Families of Newtown shooting victims file lawsuit against gun manufacturer, distributor
Offline Pat Eaton-Robb, The Associated Press
Published Monday, December 15, 2014 11:29AM EST
HARTFORD, Conn. -- The families of nine of the 26 people killed and a teacher wounded two years ago at the Sandy Hook Elementary School filed a lawsuit Monday against the manufacturer, distributor and seller of the rifle used in the shooting.
The negligence and wrongful death lawsuit, filed in Bridgeport Superior Court, asserts that the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle should not have been made publicly available because it was designed for military use and is unsuited for hunting or home defence.
"The AR-15 was specifically engineered for the United States military to meet the needs of changing warfare," attorney Josh Koskoff said in a release. "In fact, one of the Army's specifications for the AR-15 was that it has the capability to penetrate a steel helmet."
In addition to Bushmaster, the defendants are Camfour, a firearm distributor, and Riverview Gun Sales, the East Windsor store where the gunman's mother purchased the Bushmaster rifle in 2010.
Messages seeking comment from the defendants were not immediately returned.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/families-of-newtown-shooting-victims-file-lawsuit-against-gun-manufacturer-distributor-1.2148332
The article goes on to quote a relative of a victim:
""These companies assume no responsibility for marketing and selling a product to the general population who are not trained to use it nor even understand the power of it," he said."
Bullshit. Car manufacturers aren't responsible when someone runs someone else over. Aeroplane manufacturers aren't responsible for 911. It is not the responsibility of a manufacturer to police their clients and customers.
I don't like guns and would see them restricted to an extent, but the manufacturer has nothing to do with this. Nor the distributer. The mother bought the gun and the son fired it. The government allowed the company to sell the model to citizens. Those are the only parties with any actual responsibility in this, and the son bears the vast majority of that responsibility.
This suit doesn't even make sense from a anti-firearms perspective. If the company is burdened enough with law suits that it goes bankrupt, it'll just make room for a new manufacturer to take their place. One without a safety or quality record equal to the company that went under.
This is about some greedy fucks who think they are entitled to a big pile of cash just because some people died, and those greedy fucks know the assailant cannot provide that pile of cash so they go after peripheral targets who bear no responsibility. That the government wasn't named proves it, as only the government can regulate what is and isn't legal for sale to the public.
It incences me to think these people actually have a chance at victory.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Cars are not more dangerous than guns. You must take in to account the number of weapons owned vs the number of cars/trucks/buses/etc on the road.
250 million motor vehicles (including trucks/buses and everything with wheels on the highway), 270-310 million guns. I will assume the lower number to help your point cause I'm nice like that.
According to the CDC (I think it is best to use the same source as any reporting biases will be experienced in both categories) using all intents and all demographic groups in 2013.
Cars account for 3,887,556 non fatal injuries (11,836 intentional-statistically irrelevant)
Firearms: 84,258 non fatal injuries (16,864 unintentional)
Cars: 38,490 deaths (210 intentional)
Firearms: 33,563 deaths (548 unintentional)
So the death/injury ratio is much higher with firearms. Although, I think it is relevant to point out that 20,666 of those gun deaths were suicides- which I find to be a completely permissable use of a gun and it is only guilty of being successful at its intended use. So categorizing which is more dangerous, I don't think intentional suicide should be included since the only danger in those cases is if you want to commit suicide. Legalizing suicide and allowing people suicide by docter would probably almost eliminate firearm suicides. (at least I would choose the cleaner way, some people might still have a flair for the dramatic) Meanwhile, 167 car deaths were suicide.
That leaves us with roughly
1 injury for every 64 cars per year.
1 death for every 6500 cars
1 injury for every 3200 guns
1 unintentional injury for every 15,900 guns
1 death for every 8100 guns
1 non suicide death for every 20,800 guns
1 unintentional death in every 492,000 guns
So in gross, cars cause substantially more injuries, and more deaths. Although, a car injury is less likely to lead to death. And clearly, we can see a huge difference in intent. As we already knew, guns are used for murder and suicide far more often than cars.
Then take in to account how many hours cars are driven verses how many hours guns are handled. Cars have a very low percentage of deaths per hour of usage. Weapons have a very high percentage of deaths per hour of usage.
It's like comparing plane crashes to car crashes. There are far more people who die in a plane crash than there are in a car crash. Yet, the number of hours that planes are in flight with out an accident is far less than it is in a car. This makes it more dangerous to ride in a car than it is to fly in a plane. Now apply this same review to the number of hours that people handle guns to the number of deaths. Take in to account all accidents, suicides and mass shootings.
Calculating the relative number of hours using a gun and by cars is virtually impossible.
cars.lovetoknow.com/about-cars/how-many-miles-do-americans-drive-per-year
This site suggest 13,476 miles is the average per driver.
www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/hf/pl11028/chapter4.cfm
This site suggests 210 million drivers. So roughly 2.8 trillion miles. So pulling a number from my ass call the average speed in the US 30 mph? 93.3 billion hours. The average car would be driven 373 hours estimated. I think the guesses are fair, but they are guesses. The result is an average of 1 hour per day per car per year.
Gross injury rate, you are 248 times more likely to be injured in a car accident than unintentional gunfire. That means if the average gun is used 1.5 hours a year or more, it is safer than the average car when it comes to unintentional injury.
All intents- 50 times so 7.5 hours per gun.
For deaths- 1.25 times more likely to die by car so call it 310 hours per gun
Non suicide deaths- 3.2 times so 116.5 hours per gun
Unintentional deaths- 75 times so call it 5 hours per gun.
