding Coke bottle cases where they know one in a hundred million Coke bottles will explode and injure someone, but it's not reasonable to hold them liable since you can't make bottles that can't explode that aren't outrageously expensive vis-a-vis the added benefit, as long as you took some precautions to make it very very unlikely and you don't know exactly which one will explode. But in this case, gun manufactuerers know with absolutely certainty that X% (not a small number) of their weapons will end up illegitimately killing someone by entirely expected misuse, and they still put them out into the market. If they aren't going to be made illegal, they should pay for the damages.

  12. #162
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    can you prove they KNOW guns are going to end up stolen? cars get stolen all the time & people commit crimes with stolen cars, do you hold them accountable?
    O-retards administration willingly let the cartels get guns , hell O-retard himself blocked the investigation into it, should O-retard and his minions (Holdger) NOT be held accountable? http://www.businessinsider.com/justi...-holder-2012-6

  13. #163
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    I said it in my last post, but bears repeating. If a chair manufacturer is liable for somebody standing on a chair (an expected misuse) and it breaking on them and they break their back, then gun manufacturers should be liable for somebody foreseeably misusing their weapon to cause injury and not taking steps to prevent such expected misuse.

    It's not like the exploding Coke bottle cases where they know one in a hundred million Coke bottles will explode and injure someone, but it's not reasonable to hold them liable since you can't make bottles that can't explode that aren't outrageously expensive vis-a-vis the added benefit, as long as you took some precautions to make it very very unlikely and you don't know exactly which one will explode. But in this case, gun manufactuerers know with absolutely certainty that X% (not a small number) of their weapons will end up illegitimately killing someone by entirely expected misuse, and they still put them out into the market. If they aren't going to be made illegal, they should pay for the damages.
    The chair manufacturer has the ability to design a chair such that it doesn't break when somebody stands on it (up to a certain weight anyway). The gun manufacturer has no ability to control where the gun is pointed.

    If a gun has a design defect that causes a malfunction e.g. it fires when the safety is on or it breaks and injures the holder, then I think you would have a reason to hold the manufacturer liable.

    But your suggestion is like holding auto manufacturers liable every time a drunk driver hits somebody.

  14. #164
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    EXACTLY.

  15. #165
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    A dynamite or toxic waste or nuclear plant producer also can't control dynamite being exploded or toxic waste oozes and causes illness or a nuclear plant melts down, but they are still strictly liable for any and all harm because they are inherently dangerous items, even if there's (certain types of) intervention, some criminal group that breaks in and causes the harm. The producer might still have to pay.

    For the car manufacturer, that's a great case study to compare the differences. The actual answer in tort theory ... well there are a few things. Judges won't find manufacturers liable even though cars create a lot of known death and destruction because the cost/benefit ration is much too low for strict liability (the social benefit of cars way way outweighs the social cost of harm, which you can't say for dynamite, toxic waste or arguably guns), also people are presumed to consent to the risks of cars by living in modern society in a way they don't consent to exposure to dynamite, toxic waste, or getting shot at. I should back up and say strict liability only applies to items where the social cost is way more than the social benefit; and if you don't have that, normal liability rules apply (you have to show the maker was negligent in causing the harm).

    So specifically on the issue of strict liability, which is the claim here, it comes down to cost/benefit. Strict liability theory means you don't have to show negligence on behalf of the producer when harm happens because it's an inherently dangerous item with way more social cost than social benefit. For car makers, because the social benefit is so high, the makers will really need to do something very negligent that causes drunk drivers to hit people to be found liable. The argument is guns would be a strict liability category, so you don't have to show negligence.

    What we really need to talk about is the intersection of strict liability theory with intervening negligent/criminal intention. An intervening actor like a criminal or drunk person in the car case, and the suicide case, criminal, and non-careful user (gun accidents) for guns in normal tort theory supersede liability since one party can't be responsible for an intervening actor's behavior, like your car example. But it doesn't always apply to strict liability. If somebody steals a vat of toxic waste and dumps it in a city, the makers might still be responsible because it's strict liability. In the case of nuclear discharge, they do make an allowance for acts of war, an armed force deliberately attacks a nuclear plant to cause damage, but I don't think that applies to humdrum criminals. The nuclear plant makers are going to have to pay because they need to do more than just be "not negligent"; they'll need to pay for any harm from a meltdown as long as it can be proven to have been caused by that meltdown.

    The other missing piece is that guns are designed to shoot to kill living things, which doesn't apply to cars or even the other typical strict liability cases (toxic waste, nuclear meltdowns, dynamite).

