lol

lol, you clearly do not know anything about Piers Morgan

FYP

It would seem that making gun manufacturers either strictly liable or sharing in the liability of damage caused by guns would force them to self regulate to an appropriate level. It has been about 20 years since I studied this, but if I recall correctly there is a strong argument for strict liability on the basis that the manufacturer will do everything possible to make a safe product. The downside is the consumer no longer has the proper incentive to take an appropriate level of care.

Hard position to argue from saying there is no gun problem, and then suggests armed guards in all schools.

I live in Canada and to put armed guards in our schools would be absurd. But in America it might just be needed.

QFT. And we're certainly not the only Western country where this is the case. Does it not give proponents of this solution any pause for thought when a country that shares many of the same cultural influences (those evil video games and violent movies) has such a radically different culture in their schools? I can't even put into words how out there the idea of armed guards in our schools would be - I'm amazed that it seems to be so accepted in the US, and it makes me think that America lost its way on this issue at some point.

This isn't to say that we have all the answers - there are a number of things the US does that we could learn from. And it's not like we've never had similar tragedies here. But it just blows my mind that there are so many Americans who can look at this tragedy and not for a moment question whether the US gun culture might be part of the problem. It seems like, for some, more guns is the answer to every problem. Ugh.

Armed guards is just standard complete over-reaction.

I don't see in what part of that video is Pierce Morgan getting owned? I only see Pratt getting himself owned.

Morgan: We got 35 firearm deaths per year in the UK.
Pratt: oh but we got 1/10th of that in "unnamed small city" (hand picking much? pick any small city in UK and you will have rates even lower)
Morgan: Her deranged, very disturbed son
Pratt: Her EVIL SON (whats next, inquisitions? persecution of the unfit?)
Morgan: Why you need AR15?
Pratt: But 1994 in KOREATOWN! (Is he srsly saying that deadly force is a legit response to material damage? Let alone the consequences of using guns during mass riots).

Being called an idiot is the only adequate response to such pathetic arguments.
Besides he calls Lanza mother stupid and as having shortcomings, how can he talk like that not knowing all the details or circumstances? That just totally ethically irresponsible and deserves a condemn on its own.

he's not even America. wtf are you talking about? jeeeez.

I didn't watch the video because lolpiers but it would not shock me to learn my rule of thumb that when someone proclaims one party is "owning" that just means they are losing via ridiculous arguments. We got a good example of this in this thread with those graphs too.

You laugh but reliability is a huge concern. I was at a LEO range in the "training house" where off duty guys were doing live fire drills with simunitions. There is a thing called a magazine disconnect that is meant to increase safety. If a magazine is not in a gun it cannot fire. In theory it's great for police. If you are in a struggle for your gun with a suspect you might not be able to hold him off. There is a good chance you can releas your magazine though, which would mean the gun is as good as a hammer at that point.

It also has huge drawbacks. Since it is an added piece to the design it can malfunction. I saw a guy draw when they yelled "threat" and he couldn't depress the trigger, he tried racking the slide and it wouldn't move. The magazine disconnect had slipped and completely jammed the gun. He said he got nauseous when the simunition rounds hit him because of the shock that he had the drop on the guy.

Had he not been doing the drill but actually came up on a guy with a weapon he would probably be injured or dead. The more you add to a gun the higher chance something malfunctions.

In fact the Aurora shooter could probably have ended up killing more had he not used the 100 round drum. They are known to jam constantly which happened in his case too.

http://www.java-gaming.com/game/1259...garten_Killer/

So this is one of the causes of so much gun crime in America?

And now, thanks to the NRA, thousands of people are probably looking for and playing this game as we speak. I for one, had never heard of it until yesterdays press conference, so thanks for that NRA, I'm always looking for new games to waste my time with.

Of course, now that the game has had international media coverage, I dare say we can all look forward to a glut of mass shootings by people who have played it.

So the o/u on this thread continuing is about 3 weeks?

