102. LadyChaos - Feb. 14, 1999 - 8:18 PM PT
cartman69,
If I were arguing the coffee spill case for the plaintiff, I would outline my argument something like this:
A) McDonald's sells hot coffee via drive-thru windows.
B) McD's owed a duty to use reasonable care in protecting its customers from being injured by its products when they are used by those patrons in a way consistent with their intended use.
C) It was reasonably foreseeable that a person buying coffee in a McD's drive-thru would accidentally spill coffee on their laps while in the process of transferring that coffee from the window to his or her cupholder/lap/etc.
D) The coffee served at the drive-thru was of such an unreasonably high temperature that, when spilled, it could have easily caused burns to a person's skin. (And a car presents a restricted space in which a person has no opportunity to get out of the way, etc., etc.)
E) Such an injury occurred.
F) Burns are very serious injuries, and when they affect a sensitive area such as the groin the injury can have emotionally devastating consequences. Indeed, this is what happened to the plaintiff.
G) But for the negligence of McD's in not taking reasonable precautions to ensure that its patrons would not be burned by spilled coffee, the injury would not have occurred.
103. LadyChaos - Feb. 14, 1999 - 8:23 PM PT
Greystoke,
The lawsuits against gun manufacturers concern me. I'll have to read up on the cases before I can give an opinion. I'm must outlining the sorts of arguments made.
Tobacco is another ball of wax. It has been shown that (1) tobacco companies were engaged in a conspiracy to get its customers hooked, and; (2) the tobacco companies attempted to cover up or obfuscate scientific evidence of the medical harm caused by cigarettes. The resulting societal harm in greater burdens on Medicare, etc., justifies large damage awards, imo.
104. LadyChaos - Feb. 14, 1999 - 8:23 PM PT
"I'm must outlining" = "I'm just outlining..."
105. Greystoke - Feb. 14, 1999 - 8:28 PM PT
LadyChaos Message #103
Yes, but regardless of the merits of the cases, the question is do such cases (involving the potential transfer of billions of dollars from private companies to states and cities) have broad, sweeping policy implications for all of society? I say yes. You previously implied no.
106. cartman69 - Feb. 14, 1999 - 8:28 PM PT
LadyC Message #100:
"Some [product] misuses are foreseeable, though, like using a chair as a stool to change a light bulb."
OK, let's take that scenario to a logical extreme. Suppose I'm standing on a chair, changing a light bulb. I fall off the chair and wreck my back. Whose fault is that? Is it a) the chair company's fault for not including instructions telling me not to stand on it; b) the light bulb company, for not including specific instructions on how to change a light bulb (insert your favorite joke here); or c) my own fault for being a klutz? I say c, but I have a feeling there are a million bush-league Ralph Naders out there who could make a jury believe a or b, and get me paid accordingly. I like the idea of getting paid, but morally, I find that a highly suspect way to do things. Then again law, morality, and common sense coincide on a random basis at best.
"The coffee spill case doesn't fit in here because the plaintiff did not misuse the product in any way. You need to think of a different angle on that one."
Well, the plaintiff may not have misused the product (although trying to eat or drink in a moving vehicle, which is how the spill happened, is asking for it), but the manufacturer of the product also did not provide a defective product. Coffee is supposed to be hot. Everyone knows this. Should McDonald's provide an unbreakable, unspillable cup of coffee, for the low low price of $5/cup?
107. LadyChaos - Feb. 14, 1999 - 8:37 PM PT
Greystoke,
I make a distinction between justice and policy. Justice is reactive, while policy is regulative. The tobacco settlement is not dictating policy, but is righting a wrong, albeit over a thirty-year period. Policy towards tobacco companies will continue to develop, perhaps in some respects as a result of the settlement, but in most respects, independently.
108. LadyChaos - Feb. 14, 1999 - 8:40 PM PT
cartman69,
Your chair hypo is off in that you would have to show that the chair in some way caused the injury; i.e., it broke!
Wrt the coffee spill case, please read my Message #102, and tell me how you would deconstruct each point in the argument. It's not as clear as it might have seemed when you read about it in the papers.
109. CIGARLAW - Feb. 14, 1999 - 8:57 PM PT
its the coming of the apocolyse. first silicon breast implants. then tobacco, now guns. next motorcycles. then there will be tort reform, and guess what. next time you go to your lawyer because your kid and his friends have cancer because you house was built on a toxic waste dump and no one told you, he will look you right in the eye and say, "You want justice? Give me a $3 million retainer and i will get right on it."
another spin off is that insurance companies will take even your fender bender to jury trial, because win or lose, you pay your lawyer and they they have lots more money than you.
the upside in the long run is that people will have to again try to get legislation pssed. of course, that is also the downside.
