The PokéCommunity Forums  

Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > Discussions & Debates
Sign Up Rules/FAQ Live Battle Blogs Mark Forums Read

Notices

Discussions & Debates The place to go for slightly more in-depth topics. Discussions and debates about the world, current events, ideas, news, and more.


Advertise here

Reply
Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.  
Thread Tools
  #1    
Old October 23rd, 2013, 10:55 AM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California

Advertise here
Sorry for yet another America-centric gun topic, but this caught my attention and I wanted to see what kind of feedback and ideas it could generate.

A while back in the US there were a lot of cities attempting to sue gun manufacturers, but in 2005 a law put a stop to that. You can't legally sue a gun maker for what their guns do. But was that a good idea? The argument generally follows like this: Suing should be allowed because the manufacturers are creating a public danger. The counter argument is that the danger is in the hand of an individual, like a drunk driver with a car. A big point of contention is whether manufacturers do or don't do enough to make guns safe. So what responsibilities do the manufacturers of guns (or any potentially dangerous thing) have to making their products safe? Does the type of product determine what level of safety should be provided?
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Reply With Quote
  #2    
Old October 23rd, 2013, 12:09 PM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Guns are supposed to be a danger to the public, aren't they supposed to kill people? I can't see why gun manufacturers should be sued for making products that work as designed. You can't make a gun safe XD
__________________
Cadance.
Reply With Quote
  #3    
Old October 23rd, 2013, 01:03 PM
Reecho's Avatar
Reecho
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Kentucky
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Nature: Hardy
Guns are tools, tools turn into weapons when they are used to hurt another person. More deaths occur as a result of driving cars but there is less of an outcry about that because most people need their cars.
Reply With Quote
  #4    
Old October 23rd, 2013, 01:42 PM
goldengyarados's Avatar
goldengyarados
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Lax
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reecho View Post
Guns are tools, tools turn into weapons when they are used to hurt another person. More deaths occur as a result of driving cars but there is less of an outcry about that because most people need their cars.
When I see this argument I lose all faith in humanity.

Guns are weapons, but for your sake we could call them tools of death, what difference does it make? The primary function of a car is transportation, sometimes things go wrong and people die, but that is the risk that you choose to take when you step into a car for convenience's sake. Houses are built for people to live in, but my roof may cave in tonight and crush me to death, again this is a risk that I chose to take. I could apply this same logic to a great deal of things, but I hope you get the point. With guns, the danger and primary function are the same thing, guns are made for killing. With guns you are creating a risk but gaining nothing in return.

I find it quite funny that Americans often go on about their right to bear arms, but are people not entitled to the right to not be shot down in their school by a lunatic with a firearm?
__________________
''Words'' - A person

Last edited by goldengyarados; October 23rd, 2013 at 01:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5    
Old October 23rd, 2013, 02:12 PM
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
Oops
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
It's happening to a lot of items. A lot of companies are lobbying to not be held accountable for when their product kills someone. The gun industry was one of the first to do this, and others are following.

The price of freedom is paid for by the blood of patriots. Gun supporters don't see the deaths of children as a travesty - They don't feel sadness for the children killed. They are just thankful that the price of freedom has been paid - Paid in the blood of children, or as they consider them, patriots.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
Reply With Quote
  #6    
Old October 23rd, 2013, 02:35 PM
Kyrul's Avatar
Kyrul
Long Live The Note
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Missouri
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Hasty
I think it's a good that gun manufactures can't be sued. I wish they would do it for other types of manufactures as well. People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions anyways.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7    
Old October 23rd, 2013, 03:53 PM
Reecho's Avatar
Reecho
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Kentucky
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Nature: Hardy
I'm pro-gun. I feel that a shooting, any shooting is a terrible thing. Mr. X, you are applying a generalization where none is deserved. I don't think an argument is going to help either you or anyone else here right now. I would like to suggest than we both try to research each others veiwpoint and see if we think the same way afterwards. If either you or goldengyarados would like to debate further feel free to pm me.
Reply With Quote
  #8    
Old October 23rd, 2013, 04:23 PM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
We can debate here, it's what D&D is for after all