So how many hours do guns get used? The obvious, and perhaps easiest group of gun owners to calculate is hunters. 12.7 million gun hunters
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-gun-owners-outnumbered-hunters-5-1-2011
Spend an average of 18 days hunting.
www.nssf.org/PDF/research/bright%20stars%20of%20the%20economy.pdf
No idea how many hours, but let us assume that most hunters are pussys and only average 6 hours a day carrying their guns plus the inevitable cleaning, handling etc (the most common time of injury actually). That is 108 hours * 12.7 million 1.37 billion hours/year divided by 270 million guns. Hunters alone account for approximately 5 hours per gun in the US.
So for unintentional injury and unintentional death guns are already safer than cars.
But there are more than just hunters. We make up a diminishing number of people, more and more Prozacs exist every year.
nssf.org/PDF/research/TargetShootingInAmericaReport.pdf
According to this report, the average shooter goes out 22 days a year. They estimate 20-40 million target shoorters. I don't know how reliable the predictions are so lets assume 20 million. So 440 million days, call it an average of 2 hours handling the gun each day. That is an average of 3 hours per gun per year. That puts us at 8 hours.
Then you have concealed carry, 8 million people have permits, not all states require permits. Some people carry 24/7, others carry rarely to never. It really is impossible to calculate accurately, but should be enough to more than make up for any errors for the other two groups. I think we can conclude that the average gun is handled more than 8 hours, but probably less that 100 hours per year.
I think we can state with some confidence that per hour, guns cause fewer non fatal injuries than cars when all intents are considered and substantially fewer for only unintentional injuries.
For deaths, they are clearly safer from unintentional deaths. But probably not when homocide and suicide are included.
Conclusion: Cars are more dangerous, but guns are used way more for murder. Clearly, banning cars would save WAY more lives than banning guns. Especially since gun homocides are not necessarily eliminated by banning them. Whereas, car deaths would be virtually eliminated (since it is easier to enforce and even if someone did drive illegally, they would have fewer other cars to crash in to)
Of course, both tools can have their injury/death rates reduced by focussing on other factors that make them more dangerous without bans. Such as steps to reduce drunk driving or make cars safer (which we have done and have seen death rates drop significantly) and in the case of guns, there are many ways we can reduce crime. Dealing with the intent issue with guns is more difficult, but with the sheer number of guns already here, it is pretty ridiculous to think a ban will have a noticable effect in our lifetimes short of an extreme door-to-door type of confiscation. (which would lead many of us to start shooting, and I'd like to think we could kill at least 100 years worth of gun deaths in gestapos before the seizure was successful.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
- Login to post comments
Offline In DC? 2-4 million doesn't buy you shit. To be exact, it buys you 28 lobbyists, half of them part time, out of the 11,509 registered lobbyists. www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientlbs.php And that is lobbying for or against 87 proposed laws this year. A drop in the bucket compared to the $2.4 billion spent on lobbying this year. Do you seriously believe that some politician is going to be impressed by that?
The $17 odd million they spent on political campaigns (mostly on television ads) is slightly more significant. It at least puts them in the top 20 most active organizations, but hardly going to persuade some politician who supports gun control to change their mind.
Only if they have a desire to go to jail. Any gift over $50 is illegal and since Abramoff, so are private jet rides.
What law? What law can you possibly imagine would allow law abiding citizens to purchase guns, but would have prevented Sandyhook?
If you think that NRA voters are the only thing that the NRA uses to leverage politicians you must be ignorant or stupid; or maybe a little of both. Freebies, favors, I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine, blah blah blah. It all happens. It always happens.
I think that a 100 grand is no small donation. The NRA doesn't need many politicians. Only the few and powerful. They don't need the entire GOP.
Even Abramoff is a joke, and I quote him, "I was involved deeply in a system of bribery — legalized bribery for the most part" that "still to a large part exists today."
I can imagine a system of checks and balances that still allows people like you to have your thirty weapon collection and still feel safe for having them and what ever ammo you wish. What I want to see is a system of responsibility where parents and collectors, farmers, dealers and manufactures all take responsibility for who handles the weapons. I want to see more education not just for the people who buy the weapons, but the sellers too.
I still stand with my previous statement that we need to have a test for evaluating mental people before they handle weapons and purchase them. People who buy weapons then go off and sell those weapons to family with out that family member needing a background check.
The current system sucks and if you think it is good enough well you are one ignorant person. there is room for improvement. lots of room.
- Login to post comments
Offline So you think money corrupts the system ? Well then complain to ex mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg. He's a billionaire who just shelled out $50,000,000 to start Mayors Against Guns and Moms Demand Action.
Oh my God ! Most congressmen and senators are obscenely wealthy ( like gun grabber Diane Finestein and her husband ) if you think a fucking hunting trip and ride on a plane is all it takes to win them over you are unbelievably naive.
There is a recently passed law ( AB 1014 ) signed by Dem. California Governor Jerry Brown which causes one to lose possesion of their guns upon the mere suggestion from a family member that a person poses a possible risk. There is no due process. The weapons are just confiscated by police. In New York, police scan obituaries and compare them to gun registration info. ( www. wgrz.com/story/news/local/downtown/2014/11/08/bpd-checks-death-records-and-pistol-permit-records/18741131/ ) The guns are confiscated from the survivors unless many onerous and deliberately difficult legal hurdles are navigated within a specific time. In Conneticut owners of so-called assualt weapons are being forced to register them with the state. Failure to do so is a felony. Ironically that so-called crime measure simply created a new class of criminals without actually doing anything about actual gun crime. That is exactly the purpose of the law.
No, it isn't. And watch how the threshold of what defines "mentally ill" will continually be revised. Now that ultra left wing Vivek Murthy has been appointed Surgeon General ( whose nomination was held up for precisely his type of agenda-driven "medical" opinions ) watch this "mental health" scam become even more prominent.