    There's an article on the argument for strict liability for gun makers that makes the case better than I am here. In that article, it boils down to the fact that the social cost of gun production is much higher than the social benefit, so it should count as a strict liability category under tort theory. So you'd have to get into the technicalities of tort theory for each piece.

    Edit: Another piece is the fact that gun-deaths are a negative externality. One purpose of tort theory is to internalize social cost into the market. Guns cause social harm. If it's put into the price of the gun, then the market is paying for that cost, the same way that environmental harm is put into the cost of widgets when its factory drops sludge into a river to make it, through liability. If guns can't pay for that social harm, then it means guns cause more social harm than social good and the market is the vehicle of overall social good.
    This is part of the justification for the theory of strict liability for extremely hazardous items. It doesn't apply to just any product, but only extremely hazardous ones where the negative externality is a special problem.

    Edit2: Putting things into context, these tort theories -- strict liability & extremely hazardous liability -- were made in the 90s and early 2000s and courts weren't receptive to them, so I understand plaintiffs aren't going to bet on them these days. But it's not quite as clear cut as the car analogy. There's something there to the theories, even if they ultimately fail so far, and thinking about the case you learn a lot about tort theory and the public policy side of it.
    Last edited by demagogue; 11th Oct 2017 at 14:03.

  16. #166
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    As I remember, the issue with that gunwalking scandal was more that getting guns in the hands of cartels turned out to be perfectly legal in Arizona:

    http://fortune.com/2012/06/27/the-tr...rious-scandal/

    It was nearly impossible in Arizona to bring a case against a straw purchaser. The federal prosecutors there did not consider the purchase of a huge volume of guns, or their handoff to a third party, sufficient evidence to seize them. A buyer who certified that the guns were for himself, then handed them off minutes later, hadn’t necessarily lied and was free to change his mind. Even if a suspect bought 10 guns that were recovered days later at a Mexican crime scene, this didn’t mean the initial purchase had been illegal. To these prosecutors, the pattern proved little. Instead, agents needed to link specific evidence of intent to commit a crime to each gun they wanted to seize.

    [...]

    Prosecutors repeatedly rebuffed Voth’s requests. After examining one suspect’s garbage, agents learned he was on food stamps yet had plunked down more than $300,000 for 476 firearms in six months. Voth asked if the ATF could arrest him for fraudulently accepting public assistance when he was spending such huge sums. Prosecutor Hurley said no. In another instance, a young jobless suspect paid more than $10,000 for a 50-caliber tripod-mounted sniper rifle. According to Voth, Hurley told the agents they lacked proof that he hadn’t bought the gun for himself.
    So the agents basically had no other choice but to let the guns walk in hopes of making an arrest down the line.
    Last edited by Starker; 11th Oct 2017 at 13:41.

  17. #167
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    Please keep in mind that the number of defensive gun uses outweighs the number of justifiable homicides by a huge margin. The conservative number (Violence Policy Center) is 100,000 DGUs per year, the highest number I've seen (Kleck, Gertz) is over 3 million. You're right, firearms kill accidentally more than they kill justifiably. But they're used justifiably, without killing, far more often than accidents occur. Food for thought.

    I would much sooner trust a biometric safe to store a handgun than a 'smart' handgun with biometric features. A biometric safe can be accessed virtually instantly, and if for whatever reason the biometrics don't work, you can use an old-fashioned key to open it. Once it's open you know the weapon is going to work. There is just too much room for error with a smartgun. Is it going to work if I have less-than-perfect grip because it's 3AM and I'm panicking? Is it going to work if I live in a humid area, or near the sea, where exposed electronics tend to degrade over time? Am I going to find that my gun is a paperweight because I slipped with the belt sander the week before and now my fingerprint isn't quite right?
    I agree with you that a biometric safe is a preferred option in most cases, especially for home defense. I think there are still use cases for "smart" guns e.g. when you're temporarily storing your gun in your car maybe you wouldn't need a secure container or trigger lock if it's a "smart" gun.

    As far as I know, nobody knows how many defensive gun uses actually involved firing the weapon. I'm guessing it's a very small percentage, because the number of justifiable homicides is very small.

    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    I am 100% in favor of increasing liability when a stolen gun is used to commit a crime because it infuriates me to see people be cavalier about responsible gun storage. But, that said, a straight stolen gun = felony sounds like a strong incentive not to report stolen guns, which would hamper efforts to find them, and would also screw over the owner in the rare case of a burglar actually breaking through a safe (which sounds extreme, but does happen from time to time).