I had Jan 15th as it would all blow over in my mind. I loved the NRA's solution it told me right than and there they will not budge an inch.

My question is If it is your protected right to bear arms and that entails a M16 Why cant you buy a Rocket Launcher? Heck if the government turns on you youll need it. Its not as easy as arming a munch of teenagers and having the hold off not only the Russians but the Chines as well.

Heck I bet the NRA thinks the armed guards should get paid more than teachers. Wonder whose budget that comes out of

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research...use/index.html

Some research that taso et al will ignore because it does not fit with their narrative.

I agree, gun manufacturers really do seem to be in the best position to have a positive effect on this problem. The only problem is how do you get them motivated.

I don't think consumers are taking the proper level of care as it is. As all the gun enthusiasts itt are quick to point out, there are millions of guns in the hands of criminals, the majority of which were purchased legally.

AS much as I hate guns than will you do the same for fast food manufacturers or restaurants.

Gun manufacturers bottom line is sell as many guns as you can and make as much money. Same as Mcdonalds

Maybe they could put a warning label on the gun

RR,

guns are very safe these days. pretty damn difficult to get one to go off without pulling the trigger.


huehue,

If my brother/wife/kid/uncle/friend need to use my gun to defend themselves I want them to be able to do that, I don't want it to not work because I'm not holding it.

Drunk driving fatalities are also ~10k per year. So what's with all the laws against drunk driving?

edit: Just put a paramedic on every street corner.

I was thinking more along the lines of distribution/ traceability rather than a warning about how dangerous guns are. If gun manufacturers could be held liable in some way for guns that were used in certain types of crimes (I know there are lots of problems with this proposal) I'm sure they would start coming up with all kinds of effective ways to make guns traceable or to prevent guns from falling into the hands of people who are likely to use them for criminal purposes.

If, for instance, every gun was manufactured with an RFID device or something along those lines that would allow authorities, or even just the gun manufacturers, to know where guns were, then in the event of a crime committed with a gun they could track the gun back to the person that used it. Other than heat-of-the-moment crimes, or insane people, it seems like this would greatly reduce the likelihood that one of these guns would be used for a criminal purpose. Obviously there is a huge supply of guns that wouldn't be traceable, but the supply of those old guns could be winnowed down over the years.

Cops in every school? Sure, because American Police are the MOST trustworthy people ever

yeah, so safe in the ABC video posted earlier the expert instructor shot hiself in the foot.

tsao, you are the problem with the gun carriers. the evil overlords you have railed against in the past have programmed you to buy their ****. Which is promulgated by the more experienced owners who claim its logical, but their logic fits in with your PM line of ridiculous ignorance.

so live in fear if that's all you got, but don't claim to be able to offer a safe and secure area, it's not possible in a war zone.

That link has been posted itt at least 4 or 5 times. Why should any of the gun nuts start reading actual research at this late date?

Also, someone mentioned laws holding gun manufacturers liable. A law written to explicitly exempt gun makers from liability was passed in 2005 (s397), by everyone's favorite airport-bathroom pickup artist, Larry Craig (R-widestanceville).

I assume legislation is still in place absolving manufacturers from both civil and criminal liability.

Edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect...ce_in_Arms_Act

Do you read what you write? Lets just design a government program that allows the Feds to track a few million people's location indefinitely, what could go wrong?

The problem in the US is so wide spread that whatever regulation will follow will not solve anything. These mass shootings are extremely rare and regulating the number of bullets in a clip and assault rifles and whatnot will simply mean slightly less fatalities in rare events. Statistically insignificant.

I'm guessing that most gun deaths occur in criminal circles, one drug dealer killing another in a turf war, etc. All this talk about good guys with guns stopping bad guys is just a complete distraction from the real issue at hand. What's needed to stop that is a serious effort to get the guns off the street, to basically turn the US into Europe, Australia or Japan, where hardly anyone has guns. It would probably take twenty years or so to get there, if these kinds of efforts are made. It will probably never happen though, so I don't expect the status quo to ever change.