Greed corrupts the system.
Most? Is that like one or one hundred? And obscenely wealthy? Please stop with the random adjectives.
AB-1014? Incorrect. http://www.firearm101.com/ab-1014-gun-violence-restraining-orders-need-know/
If a person dies the police are checking the records of the dead person to see if they owned a gun. If that gun was registered under their name the police are going out and picking up the gun. Why? because no one else in that house is supposed to have that gun. It was registered to a person who is now dead. I think it is a great idea.
In all states they should register all their assualt weapons. You are wrong about the law in Conneticut.
http://www.myrecordjournal.com/news/state/5441096-129/failure-to-register-assault-weapons-a-misdemeanor.html
You gotta stay off those conspiracy sites. You are an alarmist.
- Login to post comments
Offline If you think that NRA voters are the only thing that the NRA uses to leverage politicians you must be ignorant or stupid; or maybe a little of both. Freebies, favors, I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine, blah blah blah. It all happens. It always happens.
Do you even know what a lobbyist does? If the NRA gave you a million and sent you to DC, what exactly do you think you would be doing day 1? And again, freebies are illegal. The best you can offer is a lucrative job after they retire, which many do. The NRA doesn't currently employ any former congressmen, they do hire a few former staffers.
I think that a 100 grand is no small donation. The NRA doesn't need many politicians. Only the few and powerful. They don't need the entire GOP.
$100k is pathetically small for even a single politician. Outside of races where the area leans so far to one party that there is no serious competition, $100k is nice but isn't going to change a race when you are talking about $10-$20 million a congressional campaign and upwards of $100 million for a Senate campaign. And as I pointed out before, the vast majority of the money is spent by the NRA on tv ads. Everyone who sees them knows they are from the NRA (because they make the terrible choice of using Wayne Lapierre spouting boring statistics). The ads from the politicians themselves swamp the NRA ads.
The whole idea that these people who run for office are wishy washy and will sell out for these pathetic sums of money is laughable. These are the most arrogant egotistical people you can find. They want power, not money and their political beliefs on the major issues are pretty solid. Perhaps if you are dealing with an issue where the politician has no personal opinion, people around them that they trust have strong influences and they won't think twice about throwing in a contract for some company because someone they are associated with asks them to. (hence why the vast amount of lobbying money is from companies seeking government contracts)
Even Abramoff is a joke, and I quote him, "I was involved deeply in a system of bribery — legalized bribery for the most part" that "still to a large part exists today."
So legalized he spent 5 years in jail. Minimum security granted, but still. I don't know when he said that, but the free trips were legal under the guise of bringing the politician to a public event. They are no longer legal, mostly due to the Abramoff scandal. That is probably a good thing.
I can imagine a system of checks and balances that still allows people like you to have your thirty weapon collection and still feel safe for having them and what ever ammo you wish. What I want to see is a system of responsibility where parents and collectors, farmers, dealers and manufactures all take responsibility for who handles the weapons. I want to see more education not just for the people who buy the weapons, but the sellers too.
Sure, none of us want crazy people shooting up schools. The devil is in the details. Exactly HOW do we prevent Sandyhook? If we can't even go back with 20/20 vision and say what we could do to prevent that, how can we imagine anything will prevent a future one? The woman who bought the gun was perfectly legal to buy guns. She wasn't crazy, had no mental issues, wasn't a criminal. The only thing you could say is she was a prepper with some kooky conspiracy theories. So on what basis do you refuse to sell her a gun, without banning someone like me or Prozac from buying the same gun? This is the most irritating thing when talking to the anti-gun crowd. Without fail, they hold up a specific situation as an example of why we need regulation and then propose laws that wouldn't have possibly prevented it.
I still stand with my previous statement that we need to have a test for evaluating mental people before they handle weapons and purchase them. People who buy weapons then go off and sell those weapons to family with out that family member needing a background check.
Which is illegal. Sure, people break that law, but it is punishable by up to $250,000 fine and 10 years in jail. This law actually went to the Supreme Court last year where a cop purchased a Glock for his uncle in order to take advantage of his law enforcement discount. The uncle was a completely legal gun owner, there was nothing that would have stopped him during the background check. He plead guilty and then appealed it to the Supreme Court. He lost. Just because you are ignorant of the law, doesn't mean it is legal. And like all laws, people break them, either through intent or ignorance. Also, if you ever sell a gun to someone who cannot legally own a gun, like a felon, you are liable.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
- Login to post comments
Offline digitalbeachbum wrote:Not by design, but they most certainly can be weapons of mass destruction.Cars are not weapons of mass destruction.digitalbeachbum wrote:I can kill and maim ten times as many people with a car as I can with any explosive device short of a nuclear style weapon. By definition, a car can be a weapon of mass destruction.Bombs put in to vehicles are weapons of mass destruction. Bombs strapped to a kid are weapons of mass destruction.digitalbeachbum wrote:Yes they are. The most likely way to die is in a car accident. Guns aren't in the top ten. Even in countries at war and experiencing terrorist attacks on a regular basis, guns are less dangerous than cars.Cars are not more dangerous than guns.digitalbeachbum wrote:Even when you do that, cars are more dangerous. There are more guns than people in the US. There is as yet no way for there to be as many vehicles on the road as there are weapons in possession of citizens. In every possible comparison, a car is MUCH more dangerous than a gun. Hell, people even use them to commit suicide..You must take in to account the number of weapons owned vs the number of cars/trucks/buses/etc on the road.digitalbeachbum wrote:Absolute bullshit. The vast majority of the time that guns see use, there are no injuries or fatalities. Yet the first two cars that ever existed in the US managed to collide. Vehicle accidents happen constantly. Gun fatalities are exceptionally rare by comparison.Then take in to account how many hours cars are driven verses how many hours guns are handled. Cars have a very low percentage of deaths per hour of usage. Weapons have a very high percentage of deaths per hour of usage.digitalbeachbum wrote:Planes see far more maintenance, regulations, and controls than cars do. The average person can't just hop in a pilots seat. If the amount of focus on air safety were put in use with cars, there would be an extensive drop in accident numbers. The average person CAN get behind the wheel of a car or the barrel of a gun, making them directly comparable as dangers to persons in society. And cars beat guns every single time.It's like comparing plane crashes to car crashes. There are far more people who die in a plane crash than there are in a car crash. Yet, the number of hours that planes are in flight with out an accident is far less than it is in a car. This makes it more dangerous to ride in a car than it is to fly in a plane. Now apply this same review to the number of hours that people handle guns to the number of deaths. Take in to account all accidents, suicides and mass shootings.