    I'd rather see mandatory storage requirements, with a felony in the event that an unsecured firearm is stolen and used to commit a violent crime. Doesn't make sense to punish the people following good practice for events out of their control.
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    Even I have to admit that your suggestions are a little too strict, Heywood. This shouldn't be an if/then scenario. The police have to prove negligence. You don't want to create a situation where otherwise responsible gun owners are still brought to task because someone managed to bypass all their safety measures.

    Same with a stolen gun. The only time charges should be considered being pursed against a gun owner in that instance is if his gun is used to commit some random felony offense was never reported stolen. At face value, it'd look incredibly suspicious if the cops managed to trace a serial number of a weapon used back to its owner, and he responds with a "oh...yeah. It was...uh...yeah, it was stolen."

    Though even then, there are chances, slim though they may be, that someone could be missing a gun, and go entirely unaware of it for months or years. It'd be pretty unlikely, sure, but still well within the realm of possibility.
    To be clear, I didn't mean to imply that stolen gun = felony. What I mean is stolen unsecured gun = felony. The prosecution would still have to prove you didn't secure the weapon, e.g. because you didn't have a proper container in your home/car/wherever it was stolen from, or based on testimony from a family member, etc. The law would establish a standard for proper storage and as long as you followed that you're OK.

    There would still be an incentive not to report a stolen gun if you didn't have it secured. But if the measure reduces the rate of gun theft, that is a good tradeoff. I'd rather have fewer guns stolen with a lower report rate than more guns stolen with a higher report rate.

  18. #168
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus

    yeah, you peeps are funny

  19. #169
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    In that article, it boils down to the fact that the social cost of gun production is much higher than the social benefit, so it should count as a strict liability category under tort theory.
    I don't think cars are the best comparison because, as you pointed out, cars have obvious public utility that massively outweighs their public cost. But while we're talking about drunk drivers, what about alcohol? I mean, IIRC there are something like 90,000 alcohol-related deaths per year, of which a substantial number are things like drunk driving accidents where the victim is not the person who made the decision to drink. We're talking about products that have only recreational use, so following the same logic, shouldn't we hold breweries strictly liable for liver failure and drunk driving accidents? I can see the logic behind what you're saying, but it's clearly not consistently applied as a social principle. We readily accept that intangible recreational uses can be worth a nearly six-figure death toll without holding the producers strictly liable for misuse of their products.

    Part of the reason why these tort theories haven't gone beyond addressing defective products, to my understanding, is that there's no objective standard by which you can measure a product and answer these questions. You can very easily assess that a defective product which causes injury to its user has a social cost outweighing its benefits (ie it hurts someone and doesn't work), but trying to extract the same calculus from product design as a whole is a lot trickier. And a question like 'does the social utility provided by recreational shooting, collection, self-defense, and the fulfillment of the 2nd Amendment outweigh the harmful consequences of firearm ownership?' is so inherently loaded that I don't see how you could ever claim to address it objectively and set a legal standard.

    Also,

    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    The other missing piece is that guns are designed to shoot to kill living things
    People say this a lot to try to provide a distinction between guns and other products, but it's always struck me as special pleading. Is the manufacturer of an Olympic target pistol less liable in a murder using their product than Glock would be? If I slip rat poison in my boss's coffee, is the manufacturer more liable than if I had used pharmaceuticals? Does an airgun sold for pest control entail more liability than an identical airgun sold for target shooting? I'm just not seeing how design intent factors into the public utility/public harm equation, it seems to be ascribing metaphysical characteristics to objects irrespective of their actual capabilities. I can't think of any industries where 'designed to kill' makes a difference in manufacturer liability.

  20. #170
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    The flip side of that analogy are things like certain chemicals or equipment that are only used for explosives or equipment that's only used for nuclear devices, etc, where the manufacturer actually could be liable for distributing it to the wrong people.

    As a tort that might fall under a slightly different theory, though, negligent entrustment -- negligently giving possession of a dangerous item to a person you have reason to believe will cause harm with it -- which actually has been applied for guns. If you or a seller sell or lend your gun to someone incompetent or you should know would misuse it, you could be joint liable for the harm they do with it, not strict liability, but for your negligence in entrusting it to the wrong sort of person.

    There's a burden of proof angle to that. With certain things, I understand the company won't distribute it to anyone unless they show some kind of credentials (like that it's a school chemistry department or valid researcher) and the general public is presumed ineligible. Then you have background checks with guns, and you can have rules that you can only distribute to people that have passed them, where presumption is the general public would be ineligible.