110. LadyChaos - Feb. 14, 1999 - 9:01 PM PT
Don Cigarlaw! How are you? I was wondering when you'd show up.
I've been flailing away, here, trying to make up for the dreadful C+ I got in torts last semester.
111. cartman69 - Feb. 14, 1999 - 10:10 PM PT
LadyC Message #102:
I forgot to mention that your breakdown of the coffee spill case is almost identical to what Ralph Nader said about it a couple of years ago on "Politically Incorrect". It sounds like a perfectly plausible, logical argument for a plaintiff's attorney to make while arguing a civil suit.
As far as I've ever heard, though, no one else ever had this problem with a cup of coffee. If there had been a pattern of complaints to the restaurant (and I use that term ironically when referring to McD's) about the coffee being too hot, or the lids being prone to falling off and causing spillage, then *maybe* we have some room for a lawsuit, based on willful negligence.
Of course, I'm arguing this from the common-sense viewpoint of a layman, not as a paid advocate. It's just beyond me that the emotional trauma of spilling hot coffee in one's lap is worth over a quarter of a million dollars, even if the restaurant *intended* for the coffee to be spilled.
Also, I don't think anyone has addressed this point I made earlier: if tobacco companies and gun manufacturers are found to be financially liable in these lawsuits, why is there not a commensurate *criminal* penalty assessed against the guilty parties? As we've all noted, the tobacco people outright lied at the congressional hearings. No one has been even indicted for perjury, as far as I know. And if gun distributors are knowingly supplying felons with weapons, then why aren't they being prosecuted for criminal negligence, or involuntary manslaughter?
The apparent selectivity of these cases contributes highly to public skepticism about the intent of the plaintiff's attorneys. If I really thought gun manufacturers & distributors were responsible for my kid's death, I'd want to see someone's ass behind bars, not just get punitive damages. But you don't hear about that happening.
112. CIGARLAW - Feb. 14, 1999 - 11:22 PM PT
cart: quite simple, no prosecutor in his right mind would file the complaint, or at least do the work necessary to do so. frankly, i think my profession, in the name of social justice is killing the goose that laid the golden egg. the result will be less money and less justice in the long run.
113. ranheim - Feb. 15, 1999 - 4:34 AM PT
I am not a lawyer.
I am as libertarian as one can get; but don't belong to anyone's party
A good deal for humanity would have been Eisenhower v Rommell with the
weapon they agreed upon. Spared my father's generation one hell of
a lot of lives and money. Irregardless of who one.
And I don't buy into the good government v bad government thinking. The USA government may have been a good one at some period in our history. Its a bunch of crap at all levels today.
Juries are trash. One local jury held against a helicopter company. The helicopter was being used as a crop duster; it had not had company approved maitainence for years. There were so many spare parts that it was difficult to find a piece of "original" equipment. The jury verdict, as directed by the sitting judge, held the helicopter company responcible for, as I recall, 8 figures. The verdict was thrown out rapidly upon appeal. But, why expose the helicopter company hostage for the time and money?
The system sucks.
Washinton's alphabet soup, if anything, is worse. And best as I can tell, those educated idiots at times act with malign purpose.
114. LadyChaos - Feb. 15, 1999 - 5:54 AM PT
cartman69,
I don't know all the facts of the coffee spill case, but if I were to show you pictures of the plaintiff's groin area with second-degree burns on the "sensitive" parts of the skin, you might be inclined as a juror to award damages. It depends on the facts, though, and I'm only speculating on what they were.
Only the State can bring criminal charges and, if the defendant's actions were legal at the time, there's no way that the State can impose retroactive criminal penalties, as it would be unconstitutional. I think that Cigarlaw is right when he says that no prosecutor will dare bring criminal conspiracy charges against the tobacco industry. Too much of our economy depends on tobacco, and many states have pension money invested in tobacco stock.
ranheim,
From what you describe about the helicopter company, I'd say that the system worked.
115. TabouliJones - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:09 AM PT
LadyChaos,
"I read of a case where a guy tried to sue the devil, but it was thrown out of court because it was impossible to serve process on the defendant."
I read of a related case. It seems some guy left his entire estate to Jesus Christ. Well, it seems that some vacuum cleaner salesman tried to claim that he was the rightful heir. Apparently, he made many a sales visit to the deceased's and, eventually came to be greeted with the words, "Oh Christ! Not you again." Hence, he figured he was the rightful heir according to the terms of the will.
Okay, that one is probably apocryphal. However, my all time favourite case is indeed (and sadly) true. I forget the name, but it involved a plaintiff who had plastic surgery performed on his right palm in the late nineteenth century. Apparently the defendant doctor took skin from the guy's chest and grafted it to his palm. Problem was, the guy had a really hairy chest. He sued the doctor after suffering one too many attacks re. his supposed masturbatory excesses. I wonder how Judge Learned Hand would have adjudged the case.
Oh yeah, thanks for detailing the specific legal issues involved in the gun cases.
116. CIGARLAW - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:42 AM PT
ladyc: from what i hear of the gun case, if true, i imagine there is some federal statute making what was alleged illegal (hell, isn't EVERYTHING?), so no ex post facto if so.
of course, if people were seriously trying to stop the manufacturers, there is a better vehicle -- and a lot quicker than a PI suit. the plaintiffs could have sought a writ of prohibition and enjoin the companies from from doing what they are allegedly doing -- immediately. the burden of proof is the same. problem: no jury and no punitive damages.
this to me illustrates the hypocracy at work in these gov. induced lawsuits. the legislature rejects their arguments, the executive branch doesn't want to try the case criminally, so they sue. but they don't try to stop the 'evil' activity, just get money from it. turn evil into a hidden tax.
117. CIGARLAW - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:43 AM PT
ladyc: from what i hear of the gun case, if true, i imagine there is some federal statute making what was alleged illegal (hell, isn't EVERYTHING?), so no ex post facto if so.
of course, if people were seriously trying to stop the manufacturers, there is a better vehicle -- and a lot quicker than a PI suit. the plaintiffs could have sought a writ of prohibition and enjoin the companies from from doing what they are allegedly doing -- immediately. the burden of proof is the same. problem: no jury and no punitive damages.
this to me illustrates the hypocracy at work in these gov. induced lawsuits. the legislature rejects their arguments, the executive branch doesn't want to try the case criminally, so they sue. but they don't try to stop the 'evil' activity, just get money from it. turn evil into a hidden tax.
118. CIGARLAW - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:47 AM PT
btw, read yesterday there are 350,000,000 chinese smokers. if i owned rjreynolds, i would tell the u.s. smokers to suck eggs. smuggle your smokes from china or grow your own.
119. elliot803 - Feb. 15, 1999 - 11:09 AM PT
cartman:
"As we've all noted, the tobacco people outright lied at the congressional hearings. No one has been even indicted for perjury, as far as I know. And if gun distributors are knowingly supplying felons with weapons, then why aren't they being prosecuted for criminal negligence, or involuntary manslaughter?"
I don't know. Maybe criminal charges will eventually be brought against tobacco or gun industry executives. Or maybe there isn't enough evidence to bring charges against particular individuals. Or maybe criminal law for some reason isn't applicable in these cases.
"The apparent selectivity of these cases contributes highly to public skepticism about the intent of the plaintiff's attorneys."
I don't know what you mean by "apparent selectivity." And how much "public skepticism" is there about these cases? You and some others here are highly skeptical, but I see no indication that your feelings are widely shared amoung people in general. In the case of the tobacco companies at least, public sentiment seems strongly on the side of those bringing the lawsuits.
120. LadyChaos - Feb. 15, 1999 - 11:09 AM PT
cigarlaw,
Yes, my biggest concern is that governments are beginning to look at big lawsuits as potential cash cows, which saves those governments from having to make unpopular budgetary choices. It's probably easier to sue a gun manufacturer than to take on the teacher's union.
Wrt Chinese (and Russian) smokers, without American cigarette companies our trade deficit would be much higher. The market volume for Camel cigarettes in Russia alone is greater than in the U.S. Add China to that and you have to wonder why the tobacco companies even bother with selling in the U.S.
121. RobertKier - Feb. 15, 1999 - 11:14 AM PT
Somebody tell me the rationale for sStates recovering damages from tobacco companies. How can taxpayers be losing money by the health care needs of smokers when as I understand it they actually reduce public health/welfare burdens by dying young? Surely, smokers don't add so much to that great expense that Alzheimer's puts on Medicaid, for example.
122. elliot803 - Feb. 15, 1999 - 11:14 AM PT
cartman:
"Well, the plaintiff may not have misused the product (although trying to eat or drink in a moving vehicle, which is how the spill happened, is asking for it), but the manufacturer of the product also did not provide a defective product. Coffee is supposed to be hot. Everyone knows this."
I know a little about this case. The initial huge award against McDonalds that was reported widely in the media was reduced dramatically on appeal. The company was found to be negligent because it routinely served coffee at temperatures way above industry norms and had received numerous prior complaints about the dangers of this practise but had done nothing to address the problem. The woman who spilled the coffee suffered extensive burns and required skin grafts to treat them.