Do you realize your replies are one giant jumbled mess when I view them? but when I click post it all returns to normal?
I disagree but I'm in no mood to do the math. You'd have to figure out how many people die each day from either guns or cars/trucks/etc. Then calculate the amount of time a car is on the road vs. the amount of time a gun is in the hands of the individual. They figure out the average time it takes for a person to die in a vehicle vs the average time it takes for a person to die from a gun. It is my belief you will find that on average a person who handles a gun is more likely to die from a gun rather than die from being in a car per minute. There are far more car drivers than gun owners; plus out of the 235 million registered guns there is a considerable number of them who own multiple weapons. You then also need to consider unregistered weapons too.
HAHAHA - That's a good one. I've heard of that urban myth. No, it isn't true and you need to fact check a little more before you post shit like that; no the first two cars in America did not collide with each other.
- Login to post comments
Offline digitalbeachbum wrote:Cars are not more dangerous than guns. You must take in to account the number of weapons owned vs the number of cars/trucks/buses/etc on the road.
250 million motor vehicles (including trucks/buses and everything with wheels on the highway), 270-310 million guns. I will assume the lower number to help your point cause I'm nice like that.
According to the CDC (I think it is best to use the same source as any reporting biases will be experienced in both categories) using all intents and all demographic groups in 2013.
Cars account for 3,887,556 non fatal injuries (11,836 intentional-statistically irrelevant)
Firearms: 84,258 non fatal injuries (16,864 unintentional)
Cars: 38,490 deaths (210 intentional)
Firearms: 33,563 deaths (548 unintentional)
So the death/injury ratio is much higher with firearms. Although, I think it is relevant to point out that 20,666 of those gun deaths were suicides- which I find to be a completely permissable use of a gun and it is only guilty of being successful at its intended use. So categorizing which is more dangerous, I don't think intentional suicide should be included since the only danger in those cases is if you want to commit suicide. Legalizing suicide and allowing people suicide by docter would probably almost eliminate firearm suicides. (at least I would choose the cleaner way, some people might still have a flair for the dramatic) Meanwhile, 167 car deaths were suicide.
That leaves us with roughly
1 injury for every 64 cars per year.
1 death for every 6500 cars
1 injury for every 3200 guns
1 unintentional injury for every 15,900 guns
1 death for every 8100 guns
1 non suicide death for every 20,800 guns
1 unintentional death in every 492,000 guns
So in gross, cars cause substantially more injuries, and more deaths. Although, a car injury is less likely to lead to death. And clearly, we can see a huge difference in intent. As we already knew, guns are used for murder and suicide far more often than cars.
Quote:Then take in to account how many hours cars are driven verses how many hours guns are handled. Cars have a very low percentage of deaths per hour of usage. Weapons have a very high percentage of deaths per hour of usage.
It's like comparing plane crashes to car crashes. There are far more people who die in a plane crash than there are in a car crash. Yet, the number of hours that planes are in flight with out an accident is far less than it is in a car. This makes it more dangerous to ride in a car than it is to fly in a plane. Now apply this same review to the number of hours that people handle guns to the number of deaths. Take in to account all accidents, suicides and mass shootings.
Calculating the relative number of hours using a gun and by cars is virtually impossible.
cars.lovetoknow.com/about-cars/how-many-miles-do-americans-drive-per-year
This site suggest 13,476 miles is the average per driver.
www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/hf/pl11028/chapter4.cfm
This site suggests 210 million drivers. So roughly 2.8 trillion miles. So pulling a number from my ass call the average speed in the US 30 mph? 93.3 billion hours. The average car would be driven 373 hours estimated. I think the guesses are fair, but they are guesses. The result is an average of 1 hour per day per car per year.
Gross injury rate, you are 248 times more likely to be injured in a car accident than unintentional gunfire. That means if the average gun is used 1.5 hours a year or more, it is safer than the average car when it comes to unintentional injury.
All intents- 50 times so 7.5 hours per gun.
For deaths- 1.25 times more likely to die by car so call it 310 hours per gun
Non suicide deaths- 3.2 times so 116.5 hours per gun
Unintentional deaths- 75 times so call it 5 hours per gun.
So how many hours do guns get used? The obvious, and perhaps easiest group of gun owners to calculate is hunters. 12.7 million gun hunters
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-gun-owners-outnumbered-hunters-5-1-2011
Spend an average of 18 days hunting.
www.nssf.org/PDF/research/bright%20stars%20of%20the%20economy.pdf
No idea how many hours, but let us assume that most hunters are pussys and only average 6 hours a day carrying their guns plus the inevitable cleaning, handling etc (the most common time of injury actually). That is 108 hours * 12.7 million 1.37 billion hours/year divided by 270 million guns. Hunters alone account for approximately 5 hours per gun in the US.
So for unintentional injury and unintentional death guns are already safer than cars.
But there are more than just hunters. We make up a diminishing number of people, more and more Prozacs exist every year.
nssf.org/PDF/research/TargetShootingInAmericaReport.pdf
According to this report, the average shooter goes out 22 days a year. They estimate 20-40 million target shoorters. I don't know how reliable the predictions are so lets assume 20 million. So 440 million days, call it an average of 2 hours handling the gun each day. That is an average of 3 hours per gun per year. That puts us at 8 hours.
Then you have concealed carry, 8 million people have permits, not all states require permits. Some people carry 24/7, others carry rarely to never. It really is impossible to calculate accurately, but should be enough to more than make up for any errors for the other two groups. I think we can conclude that the average gun is handled more than 8 hours, but probably less that 100 hours per year.
I think we can state with some confidence that per hour, guns cause fewer non fatal injuries than cars when all intents are considered and substantially fewer for only unintentional injuries.
For deaths, they are clearly safer from unintentional deaths. But probably not when homocide and suicide are included.
Conclusion: Cars are more dangerous, but guns are used way more for murder. Clearly, banning cars would save WAY more lives than banning guns. Especially since gun homocides are not necessarily eliminated by banning them. Whereas, car deaths would be virtually eliminated (since it is easier to enforce and even if someone did drive illegally, they would have fewer other cars to crash in to)
Of course, both tools can have their injury/death rates reduced by focussing on other factors that make them more dangerous without bans. Such as steps to reduce drunk driving or make cars safer (which we have done and have seen death rates drop significantly) and in the case of guns, there are many ways we can reduce crime. Dealing with the intent issue with guns is more difficult, but with the sheer number of guns already here, it is pretty ridiculous to think a ban will have a noticable effect in our lifetimes short of an extreme door-to-door type of confiscation. (which would lead many of us to start shooting, and I'd like to think we could kill at least 100 years worth of gun deaths in gestapos before the seizure was successful.
I reject your math because you are looking at totals with out giving consideration to the amount of time a person handles a weapon vs the amount of time a person drives a car. Technically you are correct and I saw the same numbers but you are looking at cars being driven 100% in a 24 hour period. There are literally hundreds of millions of hours spent driving a motor vehicle during a 24 hour period. The number of hours spent holding a weapon? I wouldn't even know where to begin on finding that number. However, I find it interesting that guns are made to do what? Fire a projectile. You have three types of deaths with weapons: suicide, accidental discharge and murder. I believe you'll find murder is #1. A car will have the same types of deaths, but you'll find that more of them are accidental.
It is impossible for me to tally the numbers because it would be impossible to calculate the amount of time a person is handling a weapon, nor could I possibly know the number of unregistered weapons. I however think that the available stats do lend credibility to my suggestion. The time you spend handling a weapon will result in the death of yourself or another (is greater than) the time you spend driving will result in your death or another.
(ps) I forgot to mention that all the stats you brought up are rejected. Gun owners rarely own just one gun. The stats you present are irrelevant.
- Login to post comments
Offline Obviously someone didn't bother reading my post, I addressed the time of use in the second half. And yeah, gunowners own more than one gun, which is why I think the higher estimates are probably more realistic. I used the lower estimate because it helps your argument. If there are 330 million guns, then they are that much safer than cars. (not everyone owns one car either).
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
- Login to post comments
Offline Obviously someone didn't bother reading my post, I addressed the time of use in the second half. And yeah, gunowners own more than one gun, which is why I think the higher estimates are probably more realistic. I used the lower estimate because it helps your argument. If there are 330 million guns, then they are that much safer than cars. (not everyone owns one car either).
I did read your post but the information in incomplete I can't even draw an assumption from the stats provided
I'll concede one point, more deaths occur from unregistered guns than registered guns. Meaning I believe that more gun related deaths occur from criminals rather than law abiding, registered gun owners.
Well duh, of course not every one owns a car, but also not every one owns a weapon. Sure you have licensed individuals driving cars but when talking about deaths related to cars you have to look at the number of people killed who were pedestrians. Also who died while not driving the car. That would be getting in to something I don't want to discuss. My focus is if a weapon is picked up and used it for 60 minutes the likelyhood that it will kill someone is greater than if a person got in a car and drove it for 60 minutes.
If there are 330 million registered guns, then what is a good stat for the number of unregistered guns? twice? three times?
- Login to post comments
Offline Do you realize your replies are one giant jumbled mess when I view them? but when I click post it all returns to normal?
I can't explain that. It looks fine to me. I can't see any issues in a cursory glance at the formatting.
I disagree but I'm in no mood to do the math.
Neither was I, else I would have done so. Beyond, however, was in the mood and did the math (as much as feasible). And it supports my position, as I knew it would (even if I was a little off on some details).
HAHAHA - That's a good one. I've heard of that urban myth. No, it isn't true and you need to fact check a little more before you post shit like that; no the first two cars in America did not collide with each other.
Clearly you should take your own advice. Upon your claim I did some digging, and there is no real evidence to say either way. And yet at the same time there are a number of accidents that happened shortly after cars went on the market.
In 1891 a car in Ohio hit a tree root and crashed into a hitching post, while being driven by a guy trying to get people to buy cars from him (the first car salesperson, from all accounts, in the state).
In 1867 a steam powered car ran over one of its passengers, killing her instantly.
In 1896 a pedestrian in London was killed by a car with a top speed of 4 (four) MPH.
Whether or not the annecdotal claim is accurate is really besides the point. The FACT is that cars are and have always been more dangerous than guns. And as long as people remain behind the wheel, they will continue to be.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Greed corrupts the system.
Really, I thought for sure you were going to say "ego", too.
Most? Is that like one or one hundred?
There are exactly 257 millionaires in Congress. ( www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/01/09/let-them-eat-cake-members-of-congress-14-times. )
And obscenely wealthy? Please stop with the random adjectives.
www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.html
Does $294.21 million dollars in assets sound excessive ? Rep. Michael McCul ( R-texas )
How about $220.40 million dollars ? Rep. Darrell Issa ( R-Calif )
Or $193.07 million dollars ? Sen. John Kerry ( D-Mass )
Or a measely $81.63 dollars ? Sen. Jay Rockefeller ( D-W.Va )
AB-1014? Incorrect. http://www.firearm101.com/ab-1014-gun-violence-restraining-orders-need-know/
Yes, of course. I see no potential for deliberate misuse of the law or arbitrary defining of what cosntitutes a potential threat. I'm just being paranoid again.
Also, if a person is under suspicion of becoming potentially violent and this law is strictly about safety then will they be forced to turn over possession of all potential instruments of violence such as knives, hammers, bats ?
Remember, the inspiration for AB-1014 was the killing spree of Elliot Roger who stabbed to death his three room mates as well as using his BMW as a weapon to injure four others. Nah, you'd never go for that because that represents consistent logic.
If a person dies the police are checking the records of the dead person to see if they owned a gun. If that gun was registered under their name the police are going out and picking up the gun. Why? because no one else in that house is supposed to have that gun. It was registered to a person who is now dead. I think it is a great idea.
Will they also pick up any automobiles that are registered to the deceased ? Some unauthorized user could take that car and commit a crime with it like DUI. Better to be on the safe side and just confiscate everything. Right ?
[/quote=digitalbeachbum]In all states they should register all their assualt weapons. You are wrong about the law in Conneticut.
http://www.myrecordjournal.com/news/state/5441096-129/failure-to-register-assault-weapons-a-misdemeanor.html
You gotta stay off those conspiracy sites. You are an alarmist.
Okay, thanks for setting me straight. Must have been my ego acting up again. ( Maybe I'll do better in my next life, and hopefully I'll come back as an evil gun lobbyist with loads of cash to influence votes and neat stuff like that. )
- Login to post comments
Yes they do. When you pump them out like candy, any sane laws you might come up with become moot like whack a mole.
They need to learn to be concerned with volume so that laws can work to prevent someone from getting a hold of them.
This is the same mentality big Oil has. More concerned with making money than the amount of the product and what it does to the environment.
I hope they sue the fuck out of them and win.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
And so has virtually every firearm ever built in the history of mankind. The military market is currently and always has been by far the largest market for guns and the source for virtually all R&D funding. I doubt you could find a single significant firearm innovation that wasn't driven by a military.
Also grossly inaccurate when applied to a Bushmaster. The Bushmaster is as similar to military weapons as the Hummer H2s and H3s are to military hummers. The Army's specifications were to penetrate a Soviet helmet at 800 meters. The development needed to do this was far more an ammunition adjustment than a rifle one. The result of this requirement wasn't an innovation with the rifle, it was the M855 cartridge. The only significant change to the rifle has been an increase in the twist ratio to 1:7. Which makes it possible to penetrate a steel helmet at 800 meters, but also has several drawbacks if your goal is to kill people who aren't wearing body armor at short range. The huge problem with the gun debate is the sheer amount of ignorance people have regarding guns, especially when it comes to the mostly mythical differences between an "assault weapon" and a "hunting rifle". What makes a great combat weapon doesn't make for the greatest gun to shoot kids in a school. Indeed, if nutjob had stolen an M4 from a military base, the weapon would have probably been less deadly than the modifications added to make it more practical for civilian uses like hunting, target shooting and home defense.
Rifles kill mostly through hydrostatic shock. The factors that most influence the amount of damage are speed and mass. The balance of mass to speed is a function of the bullet design, not the gun itself. A guns only function is to have a method of setting off the bullet (firing pin), forcing it to go the desired direction (the barrel), and some method to reload another bullet (pump, lever, bolt, direct impingement, gas piston etc.). While there are many innovations that make a gun malfunction less, more accurate, easier to load and more comfortable, these features have very little to do with how deadly a gun is once it successfully sends a bullet in the direction of a human. (And indeed, there is very little agreement over which features are best for military use. Many have criticized the direct impingement system used by the military versions of the AR-15 in favor of the gas piston- get a couple of gun nuts on the subject and you have good arguments from both sides, most civilian versions also use DI, but some do come with gas piston. Personally, I'm agnostic on the issue.) There are hunting rifles that easily compete with (or beat depending on your opinion) all of these features with the AR-15. It should also be noted that all AR-15's are not created equal anymore than all pickup trucks are and you will find fans of several different models. I think it can be widely agreed though that the Bushmaster XM15- the specific gun used in this attack- is nowhere near the cream of the crop. Some shit talk it, some love it, but it isn't a Lamborghini. It is a relatively low priced AR with decent features that make it more than serviceable for most civilian uses, hence why it is among one of the most popular guns in the US.
When it comes to penetration, energy and killing power, the bullet is everything. As a hunter, bullet choice allows a single gun to be optimal for several different species intended to be shot at different distances and are different sizes. I don't use the same bullet for coyote that I would use for deer or the same bullet for deer I would use for Elk, but I might use the same gun. And the M855 (or the newer M855A1) is a terrible choice for kids in a school. Why? Because the military wanted a bullet that goes through a steel helmet at 800 meters. A bullet with that kind of penetration at that distance will pass straight through a human body. If your goal is to kill a person who isn't wearing body armor, you don't want the bullet to pass through. Why? Because a bullet that goes straight through creates substantially less shock than one that flattens and/or fragments in your body. Basic physics- if it stops in your body, 100% of the available force is expended in you. If it passes through, a certain amount of energy is going into carrying it beyond your body. The best thing that can happen if you have been shot is for the bullet to exit. With a caliber as small as a .223, a pass through is rarely immediately deadly.
It is a balance the military has fought for years because they often face significant armor, but want a bullet that can effectively kill "soft" targets as well. For an unarmored target, you want a soft hollow point- which is designed to flatten immediately upon impact and transmit most of the shock into the target. With those, you get minimal penetration, which means they aren't great against body armor. The US has actually been criticized for having such bullets by human rights organizations and accused of war crimes for using them (while not used as general issue, there are accusations they are used by some Special Forces) because they cause terrible debilitating wounds and, the logic goes, if the target isn't wearing body armor, he/she isn't a legal target
For hunting, you never have to worry about animals wearing body armor. Which is why hunters never use full metal jacket- indeed, it is illegal in most states for ethical and safety reasons. A bullet which can penetrate a steel helmet will pass straight through an animal, thus causing injury not death, and also has the drawback that the bullet can penetrate further if it hits an unintended target, possibly injuring an unseen bystander.
What makes a bullet effective for killing an unarmored animal, also makes it effective for killing an unarmored person. For the purposes of ballistics, there isn't much difference between a coyote and a kid. Their bodies are roughly the same size, neither are likely to be wearing body armor and both are going to be much closer than 800 meters. Using a bullet capable of penetrating armor at 800 meters is not a good choice if your goal is to kill an unarmored, small target at 20 feet. The caliber choice itself is a bad choice imo due to the distance. The .223 is probably the best caliber available for coyote, prarie dogs and other varmint that are being shot at 50-200 yards, but if you know the target is closer, a larger slower round is far superior in terms of damage.
This is why the "assault weapons" ban was completely insane and pointless. It didn't ban anything that actually mattered in terms of the internal functionality of the weapon or in terms of the deadliness of the gun. It mostly banned cosmetic and comfort features that made it look like a military gun. If they had banned any of the actual dangerous parts, they would have banned many hunting guns. The idea that some distinction between a "military assault rifle" and a "hunting rifle" is somehow a worthwhile policy is absurd. Military rifles aren't designed to shoot unarmored school children. They are designed for targets that are assumed to be wearing the best body armor around and might be inside hardened vehicles. Hunting rifles are far more effective choices for unarmored targets. What made the Sandy Hook shooting so deadly wasn't the military features, it is the features that were added to make the gun appealing for coyote hunting. Which means a slower barrel twist (1:9) which is optimally suited for the lighter, faster and soft (not going through a steel helmet) coyote loads.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
So you are saying they should have refused to sell the gun? On what basis? You claim that you don't want a total ban on guns. What step could the company possibly have taken to prevent the mother from purchasing this gun, without simply ending production entirely? Should every company that ever has a product that is used to harm someone be liable? If so, you have a defacto ban on guns. You also have a defacto ban on knives, bats, hammers and cars (all of which killed far more people last year than .223s) But you said you don't support a full ban. You have gone so far as to put it IN CAPITALS that YOU DON'T support a full ban.
How can you hold a company liable for damage caused by a product you support being legal, when everyone in the fucking world knows that product is potentially lethal. Either grow a pair of fucking balls and get on the banning band wagon or come up with some kind of coherent position. If a company is so negligent in selling a product that is intended to be deadly because it is deadly to a customer they have no reasonable reason to believe will use it illegally, then isn't the government even more negligent in providing permits for such a product to be built and sold in the first place?
In other news, it turns out that (as I have said all along), BIG OIL, pollutes less than BIG ELECTRIC and BIG ETHANOL. Not only is BIG GREEN more expensive (ie they GOUGE the consumer more) but their claims that they base all their advertising on and use to justify the higher prices (that they are better for the environment) are false. We need a good liberal consumer protectionist to make a docudrama and stop this outrageousness ASAP. Michael Moore get your fat ass off the couch!
hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_CLIMATE_FUEL_EFFECTS
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
This is a flawed point of view but I agree in a sense with you on who should be held accountable.
The company makes this weapon, why? It is profitable?
The NRA lobbies members of congress why? It is profitable?
Congress passes laws in favor of the gun manufacture, why? It is profitable?
Laws are written which allow for people to buy guns easily. They can lie and buy the gun for their self, but then with a loophole in the laws they are no longer held accountable for giving it to others who are mentally unstable.
So who is responsible?
The gun manufactures work with the NRA to increase profits. The NRA helps change and shape the way laws are written. They have influence.
If the gun manufactures, the NRA and Congress all wanted to prevent guns from getting in to the hands of the mentally sick and deranged individuals they would make it happen. However it isn't profitable so they won't make those changes needed.
In reference to your comment about not blaming a "car manufacture". You are right, they aren't responsible for a person who runs over a pedestrian. However people aren't picking up a car and then carrying it in to an elementary school and unloading 30 round clips in to 26 people, killing them. If cars had built in M60's then do you think they would be responsible?
Stop comparing a car which is a mode of transportation with a AR-15 which is a very effective, military grade killing weapon. It was made to kill things. Cars are not made to kill.
For the same reason dozens of organizations spend millions lobbying for various gun control laws, people have their beliefs and pay money to have an organization be their voice to Congress.
Because congressmen like to be elected and in much of the country, especially rural areas, the quickest way to lose an election is to be seen as anti-gun. Imagine that, not every American agrees with you and when they disagree, it might be because they hold different values/priorities/beliefs over what is best rather than just greed.