    Those are by regulation, but violating a regulation can be prima facie evidence for a negligent entrustment claim. So those kinds of metaphysics sort of get into liability that kind of way. You can't be liable handing an incompetent person just any tool, but you would handing them a loaded gun. You might be liable handing them the keys to your car when you have reason to believe they'll misuse it too FTM.

    For true strict liability, it usually has to be something that just being in the same room with it will harm or kill people, like nuclear or toxic waste, where the property of human-killability is built into the very physical properties of the thing. Those are the types of industries where it makes a difference. But you can see why it hasn't really applied to guns, since it's not the physical properties per se that cause harm; you have to have the intervening use.

    The case study to look at are things like copy machines, or the old VCR or CD copiers, or torrent apps; are they ever liable for copyright violations in copying, when they're designed to copy media, and when it's known statistically most media copied on them is copyrighted, but it's possible non-copyrighted material could sometimes also be copied? There's been something there for those cases, although I think laws get passed to create liability or some scheme, and not vanilla tort theory.

    With guns, it might be relevant for different models statistically how often they're used in a socially constructive way. Makes me think of those gimmick ranges that rednecks go to with their automatic weapons to shoot up cars and explosives are planted so shit blows up and they whoop. That'd probably count as positive social utility. So I don't even know if the statistics for "virtually always criminal use" would be backed up, or what the numbers would be if you statistically broke down every shell fired from a gun between criminal and non-criminal use. If it were a really high number on the criminal-use, there's something to talk about there; but I don't know that it is.

    Edit: Well if you added suicides, the numbers might be rather dim on that count. Also negligent discharge is also a regulation, and any time you have a regulation, liability can always attach to any damage coming out of it.
    Last edited by demagogue; 11th Oct 2017 at 19:25.

  21. #171
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus

  22. #172
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    If Rosa Parks exercised her right to sit at the front of the bus with an AR15, she probably wouldn't be so fondly remembered today.

    Also, JK, tone down the memes, sir. Your funny picture to words ratio is way the hell out of whack.

  23. #173
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    memes are real my friend.
    far too may liberals seemingly think that rights end where their feelings begin and I for one am glad they are wrong. there is too much feel good legislation out there already. you have no real way to implement plenty of the feelings displayed on this thread.

  24. #174
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    But too many memes makes you look like a robot.

    The problem is you have a situation where everyone is overly emotional. Those who lean on the farther left end of the great gun equation are going to have to come to terms with the fact that there is going to be no gun ban in the United States any time in the foreseeable future. To do so would necessitate us kicking off a Constitutional Convention, requesting a change that would first require 2/3rds of the House and Senate to agree on something before sending it off to be agreed upon by 38 of our 50 states.

    Considering the fact our current government can't even come together to agree on the color and consistency of shit at the moment, any real attempt to change the Constitution is doomed to failure before it even starts.

    On the flipside of this argument, those on the right need to understand that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee absolute unfettered freedom. The 2nd Amendment is pretty specific in its wording. The government has no right to deny We The People the right to bear arms. Though, as in all things in law, a stated specificity is just that: specific. What the law says on paper is what it does. There are no unstated assumptions lying beyond.

    So the 2nd guarantees you the right to bear arms, but says nothing about attempts to regulating them. Provided any attempt at such isn't overly restrictive to the point it violates the spirit of the law, regulations aren't necessarily unconstitutional.

    So then we come to the question of what do we regulate? What do we allow? Obviously the all or nothing approach taken by both sides of the equation isn't going to work. But a happy compromise? Well, answering that question will be like threading a needle with your teeth while wearing a blindfold and jumping on one foot.

  25. #175
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    you mean like a chat bot? God I wish my English was that good.

    states tend to go full retard one way or another, look at CA , retarded as hell. then look at states where you don't need background checks for private sales, that is also retarded as hell . I am fine with background checks for ALL sales, 10 day waits? sure but ONLY for the first gun purchase, magazine limits? HELL NO, amount of guns you can have ? NO, negligent discharge laws? no problem.

    this was signed by Brown here in CA

    http://www.independent.com/news/2014...s-legislature/
    Williams’s bill — which he cosponsored with Assemblymember Nancy Skinner — would allow law enforcement, blood relatives, or roommates of someone suspected of posing a serious threat to themselves or others to seek a judge’s order to remove any firearms from that person’s possession
    other than that I have NOT seen anything in this forum proposed that is feasible.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •