Active shooter at Texas elementary school

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

LS1 Z28

Territorial Marshal
Oct 30, 2007
5,424
4,223
1,743
IMO, guns should quit getting carveouts from the laws that govern other things. No laws against gun research. No laws against manufacturer liability. Guns have overtaken vehicle deaths. Because they affect youth more commonly than most things when accounting for life-years lost they look even worse. It is time for Americans to stop whining about their rights and start thinking about their responsibilities.
On a side note, it appears that Congress has clarified that the federal law prohibiting the use of federal dollars for gun control advocacy/promotion doesn't extend to gun violence research. They approved $25M for gun violence research in 2019.

United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze
A spending bill introduced on 16 December includes US$25 million for studies on the issue, split evenly between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The House of Representatives and Senate are expected to approve the legislation this week, clearing the way for President Donald Trump to sign the bill into law.

The federal government stopped funding gun-violence research after Congress passed a rule called the “Dickey Amendment” in 1996. It barred the CDC from using funds “to advocate or promote gun control”. That was widely interpreted as prohibiting the funding of research into gun violence.

Last year, Congress clarified that the ban on federal dollars for “advocacy” or the promotion of gun control did not extend to a ban on research. But lawmakers did not immediately set aside money for such research.
 

LS1 Z28

Territorial Marshal
Oct 30, 2007
5,424
4,223
1,743
Other manufacturers and retailers are held responsible for their products through products liability civil actions even when they aren't breaking the law.

Gun manufacturers and retailers have a specific exemption under federal law from product liability civil actions for some reason.

I'm not saying a product liability claim against a gun manufacturer would be successful. That would be very fact specific and up to a jury if it got beyond summary judgment motions/motions to dismiss.
I'm curious as I honestly don't know. Usually when a company is held liable, is it because they acted negligent in some fashion or maybe because their product has a flaw that leads to harm.....not because somebody used their correctly working product to commit harm. Is that correct? I would be ok with that for firearm manufacturers.

Having said that, whenever someone talks about liability for gun companies, it sounds like they want them to be held liable for crimes committed with a gun, even though there was no defect in the gun itself. Maybe I'm wrong in this...if so perhaps someone can clarify.
Gun manufacturers can be held liable for design defects just like any other company. They just can't be held liable for the actions committed by others with their products.

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsall...-totally-free-of-liability-for-their-behavior
FACT CHECK: Are Gun-Makers 'Totally Free Of Liability For Their Behavior'?
"[Clinton's statement] doesn't appear to be completely accurate," said Adam Winkler, professor of law at UCLA and author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, in an email to NPR. "The 2005 law does not prevent gun makers from being held liable for defects in their design. Like car makers, gun makers can be sued for selling a defective product. The problem is that gun violence victims often want to hold gun makers liable for the criminal misuse of a properly functioning product."
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
33,343
33,383
1,743
oklahoma city
I think you're sort of missing my point. An individual can harm someone else financially without killing them. You're roughly 50X more likely to suffer some type of assault than to be murdered by a firearm. Many of these assaults result in financial harm for the victims.

If scooters, bicycles, and little red wagons created 50X as many accidents as automobiles, they would likely require insurance to operate as well.

I understand that gun ownership carries a certain level of risk. My point is that simply existing carries a certain level of risk as well. An individual can create significant financial harm to others without owning a gun. Why would we require insurance for one, but not the other?
Sure you can be harmed but that isn't anything like dead. You quoted "non-firearm homicide" and left off "firearm homicide" so I added that fact to show that it is overwhelming in this country.

Assault and homicide aren't comparable. Nobody that isn't suicidal answers "yea, I pick dead" when given a choice of financial harm from assault or being shot to death. The risk of another person killing you in this nation is 80% perpetrated by guns. Why in a discussion of ways to limit homicide and its causes would someone bring in general risks of other non-lethal things?

I would surmise that there are more bicycle/wagon/scooter accidents than car accidents. But, for the vast majority of those the person gets up, dusts himself off, and goes about his business. The volume without taking into account the severity is not a valid comparison to me.

Here is a comparison.

In Australia, the homicide rate is increasing like ours. But, after the increase, it is 1.02 per 100,000 while it is 7.8 per 100,000 in the US. Australia's homicides are 13% from guns instead of 80% from guns like ours. Is this really the best we can do?
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,203
21,206
1,743
Gun manufacturers can be held liable for design defects just like any other company. They just can't be held liable for the actions committed by others with their products.

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsall...-totally-free-of-liability-for-their-behavior
FACT CHECK: Are Gun-Makers 'Totally Free Of Liability For Their Behavior'?
"[Clinton's statement] doesn't appear to be completely accurate," said Adam Winkler, professor of law at UCLA and author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, in an email to NPR. "The 2005 law does not prevent gun makers from being held liable for defects in their design. Like car makers, gun makers can be sued for selling a defective product. The problem is that gun violence victims often want to hold gun makers liable for the criminal misuse of a properly functioning product."
I'm curious as I honestly don't know. Usually when a company is held liable, is it because they acted negligent in some fashion or maybe because their product has a flaw that leads to harm.....not because somebody used their correctly working product to commit harm. Is that correct? I would be ok with that for firearm manufacturers.

Having said that, whenever someone talks about liability for gun companies, it sounds like they want them to be held liable for crimes committed with a gun, even though there was no defect in the gun itself. Maybe I'm wrong in this...if so perhaps someone can clarify.
There are other products liability routes beyond design defects. There are also other civil liability routes/actions beyond products liability. I also didn't say they are "Totally Free of Liability for Their Behavior".

The point is, gun manufacturers have special qualified immunity from lawsuits asserting civil liability that very few (approaching no....vaccines, internet service providers for defamation, air carriers for 9/11 liability...have similar immunity) other industries/manufacturers have.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is a special law protecting gun manufacturers that when it was passed, Wayne LaPierre (NRA) called it "the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in twenty years into law."

It's also a law that could clearly be constitutionally rescinded by Congress without violating the 2nd Amendment and would potentially have an effect on gun violence. I'm not particularly advocating for doing that and understand why anti-"gun control" folks would disagree with doing that.

At the same time, if other industries can be sued civilly under particular legal theories and lawsuits, I seriously question whether gun manufacturers should be immune to such suits.
 
Last edited:

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,203
21,206
1,743
And I actually think the 2nd amendment was incredibly, skillfully and well written. Average Joe Population can interpret it the way they want until they are blue in the face... the court is where the final interpreted decision will pretty much always lie.
With regards to gun manufacturers, retailers, and distributors....

There is also the very interesting discussion about whether or not there is any 2nd Amendment constitutional right to SELL a gun at all.

A 4th Circuit unpublished decision (therefore without precedential value) stated there is nothing "that remotely suggests that, at the time of its ratification, the Second Amendment was understood to protect an individual’s right to sell a firearm."

In Montana Shooting Sports Association v. Holder, a federal district court stated (in dicta, so again...not legal precedent), "Heller said nothing about extending Second Amendment protection to firearm manufacturers or dealers. If anything, Heller recognized that firearms manufacturers and dealers are properly subject to regulation . . . ." (Side note: Scalia in Heller expressly said the commerce in firearms is subject to regulation).

In 2020, the NJ Attorney General was exploring the possibility of hitting Smith and Wesson with a fraudulent advertising/consumer protection/public safety action and issued subpoena. S&W sued to stop the investigation/action as a violation of the 4th Amendment which was summarily rejected by the federal district court.

I want to stress before I say this....because this is gonna be very controversial and probably upset a lot of people....what I am about to say IS NOT what I am advocating for at all. It is largely an academic/intellectual exercise involving the Constitution. It is almost entirely academic because I simply cannot see lawmakers going this far in a million years.

With that disclaimer out of the way.....

A very legally defensible argument can be made that the feds could outlaw the selling of firearms entirely without violating the 2nd Amendment.

The more interesting question/argument then becomes that laws that:

-prohibits the sell of all firearms by anyone but federally licensed arms dealers;
-gun registries and tracking of all sells by whom and to whom;
-requiring manufacturers to provide IBIS images of each and every firearm it sells to law enforcement before they are authorized to sell it;
-a whole host of commercial regulations that I'm not particularly advocating for or against at this point....

would also be Constitutional.
 
Last edited:

LS1 Z28

Territorial Marshal
Oct 30, 2007
5,424
4,223
1,743
Sure you can be harmed but that isn't anything like dead. You quoted "non-firearm homicide" and left off "firearm homicide" so I added that fact to show that it is overwhelming in this country.

Assault and homicide aren't comparable. Nobody that isn't suicidal answers "yea, I pick dead" when given a choice of financial harm from assault or being shot to death. The risk of another person killing you in this nation is 80% perpetrated by guns. Why in a discussion of ways to limit homicide and its causes would someone bring in general risks of other non-lethal things?

I would surmise that there are more bicycle/wagon/scooter accidents than car accidents. But, for the vast majority of those the person gets up, dusts himself off, and goes about his business. The volume without taking into account the severity is not a valid comparison to me.

Here is a comparison.

In Australia, the homicide rate is increasing like ours. But, after the increase, it is 1.02 per 100,000 while it is 7.8 per 100,000 in the US. Australia's homicides are 13% from guns instead of 80% from guns like ours. Is this really the best we can do?
To be clear, the purpose of my post wasn't to address gun violence, it was to discuss the validity of the argument that gun owners should be required to carry liability insurance for the financial risks associated with gun ownership.

Insurance is a contract between the provider and the policyholder that guarantees compensation in the event of a loss. The purpose of insurance isn't to prevent bad things from happening, it's to minimize the financial impact if they do.

The list I posted was intended to illustrate that there are many ways in which an individual can create financial harm for others without owning a gun. If we're going to start requiring insurance for the risk we pose to others, it should extend beyond just firearms.

I think that everyone can agree that we need to do better. The gun violence we're seeing now is unacceptable. I'm not opposed to change. I just don't want to see that change impact lawful gunowners. I would prefer to go after the people doing things wrong as opposed to those doing things right.
 
Last edited:

LS1 Z28

Territorial Marshal
Oct 30, 2007
5,424
4,223
1,743
There are other products liability routes beyond design defects. There are also other civil liability routes/actions beyond products liability. I also didn't say they are "Totally Free of Liability for Their Behavior".

The point is, gun manufacturers have special qualified immunity from lawsuits asserting civil liability that very few (approaching no....vaccines, internet service providers for defamation, air carriers for 9/11 liability...have similar immunity) other industries/manufacturers have.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is a special law protecting gun manufacturers that when it was passed, Wayne LaPierre (NRA) called it "the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in twenty years into law."

It's also a law that could clearly be constitutionally rescinded by Congress without violating the 2nd Amendment and would potentially have an effect on gun violence. I'm not particularly advocating for doing that and understand why anti-"gun control" folks would disagree with doing that.

At the same time, if other industries can be sued civilly under particular legal theories and lawsuits, I seriously question whether gun manufacturers should be immune to such suits.
I knew what you meant. The only reason I posted that story was to address what Coco said.

IMO, every company should receive qualified immunity against lawsuits stemming from the criminal misuse of their products. I don't see why manufacturers should ever be held liable for the criminal actions of others, regardless of what they produce.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
33,343
33,383
1,743
oklahoma city
I think that everyone can agree that we need to do better. The gun violence we're seeing now is unacceptable. I'm not opposed to change. I just don't want that change to impact lawful gunowners. I would prefer to go after the people doing things wrong as opposed to those doing things right.
Just curious, what things can be done better that would actually make a difference and not impact the gun owners? Personally, I don't see it ever working that way. I don't illegally prescribe opiates, but I can tell you that the opiate crisis has cost me a ton in fees and huge amounts of my time. I will never blow up a plane, but as an innocent traveler, airplane terrorism has cost me huge amounts of time and some money. I do not see a way out of this without some compromise on the part of the gun owners of this country. And, I'll admit that it saddens me how hardened the responses are to even minor changes after what we have seen.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,203
21,206
1,743
I knew what you meant. The only reason I posted that story was to address what Coco said.

IMO, every company should receive qualified immunity against lawsuits stemming from the criminal misuse of their products. I don't see why manufacturers should ever be held liable for the criminal actions of others, regardless of what they produce.
Fair enough. That's a defensible position as far as it goes. There are always caveats in my mind, though....negligent entrustment to reasonably foreseeable bad/criminal actors would be one. Probably others as well.

On a tangential note, but still relevant....what is your position on "public nuisance" style lawsuits like the oxycontin suits by states against Perdue?
 

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
8,838
8,060
1,743
Fair enough. That's a defensible position as far as it goes. There are always caveats in my mind, though....negligent entrustment to reasonably foreseeable bad/criminal actors would be one. Probably others as well.
This is exactly where I feel the failed parents need to be charged and tried in these cases. The Uvalde shooting is a very good example. BOTH parents failed that kid miserably, failed to raise the child, failed at their primary vocation, failed at reporting red flags... they are/were very negligent in this case and way more liable than the manufacturer of the weapon.
 

LS1 Z28

Territorial Marshal
Oct 30, 2007
5,424
4,223
1,743
Just curious, what things can be done better that would actually make a difference and not impact the gun owners? Personally, I don't see it ever working that way. I don't illegally prescribe opiates, but I can tell you that the opiate crisis has cost me a ton in fees and huge amounts of my time. I will never blow up a plane, but as an innocent traveler, airplane terrorism has cost me huge amounts of time and some money. I do not see a way out of this without some compromise on the part of the gun owners of this country. And, I'll admit that it saddens me how hardened the responses are to even minor changes after what we have seen.
Here are a few things I could get behind if done right:
1. Universal background checks
2. Further restrictions to certain firearm purchases prior to the age of 21
3. Harsher punishment for those that steal, buy, & sell firearms illegally
4. Safety course requirements for anyone that wants to carry publicly
5. Increased funding for mental health
6. Increased funding for school safety

These proposals wouldn't solve our problems, but they would get us headed in the right direction. There are a few things listed that would impact lawful gunowners, but the impact would be minimal.
 
Dec 9, 2013
2,005
678
743
52
With regards to gun manufacturers, retailers, and distributors....

There is also the very interesting discussion about whether or not there is any 2nd Amendment constitutional right to SELL a gun at all.

A 4th Circuit unpublished decision (therefore without precedential value) stated there is nothing "that remotely suggests that, at the time of its ratification, the Second Amendment was understood to protect an individual’s right to sell a firearm."

In Montana Shooting Sports Association v. Holder, a federal district court stated (in dicta, so again...not legal precedent), "Heller said nothing about extending Second Amendment protection to firearm manufacturers or dealers. If anything, Heller recognized that firearms manufacturers and dealers are properly subject to regulation . . . ." (Side note: Scalia in Heller expressly said the commerce in firearms is subject to regulation).

In 2020, the NJ Attorney General was exploring the possibility of hitting Smith and Wesson with a fraudulent advertising/consumer protection/public safety action and issued subpoena. S&W sued to stop the investigation/action as a violation of the 4th Amendment which was summarily rejected by the federal district court.

I want to stress before I say this....because this is gonna be very controversial and probably upset a lot of people....what I am about to say IS NOT what I am advocating for at all. It is largely an academic/intellectual exercise involving the Constitution. It is almost entirely academic because I simply cannot see lawmakers going this far in a million years.

With that disclaimer out of the way.....

A very legally defensible argument can be made that the feds could outlaw the selling of firearms entirely without violating the 2nd Amendment.

The more interesting question/argument then becomes that laws that:

-prohibits the sell of all firearms by anyone but federally licensed arms dealers;
-gun registries and tracking of all sells by whom and to whom;
-requiring manufacturers to provide IBIS images of each and every firearm it sells to law enforcement before they are authorized to sell it;
-a whole host of commercial regulations that I'm not particularly advocating for or against at this point....

would also be Constitutional.
Just curious, what things can be done better that would actually make a difference and not impact the gun owners? Personally, I don't see it ever working that way. I don't illegally prescribe opiates, but I can tell you that the opiate crisis has cost me a ton in fees and huge amounts of my time. I will never blow up a plane, but as an innocent traveler, airplane terrorism has cost me huge amounts of time and some money. I do not see a way out of this without some compromise on the part of the gun owners of this country. And, I'll admit that it saddens me how hardened the responses are to even minor changes after what we have seen.
I’ve said in another thread I’m not for banning or taking away guns even AR style. But we have to do something. There is now way an 18 yr old should be able to walk in and buy a gun w multiple rounds of ammo all on credit. It seems to me there are simple steps. Mandatory 90 day waiting period for first time buyers and on certain firearm type w an exception for those who have been certified by law enforcement and professional counselor. Limit mag capacity. Limit amount of ammo purchased in a certain time period. Move purchase age to 21 unless you have certified law enforcement training or US military. Safety and proficiency exams including live weapons handling/target shooting and written exams prior to 1st time purchase. Eliminate hand gun and AR type sales except for licensed dealers/stores including gun shows. Background check for every firearm sale. No firearms/ammunition sales on credit.