Although holding gun manufacturers getting sued for their guns killing people is ridiculous. They should be sued if their weapons don't work as advertised Suing the manufacturer is barking up the wrong tree. Might as well have legislation restricting access to guns and rounding them up, like most other developed and developing countries.
__________________
Cadance.
Reply With Quote
  #9    
Old October 23rd, 2013, 04:34 PM
Silais's Avatar
Silais
Princess of the Law
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Gender: Female
Nature: Quiet
Is it legal or to sue cigarette and tobacco companies?These products also kill people; the only difference is they do it slowly.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #10    
Old October 23rd, 2013, 04:37 PM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
What's the basis of suing though? Sorry for killing you? These products are supposed to hurt you. And besides, it's common knowledge that these things kill. They even have those graphic displays now, if it wasn't clear enough beforehand. People know what they're going into. If you can sue a company of making something that hurts people when it's working properly, then you might as well ban the whole thing.
__________________
Cadance.
Reply With Quote
  #11    
Old October 23rd, 2013, 05:26 PM
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
Oops
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
The reason for lawsuits in a lot of cases is the denial of harm.

We've seen it with paint in the 50's (lead based paint, the more educated people knew it was harmful but the company making it denied all the studies that showed it was, and launched what would at that time be considered a media blitz both against the studies and promoting the use of lead based paints), we've seen it with cigarettes (Again, same thing - Company denied it was harmful, launched media blitz in defense of their product), and now with guns.

And speaking of cancer and guns - Saying that more guns will put a end to mass shootings is the same as saying more cigarettes will put a end to lung cancer. Educated people know it to be compete ********, but most people are sheep and will follow whoever shouts the loudest. In this case, the gun corporations, thanks to their money, shout loud enough to overpower the screams of fear given by those killed, and the cries of sorrow given by their families.

I have no issue with people owning guns, but really? We need tougher background checks. And as for military style weapons? If you want to use military style weapons, you should be required to serve a few years in the military.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
Reply With Quote
  #12    
Old October 23rd, 2013, 05:34 PM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Aren't we all on the same page that guns are supposed to kill people though? Take it back or sue if it's not doing its job, but surely there's no false advertising going on? Gun manufacturers aren't withholding information about how deadly guns are.
__________________
Cadance.
Reply With Quote
  #13    
Old October 23rd, 2013, 08:27 PM
Warsmith's Avatar
Warsmith
Paranoid Murderer
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Medrengard
Gender: Male
Nature: Bold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. X View Post
I have no issue with people owning guns, but really? We need tougher background checks. And as for military style weapons? If you want to use military style weapons, you should be required to serve a few years in the military.
Question, koff~

Would you rather we restrict handguns or 'military style' weapons? Your answer will account for the validity of this statement, koffi~
__________________
FROM IRON, COMETH STRENGTH.
FROM STRENGTH, COMETH WILL.
FROM WILL, COMETH FAITH.
FROM FAITH, COMETH HONOUR.
FROM HONOUR, COMETH IRON.
THIS IS THE UNBREAKABLE LITANY;
AND MAY IT FOREVER BE SO.
Reply With Quote
  #14    
Old October 23rd, 2013, 11:47 PM
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
Oops
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoffeeDrink View Post
Question, koff~

Would you rather we restrict handguns or 'military style' weapons? Your answer will account for the validity of this statement, koffi~
Like their are different certifications and restrictions for driving different types of vehicles, the same should be for guns. Basically, different weapons need different regulations.

That said, any weapon designed with the appearance of a currently in use military weapon should require military service to be able to purchase. I consider this more in respect of the troops then I do as a form of gun control though.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
Reply With Quote
  #15    
Old October 24th, 2013, 04:36 AM
goldengyarados's Avatar
goldengyarados
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Lax
In response to op though, guns are very good at doing what they were made to do. I don't think gun manufacturers are claiming otherwise, so you can't really sue them.
__________________
''Words'' - A person
Reply With Quote
  #16    
Old October 24th, 2013, 09:51 AM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
I think the basis would be that the makers aren't doing enough to make their products safe.

Cars didn't always have seat belts or airbags or all the newfangled devices that are supposed to make them safer to be in, but they have them now because we wouldn't accept cars that don't have them. Cars without these safety features still did their "intended" jobs "as advertised." (Although I think there's a interesting discussion to be made about intent vs. actual use.)