123. elliot803 - Feb. 15, 1999 - 11:20 AM PT
RobertKier:
"Somebody tell me the rationale for sStates recovering damages from tobacco companies. How can taxpayers be losing money by the health care needs of smokers when as I understand it they actually reduce public health/welfare burdens by dying young?"
I don't know the economics of it in detail, but if anyone "saves money" from these early deaths it is probably the federal government (Medicare and Social Security), not the states. I don't see why the burden has to be economic, anyway. The fact that you harm and kill people seems to me a good enough reason to be sued.
124. elliot803 - Feb. 15, 1999 - 11:29 AM PT
AuNaturel:
"Most defensive (and offensive) uses of a firearm do not involve the discharge of a round. Less that 1 in 10,000 firearms end up in the commission of a homocide."
I agree that averaged out over all 200+ million guns in the United States, the chances of any particular gun being used in a homicide are low, but that's not true for certain types of weapon sold in certain ways in certain markets, which is what these cases are about. And the amount of death and injury caused by guns overall is very large.
125. elliot803 - Feb. 15, 1999 - 12:39 PM PT
Latest article from the New York Times' coverage of the gun lawsuits:
To Rejuvenate Gun Sales, Critics Say, Industry Started Making More Powerful Pistols
126. elliot803 - Feb. 15, 1999 - 6:27 PM PT
In rebuttal to claims that Americans do not favor more gun control, here are some statistics from a 1996 study conducted by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center and the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research:
82% of the public favor mandatory registration of handguns.
70% want handgun owners to be licensed and trained.
86% back laws requiring all new handguns be child-proofed.
68% want new handguns to be "personalized," so that only an authorized user could operate the gun.
Nearly 75% believe the government should regulate the safety design of guns.
70% believe that licenses to sell guns should be limited to stores rather than individuals, as is currently allowed.
61% want a gun owner who fails to obtain a criminal background check before selling a firearm to be held legally liable for later crimes committed by the purchaser.
81% want handgun sales to an individual limited to one per month.
127. jonesatlaw - Feb. 16, 1999 - 12:03 PM PT
It is surprising that one of the most dangerous machines people regularly operate, namely firearms, are so poorly regulated as to safety.
I admit that sensible people know that firearms are inherently dangerous, and should be treated as such always. Nevertheless, there have been safety advances in weapon design, and further development is certainly possible. Why, when we have deadman switches on lawnmowers etc., have safety built into firearms that make them truly defensive weapons, useless to felons who burgle stores and homes?
128. jonesatlaw - Feb. 16, 1999 - 12:05 PM PT
The question in my last post should start "Why not.."
129. SaraBand - Feb. 17, 1999 - 4:26 AM PT
"If you can't get a law passed...take it to the courts." Take what? (Yes, I should've seen this earlier. I think I felt it but I was caught up in some apparently more powerful emotional issue. Anyway.) I object.
130. SaraBand - Feb. 17, 1999 - 4:30 AM PT
"...bypassing legislation?"? Wait. This whole thing has to be cleaned up.
131. SaraBand - Feb. 17, 1999 - 4:32 AM PT
Oh.
Has it always read like that?
132. tharms - Feb. 17, 1999 - 6:43 PM PT
jonesatlaw asks: "Why, when we have deadman switches on lawnmowers etc., why not have safety built into firearms that make them truly defensive weapons, useless to felons who burgle stores and homes?"
First, because a weapon which is not readily dangerous is not reliably effective.
Second, because whether or not to pay the extra costs of extra safety devices (which may occur in many forms) is a decision to be made by manufacturers, in choosing what to manufacture, and shoppers, in choosing what to purchase. (I must point out that a variety of safety devices have been incorporated into firearms over the years. Rarely is this noticed in the press, it seems.)
133. tharms - Feb. 17, 1999 - 6:52 PM PT
elliot803 wrote: "I agree that averaged out over all 200+ million guns in the United States, the chances of any particular gun being used in a homicide are low, but that's not true for certain types of weapon sold in certain ways in certain markets, which is what these cases are about."
But how can a jury in *Brooklyn* penalize manufacturers all over the nation for selling guns to gun shops in the *South*? That's what this particular case does, and it is nothing less than absurd. Imposing criminal penalties on people who are not even accused of a crime, that in itself *is* a crime.
134. elliot803 - Feb. 17, 1999 - 6:58 PM PT
tharms:
"First, because a weapon which is not readily dangerous is not reliably effective."
No gun is reliably effective. And the more "readily dangerous" a gun is, the more likely it is to be used accidently or in a moment of anger or passion against an innocent person.
"Second, because whether or not to pay the extra costs of extra safety devices (which may occur in many forms) is a decision to be made by manufacturers, in choosing what to manufacture, and shoppers, in choosing what to purchase."