There are probably some bad ideas above and probably some others who have really good ideas but what we are doing as a society as a whole is not working. We have to do something.
 

LS1 Z28

Territorial Marshal
Oct 30, 2007
5,424
4,223
1,743
On a tangential note, but still relevant....what is your position on "public nuisance" style lawsuits like the oxycontin suits by states against Perdue?
I don't really know enough about this issue to answer that question. I definitely believe that companies should be held liable if they're negligent in informing the public about the risks associated with their products, but I don't know enough about public nuisance laws to know if they would apply.
 

gundysburner

Territorial Marshal
Jul 25, 2018
5,806
1,421
243
51
Boulder, CO
I’ve said in another thread I’m not for banning or taking away guns even AR style. But we have to do something. There is now way an 18 yr old should be able to walk in and buy a gun w multiple rounds of ammo all on credit. It seems to me there are simple steps. Mandatory 90 day waiting period for first time buyers and on certain firearm type w an exception for those who have been certified by law enforcement and professional counselor. Limit mag capacity. Limit amount of ammo purchased in a certain time period. Move purchase age to 21 unless you have certified law enforcement training or US military. Safety and proficiency exams including live weapons handling/target shooting and written exams prior to 1st time purchase. Eliminate hand gun and AR type sales except for licensed dealers/stores including gun shows. Background check for every firearm sale. No firearms/ammunition sales on credit.

There are probably some bad ideas above and probably some others who have really good ideas but what we are doing as a society as a whole is not working. We have to do something.
Some very good ideas. Talking about this issue, though, without addressing how we've completely gutted mental health care in this country over decades is just like discussing student loan debt and forgiveness without ever asking why schools have increased costs so much.
 
Dec 9, 2013
2,005
678
743
52
Some very good ideas. Talking about this issue, though, without addressing how we've completely gutted mental health care in this country over decades is just like discussing student loan debt and forgiveness without ever asking why schools have increased costs so much.
I 100% agree and this is where the moderate maybe even liberal side comes out. We have health care professionals who can speak to this issue w great clarity but we have to take care of each other. I don’t know what the answer is but it’s another issue that we are failing and mental health seems to be at the top.

As to colleges again I’m not going to pretend to know everything but at least in OK funding from the state a couple of yrs ago was at/near the same level as it was 20+ years ago on a real $ basis. Not proportional. Not inflation adjusted. Straight up same $s allocated.
 

PF5

Deputy
Jan 3, 2014
1,917
485
713
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1539677098129760257?t=c6-lf-Ztwx1f-e2xepN0GQ&s=19
if you are not affected directly, the reality never quite gets there, or if it does, it goes away rather quickly...our politicians care more about $$ than lives...
shaking_head_breaking_bad.gif
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
27,087
11,155
1,743
Earth
The nice thing about that list of senators that the crazy guy put out is that now I know who the most reasonable Rs are in my party and will work to elect more, not less, like them. The ones who came out against this the strongest need to be voted out of office. I’m sick of the trumpian moronic immobility making us look like redneck fools. These new laws are just common sense…they aren’t coming after your guns…this was an easy way to unify and some of them just jumped out of the boat IMHO.
 

gundysburner

Territorial Marshal
Jul 25, 2018
5,806
1,421
243
51
Boulder, CO
The nice thing about that list of senators that the crazy guy put out is that now I know who the most reasonable Rs are in my party and will work to elect more, not less, like them. The ones who came out against this the strongest need to be voted out of office. I’m sick of the trumpian moronic immobility making us look like redneck fools. These new laws are just common sense…they aren’t coming after your guns…this was an easy way to unify and some of them just jumped out of the boat IMHO.
5 of them are retiring. 4 don't face reelection for 4 years. And then there's Romney.