Of the $230 million give or take that the NRA gets in contributions each year, only a few million go towards lobbying usually $2-4 million the number depends on how much anti-gun groups are pushing the issue (hence why people like me who are only interested in the political issue and not involved in all the NRA's other stuff no longer donate to it.) The NRA does a lot more than lobbying and really, their big power isn't the money (which compared to the hundreds of millions spent in other industries is insignificant, gun control simply isn't a big lobbying issue on either side compared to all sorts of industries- it is less money than fucking Indian casinos spend to lobby) it is their advertising to their members about who to vote for. With 4 million paying members give or take, and lists of several million more who are sympathetic, many of whom are willing to vote for or against someone on gun issues alone and more likely to vote than the average person, it is potent advertising. Indeed, in recent years, the NRA has been outspent lobbying wise almost 2 to 1 by the National Association of Gun Rights.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
In fact, cars have been used as weapons of mass destruction multiple times. Cars are actually even more dangerous than guns, because all it takes to cause mass death and casualties is inattention, lack of sleep, or intoxication. All of which REDUCE the dangers posed by a armed individual. Vehicles are far more dangerous than guns.
Your comments on special interest groups are irrelevant. Every issue has special interest groups working for the issue. That a company would seek to increase their profits by harassing government officials in no way imparts responsibility to the company when someone uses their product to commit a crime. You might as well blame Nike because the criminal happened to be wearing Nike shoes.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
2-4 million goes a long way, 100k for a vote is a piss in the bucket. Besides, there are other benefits for members of congress or the senate such as a free hunting trip with a free plane ride. This also isn't about "take away your guns" which the NRA wants people to believe. It's about making laws to make it more difficult to let guns fall in to the hands of the mentally ill or insane individuals. It's about preventing a dumb ass mom who bought a gun then gave it to her sick kid. There is no law preventing you from selling a gun to any one else.
Cars are not weapons of mass destruction. Bombs put in to vehicles are weapons of mass destruction. Bombs strapped to a kid are weapons of mass destruction.
Cars are not more dangerous than guns. You must take in to account the number of weapons owned vs the number of cars/trucks/buses/etc on the road. Then take in to account how many hours cars are driven verses how many hours guns are handled. Cars have a very low percentage of deaths per hour of usage. Weapons have a very high percentage of deaths per hour of usage.
It's like comparing plane crashes to car crashes. There are far more people who die in a plane crash than there are in a car crash. Yet, the number of hours that planes are in flight with out an accident is far less than it is in a car. This makes it more dangerous to ride in a car than it is to fly in a plane. Now apply this same review to the number of hours that people handle guns to the number of deaths. Take in to account all accidents, suicides and mass shootings.
In DC? 2-4 million doesn't buy you shit. To be exact, it buys you 28 lobbyists, half of them part time, out of the 11,509 registered lobbyists. www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientlbs.php And that is lobbying for or against 87 proposed laws this year. A drop in the bucket compared to the $2.4 billion spent on lobbying this year. Do you seriously believe that some politician is going to be impressed by that?
The $17 odd million they spent on political campaigns (mostly on television ads) is slightly more significant. It at least puts them in the top 20 most active organizations, but hardly going to persuade some politician who supports gun control to change their mind.
Only if they have a desire to go to jail. Any gift over $50 is illegal and since Abramoff, so are private jet rides.
What law? What law can you possibly imagine would allow law abiding citizens to purchase guns, but would have prevented Sandyhook?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Not by design, but they most certainly can be weapons of mass destruction.
I can kill and maim ten times as many people with a car as I can with any explosive device short of a nuclear style weapon. By definition, a car can be a weapon of mass destruction.
Yes they are. The most likely way to die is in a car accident. Guns aren't in the top ten. Even in countries at war and experiencing terrorist attacks on a regular basis, guns are less dangerous than cars.
Even when you do that, cars are more dangerous. There are more guns than people in the US. There is as yet no way for there to be as many vehicles on the road as there are weapons in possession of citizens. In every possible comparison, a car is MUCH more dangerous than a gun. Hell, people even use them to commit suicide.
Absolute bullshit. The vast majority of the time that guns see use, there are no injuries or fatalities. Yet the first two cars that ever existed in the US managed to collide. Vehicle accidents happen constantly. Gun fatalities are exceptionally rare by comparison.
Planes see far more maintenance, regulations, and controls than cars do. The average person can't just hop in a pilots seat. If the amount of focus on air safety were put in use with cars, there would be an extensive drop in accident numbers.
The average person CAN get behind the wheel of a car or the barrel of a gun, making them directly comparable as dangers to persons in society. And cars beat guns every single time.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
So you think money corrupts the system ? Well then complain to ex mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg. He's a billionaire who just shelled out $50,000,000 to start Mayors Against Guns and Moms Demand Action.
Oh my God ! Most congressmen and senators are obscenely wealthy ( like gun grabber Diane Finestein and her husband ) if you think a fucking hunting trip and ride on a plane is all it takes to win them over you are unbelievably naive.
There is a recently passed law ( AB 1014 ) signed by Dem. California Governor Jerry Brown which causes one to lose possesion of their guns upon the mere suggestion from a family member that a person poses a possible risk. There is no due process. The weapons are just confiscated by police. In New York, police scan obituaries and compare them to gun registration info. ( www. wgrz.com/story/news/local/downtown/2014/11/08/bpd-checks-death-records-and-pistol-permit-records/18741131/ ) The guns are confiscated from the survivors unless many onerous and deliberately difficult legal hurdles are navigated within a specific time. In Conneticut owners of so-called assualt weapons are being forced to register them with the state. Failure to do so is a felony. Ironically that so-called crime measure simply created a new class of criminals without actually doing anything about actual gun crime. That is exactly the purpose of the law.
No, it isn't. And watch how the threshold of what defines "mentally ill" will continually be revised. Now that ultra left wing Vivek Murthy has been appointed Surgeon General ( whose nomination was held up for precisely his type of agenda-driven "medical" opinions ) watch this "mental health" scam become even more prominent.