Well, the government already regulates the safety of everything from airplanes to children's toys. Given that fact, why should guns be exempt?
135. elliot803 - Feb. 17, 1999 - 7:03 PM PT
tharms:
"But how can a jury in *Brooklyn* penalize manufacturers all over the nation for selling guns to gun shops in the *South*?"
I thought the issue was the sale of guns to unlicensed owners in *New York*. Why is Brooklyn an inappropriate location for such a trial?
"That's what this particular case does, and it is nothing less than absurd"
It's not absurd at all.
"Imposing criminal penalties on people who are not even accused of a crime, that in itself *is* a crime."
What criminal penalties? This was a *civil* case, not a criminal one.
136. LadyChaos - Feb. 17, 1999 - 7:55 PM PT
tharms,
"But how can a jury in *Brooklyn* penalize manufacturers all over the nation for selling guns to gun shops in the *South*? That's what this particular case does, and it is nothing less than absurd."
If I understand the case correctly, it is based on a well-established doctrine which has been used before in cases such as where a drug that was manufactured by several companies was found to have harmed a large number of people. In that case, since it was impossible to determine exactly who had been harmed by which company's drugs, the damages were allocated based on each company's market share.
137. CIGARLAW - Feb. 17, 1999 - 8:30 PM PT
re making guns safe. how nice. firearms from the beginning were designed to kill things. if you make them safe, they are no longer useful.on the otherhand, the black market price of my 20 or 21 firearms will increase immeasurably, so have at it.
138. ranheim - Feb. 18, 1999 - 10:10 AM PT
I don't know the particulars of the law suit in New Orleans. But the public relations angle is taking a beating.
In order to arm the NO Police Dept. with new weapons (I believe Glock) the deal made was that the NOPD turned over to Glock thousands of confiscated weapons from past encounters. Glock then held an auction - in another part of the USA - and replaced the cost of the new weapons with the monies made at the auction.
The NRA and conservative groups are having a belly laugh. Gun control and liberal groups are scraping the egg off their faces. Past history suggests to me that someone from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party will put his facile tongue to work in an attempt to gloss over this PR disaster.
Meanwhile the New Orleans case is going nowhere fast.
139. jonesatlaw - Feb. 18, 1999 - 1:14 PM PT
Cigarlaw- I did not advocate making firearms "safe." They are designed to kill. However, the reason for their popularity in history is generally they are used to kill PARTICULAR people or animals, as the result of conscious action by their owner. If unintentional or colateral damage wasn't important, I'd have grown up hunting with hand grenades and not a shotgun.
Even after "smart" technology is applied to these weapons, only a fool will rely exclusively on it. Nevertheless, given the great potential for harm without it, and the benefits offered, smart technology belongs in weapons.
Feasibility and reliability arguments are specious. If we can construct all those "smart weapons" for the military, we can certainly construct safer handguns.
140. jonesatlaw - Feb. 18, 1999 - 2:03 PM PT
It has been sometime since I read it, but I recall that most police officers killed on duty were killed with their own weapons. I cannot gurantee the current accuracy of the statistic, but would imagine that a considerable portion of officers are still killed in just this way. If so called "smart guns" were the standard service weapon, these folk would be alive. Add to them the children killed by accidental shootings, and curtailing the black market in stolen weapons and the need is obvious. You want to talk tort reform? Reform this part of the law of torts, where there is an incentive to collaborate to stagnate safety technology.
141. elliot803 - Feb. 18, 1999 - 2:08 PM PT
Gun Shows in America: Tupperware® Parties for Criminals
142. SaraBand - Feb. 18, 1999 - 2:09 PM PT
Reform?
Well, indeed, something's askew (or, Not in Order) here. Whatever it is, it hasn't been right since SeaSailor wasn't crucified or forced to drink poison.
I must object.
143. PsychProf - Feb. 18, 1999 - 2:11 PM PT
Get some rest Sara.
144. SaraBand - Feb. 18, 1999 - 2:14 PM PT
Never
145. SaraBand - Feb. 18, 1999 - 2:18 PM PT
PsychProf, Message #143:
Who are you? My fairy godmother?