It's not about whether it's doing its intended purpose. If I ran Cage-Free Shark Diving Tours and people died I'd be doing what I said my service would be doing, but that's not exactly safe.
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Reply With Quote
  #17    
Old October 24th, 2013, 09:56 AM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarf View Post
I think the basis would be that the makers aren't doing enough to make their products safe.
Just exactly what does this entail? It's all about the person behind the gun, which is why removing all supplies of such weapon is what I advocate. It's pointless to go around these legal detours imo, they don't get to the heart of the problem and instead waste the time and energy of all of us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarf View Post
It's not about whether it's doing its intended purpose. If I ran Cage-Free Shark Diving Tours and people died I'd be doing what I said my service would be doing, but that's not exactly safe.
Usually there are waiver forms that absolve you of that liability. I think there's a similar contract between gun manufacturers and buyers - if you go about committing murder, what happens to you and Bubba in prison is of no concern to me.
__________________
Cadance.
Reply With Quote
  #18    
Old October 24th, 2013, 05:22 PM
Warsmith's Avatar
Warsmith
Paranoid Murderer
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Medrengard
Gender: Male
Nature: Bold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. X View Post
Like their are different certifications and restrictions for driving different types of vehicles, the same should be for guns. Basically, different weapons need different regulations.

That said, any weapon designed with the appearance of a currently in use military weapon should require military service to be able to purchase. I consider this more in respect of the troops then I do as a form of gun control though.
Military, koff~

Keep in mind that just because something looks more dangerous (bears/tigers) doesn't mean it is. I own a small .22 handgun. I can fit this gun on virtually anywhere on my person. There is a reason long rifles are used less often to commit crimes. They're big, loud, suspicious and not very easy to hide.

In addition, the damage ratio of differing calibers in rifles and handguns leads me to believe I would rather be shot at with a rifle than a .45 caliber handgun or a .44 magnum ("the most powerful handgun in the world, blow your head clean off. . .") at the same range. Regardless, handguns and rifles function the same way (bullets), it all goes down to how easy it is to hide. Just because they look far more dangerous does not mean they are.

Also, a person with a handgun is far more mobile, so they can run and jump and ditch their gun in a sewer because it fits. Try shoving an AR-15 down the sewer and you'll find it won't go. Creating different licences for different weapons would cause a rift in the system we already have in place. Fully automatic firearms are always illegal, thus no laws put in place will restrict criminals from modifying weapons or owning explosives, etc. There is a reason why Arizona laws state you must have open carry. If you can see the weapon, it becomes less of a threat. Think of two knights, and one has an invisible sword (a fun hypothetical to break the drones and groans). The first knight lunges with his invisible sword and the second knight, unaware of said sword, dies because he cannot perceive the threat. Ask any officer whether they'd like to know if the person they're talking to has a weapon or not. All of the officers would say yes, they would like to know what they're up against, koffi~
__________________
FROM IRON, COMETH STRENGTH.
FROM STRENGTH, COMETH WILL.
FROM WILL, COMETH FAITH.
FROM FAITH, COMETH HONOUR.
FROM HONOUR, COMETH IRON.
THIS IS THE UNBREAKABLE LITANY;
AND MAY IT FOREVER BE SO.
Reply With Quote
  #19    
Old October 24th, 2013, 07:51 PM
Team Fail's Avatar
Team Fail
The fine line between in|sanity
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2009
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Brave
Suing gun makers for killing people makes about as much sense as suing gaming companies for making products that make people lazy. They're only being used in their intended ways, but caution must be used with both products, because they can be abused easily. It'll never happen in today's world.
__________________

Pairs:
Kevin, Echidna
Follow me on Twitter! @TeamFail
Alt 1, リザードン
Miiverse
Pokémon Hackers Online
Alt 2: Jack Cayman



[04:20.39] <@GoGo> I WILL INSERT WITH PLEASURE
[04:20.45] <@GoGo> shut it Bela

[05:41.55] <Team_Fail> Blue Spider is interesting, but #MEHMasterRace
[05:42.20] <diegoisawesome> Team_Fail: Sounds like a bunch of unmotivated people that still want to try to take over the world
Reply With Quote
Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links


Advertise here
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25



All times are UTC -8. The time now is 06:49 AM.


Style by Nymphadora, artwork by Sa-Dui.
Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.