146. ranger - Feb. 18, 1999 - 7:24 PM PT
Hey, you guys are RADICAL!! The people of the United States do not want a right to keep and bear arms. They choose, instead, to play Nintendo and watch "Dawsons Creep", or wax nostalgic back to the good ol' days of drugs and anti-war protests. Or perhaps the populace is too flipping STUPID to consider the implications of a weaponless society. The lefties quote all around the federalist papers unless it is Thomas Paine telling us how important it is that the populace be exposed to the same weapons as the Army to protect itself from a renegade government(or government official)
Please join the "American Sheep Party"
motto: "EH? Sure we'll go for that"
BAAAAABAAAAABAAABABAABAA
147. CIGARLAW - Feb. 19, 1999 - 12:03 AM PT
ranheim: we have a mini-scandel in modesto. it seems the police dept. was routinely selling confiscated guns to cops illegally. my sources tell me that one cop bought something like 19 pistols filling out only one form, a clear federal crime. the betting is that the whole thing came to light when a previously confiscated gun ended up confiscated again in a violent crime.
want to bet if any cops go to jail?
in the meantime a firearms dealer i know has had $20000 of guns siezed by the atf, because a gun he sold was found in a locked safe in the home of a former client of mine who also dealt drugs.
148. CIGARLAW - Feb. 19, 1999 - 12:08 AM PT
jones: then just what are you proposing? how do you keep a firearm from hitting unintended targets?
as for single-operator firearms, the technology has been around for 20 years that i know of. the fact cops don't go for it ought to tell you its value.
149. jonesatlaw - Feb. 19, 1999 - 12:52 PM PT
I am proposing that handguns be equipped with devices that prevent or reduce unauthorized use. I don't care what form it takes, radiofrequency, infrared, mechanical, electronic- you pick. That is what is commonly understood by "smart weapons" as applied to personal firearms.
I am not persuaded by the refusal of cops to use the systems, they have a "it can't happen to me" attitude towards a lot of things, like any other group of humans. Lots of them opposed body armor, too.
150. LadyChaos - Feb. 19, 1999 - 7:09 PM PT
The shortest route to reducing gun crime in this country would be to legalize drugs. Drug profits are by far the major driving force behind the black-market demand for guns. As long as the drug war rages on, any attempts to seriously regulate gun trafficking will prove futile.
On another matter, we have had an ongoing development here in Miami that promises to become an interesting court battle. Since the now-famous "Miami Circle" was discovered on land at the mouth of the Miami River where a developer was getting ready to break ground on another massive office/condo complex, our county mayor has instituted a suit to exercise eminent domain and force the developer to sell the site. The developer will probably fight it, and the city is pissed at the county because it means a potential loss of about a million or so annually in property taxes. The county's move has a lot of popular support, though. The state can't intervene by law unless human remains are discovered. The problem there is that the last known Tequesta Indian burial mound in the vicinity of the circle was plowed under to make room for the hideous DuPont Plaza, some thirty or more years ago. People don't want to see a repeat of such an infamous destruction of an historical treasure.
Stay tuned.
151. Msivorytower - Feb. 19, 1999 - 7:24 PM PT
Okay,
I think I posted a comment about the new LA ordinance in the wrong place. I'll try again here.
Yesterday on NPR I heard some commentary on a new LA County ordinance which prohibits gun stores from selling more than one gun a month to the same individual. So, gun enthusiasts are restricted to only 12 guns a year.
Now, the gun lobby and pro-gun enthusiasts have been up in arms about this new law because, they say, it will severely restrict their gun collecting activities. I must say, these protests seem feeble, just how many guns must one be able to purchase as a collector in a single year before the collector turns into a mini-army supplier?
In any case, I found it rather interesting that even this minor restriction on gun rights was met by loud and virilent protests from the gun lobby.
152. CalGal - Feb. 19, 1999 - 7:42 PM PT
Ms,
I know two gun dealers, both of whom love guns and are avid collectors. They would be furious if they were held to 12 a year. They aren't mini-army suppliers.
They don't consider it a minor restriction on gun rights. And, looked at from their perspective, they're right. It's only minor to people who aren't collectors.
It's not just the gun manufacturers who lobby against these restrictions.
153. Msivorytower - Feb. 19, 1999 - 7:48 PM PT
Calgal
Gun Dealers? Please, they aren't the ones being restricted, it's the purchasers. If they are dealers and collectors, I can't see how this ordinance would cover them at all.
154. CalGal - Feb. 19, 1999 - 7:53 PM PT
Ms,
"Please, they aren't the ones being restricted, it's the purchasers. "
I could be wrong, because I tend to zone out when they talk about technicalities. But as I understand it, they have dealers' licenses because that's the best way to be a collector.
That's why they were howling, at any rate. I will check back with them or defer to any gun collector who shows up here.
155. CalGal - Feb. 19, 1999 - 7:59 PM PT
Ms,
Also, you yourself seem to be saying the same thing in this sentence.
"Now, the gun lobby and pro-gun enthusiasts have been up in arms about this new law because, they say, it will severely restrict their gun collecting activities. "
I might have misunderstood what you meant, but this sentence as written corresponds with my understanding of what my friends had told me.
If this does affect gun enthusiasts and collectors (which was my point), my point was that they aren't happy with only 12 guns a year and view it as a restriction on their activity (as you yourself say).
If, as gun collectors, they can buy as many guns as they want, then I'll check back with my friends to see why they are fussed. But as far as I know they don't sell guns themselves.
156. CalGal - Feb. 19, 1999 - 8:07 PM PT
Ms,
I was in the middle of doing something else when I wrote my first post. I just reread it. Sigh.
My two friends are collectors. I should have described them as that first, since the only reason they are dealers is to facilitate their hobby.
All I was saying was that, while it might seem silly to you, collectors think 12 guns a year is a ridiculous restriction and not minor at all.
157. LadyChaos - Feb. 19, 1999 - 8:36 PM PT
I don't think that the law as MsIT quotes it would really restrict the ability of someone to buy as many guns as he wanted. It only restricts dealers from selling more than one gun per month to the same person. If that's the language of the statute, then it's clearly a restriction on sellers, not buyers.
Gun collectors present one of the greatest problems to gun control laws. We only recently closed a loophole in Florida which allowed "collectors" to sell guns over the counter at gun shows without having to perform the standard three-day background check. Anybody could pay cash for a gun at these shows and walk away without so much as an ID confirmation. Collectors are often dealers in reality; they only use the moniker "collector" for legal cover.
158. CalGal - Feb. 19, 1999 - 8:52 PM PT
"If that's the language of the statute, then it's clearly a restriction on sellers, not buyers."
If I'm a buyer and I want to buy several guns in a month, I have to find several dealers? It's an inconvenience. And clearly, as the Ms also presents, the intended message to enthusiasts is, "You only need 12 guns a year."
I think the line between dealers and collectors is fuzzy going both ways--as I said, both my friends are dealers in order to facilitate collecting.
Also, it seems all of these laws are intended for other targets and the restriction on collectors is dismissed as "You don't *really* need all those guns, do you?"
But if it's their hobby, then it seems extreme to limit it in that way. Guns are either legal or they're not. They are legal to collect or they're not.
If it's legal to own as many as you want, then it seems unwarranted restriction to then limit how many they can acquire in a year.
159. Msivorytower - Feb. 19, 1999 - 9:22 PM PT
I'm sorry, but 12 guns a year is a hell of a lot.
How the hell are we ever going to get a grip on this problem if we can't come to some consensus on how to BEGIN to restrict the flow of guns?
160. Msivorytower - Feb. 19, 1999 - 9:24 PM PT
LadyC
I don't know the details, maybe one of the So Cal people knows more. I just heard the story on NPR so I can't be certain of the actual statute.
161. CalGal - Feb. 19, 1999 - 9:40 PM PT
Ms,
"I'm sorry, but 12 guns a year is a hell of a lot. "
No argument from me. But if a person buys 12 guns a year for 20 years that is (and I'm calculating desperately) 240 guns. Which is a hell of a lot and there is no law against it. And he can will that to his daughter when he dies and she can add that to her collection of 150 guns and she has 390 and there's no law against *that*. (at least as far as I know.)
So do you want to limit collectors by telling them they have too many guns? How many is enough?
"How the hell are we ever going to get a grip on this problem if we can't come to some consensus on how to BEGIN to restrict the flow of guns?"
There isn't even agreement, really, on whether or not they need to be restricted. There isn't even agreement on what the problem is. You are operating from the standpoint that they do, gun dealers and collectors and many others are operating from the standpoint that they don't. Start with *that* problem first.
But until then, you can't tell people who are collectors to limit their amount of guns and not have them squawk. And you can't really blame that on the NRA or the gun lobby.
I don't know if the law will pass constitutional muster. But it doesn't really matter, since it's not a very *effective* law. Purchasers can just go to several dealers to buy guns and since they all know each other, they'll just circumvent the law. If I'm understanding my friends right, many gun collectors *are* dealers. If that's true, then they are up to 24 guns right there--buying from themselves and one other dealer.
162. CalGal - Feb. 19, 1999 - 9:52 PM PT
Incidentally, there may be an outside limit on the amount of guns owned. But whatever it is, my guess is that this law probably conflicts with that outside limit. If it doesn't, that's a whole different picture, of course. I'm only operating on what these two friends have told me over beers.
The following is assumed in my posts:
a) Gun collecting is legal
b) No restriction, or only mild restriction, on the amount of guns owned
c) The 12 guns per year is essentially an attempt to hurt dealers or prevent large purchases of guns for illicit purposes, not harm or otherwise restrict gun collectors.
d) That the 12 guns per year *might* restrict gun collectors is considered in the category of TFB.
163. AuNaturel - Feb. 19, 1999 - 11:48 PM PT
MS IT:
Well put about the drug wars. However if you attempted to put the same level of emphasis on gun prohibition as we do currently on drug prohibition we'd only replace our "drug war" with a "gun war" of equal futility and greater violence.
CalGal:
"There isn't even agreement, really, on whether or not they need to be restricted. There isn't even agreement on what the problem is. You are operating from the standpoint that they do, gun dealers and collectors and many others are operating from the standpoint that they don't."
Well put. There is no general agreement that there is a problem of "too many guns" or that attempting to restrict supply is an appropriate response. I can't magine buying a dozen guns in my entire life, yet I have friends who trade them like baseball cards.
To combine MsIt's statement earlier about the drug war with this sentiment, if the gun violence is driven by the drug war just as it was by prohibition in the 30s, then ending the drug war ends much of the violence and eliminates much of the pressure for gun control.
LA is in a sick effort to act tough on violence by making it tough on all gun owners. Buying ammunition requires a finger print, a drivers licence and a signature. Ammunition is prohibited from being sold proximal to New Years and 4th of July, supposedly to cut down on random firing in the air, but it seems to have had no effect. (Duh!!)
The 1 gun per month limit is supposedly to reduce straw man purchases of guns for people who cannot legally buy them. Of course it will do nothing of the sort, but ineffectiveness and wrongheadedness have never been seen as reasons not to pass a law.
164. wonkers2 - Feb. 22, 1999 - 5:42 PM PT
Cigarlaw, Message #147 Why not call Leaky Kenny Starr? He likes California and may be out of a job soon. But I guess he prefers sniffing White House sheets, and why shouldn't the cops be able to make a little money on the side with illegal gun deals. Hardly measures up to lying about sex.
165. elliot803 - Feb. 22, 1999 - 9:07 PM PT
CalGal:
"But if it's their hobby, then it seems extreme to limit it in that way."
It's "extreme" to limit gun purchases to one per month? Please. Only in the sick American gun nut culture could such a policy be considered "extreme."
"There isn't even agreement, really, on whether or not they need to be restricted."
Of course there's agreement. See the statistics I quoted earlier. Even in the U.S., which people in most other advanced countries consider to be unhinged on the subject of guns, large majorities of people favor stronger restrictions.
"But until then, you can't tell people who are collectors to limit their amount of guns and not have them squawk. And you can't really blame that on the NRA or the gun lobby."
No, we can't tell them not to "squawk" (thanks for such an appropriate word for their protests). The people who are squawking are the gun lobby.
"I don't know if the law will pass constitutional muster."
Repeat after me: No gun control law has ever been struck down on Second Amendment grounds.
"But it doesn't really matter, since it's not a very *effective* law."
How do you know? What has been the effect of such laws in states where it has been enacted. Do you know? Of course not.
166. elliot803 - Feb. 22, 1999 - 9:12 PM PT
AuNaturel:
"Well put about the drug wars. However if you attempted to put the same level of emphasis on gun prohibition as we do currently on drug prohibition we'd only replace our "drug war" with a "gun war" of equal futility and greater violence."
Strict gun control works well in other countries, countries that have drug problems like that of the U.S. I fail to see why it can't also work here. Certainly, to declare it a failure before it's even been tried is idiotic.
167. CalGal - Feb. 22, 1999 - 9:33 PM PT
Elliot,
Sigh.
"No, we can't tell them not to 'squawk' (thanks for such an appropriate word for their protests). The people who are squawking are the gun lobby."
No. Gun collectors are squawking. Also, the purpose of the Ms' post was to point out how unreasonable it was for them to squawk. I was saying that given points x, y, and z, that it was unreasonable for her to expect them *not* to.
"It's "extreme" to limit gun purchases to one per month? "
Right now, they can purchase as many guns as they like. You are saying, "12 guns a year is sufficient."
That, from their POV, is an extreme limitation. However, it is not really a limitation, since it's not an effective law. Because they aren't, in fact, limited to one gun per month. They are limited to one gun per month per dealer. There is no limit on how many guns a person can purchase--or, as I said, that is my working assumption.
"Repeat after me: No gun control law has ever been struck down on Second Amendment grounds."
Yes, I know. I meant literally what I said--I didn't know whether it would pass muster or not. And, as I said, *it doesn't matter*, since it's an ineffective law. That was my point, as in who gives a shit whether it's constitutional, any gun collector in the US can get around it.
"How do you know? "
Elliot. It restricts gun purchases to *one dealer per month*, according to the Ms. If I know 15 gun dealers, I can buy 15 guns per month. And that's just collectors. Plus, I can just be a dealer myself and order direct. Will it stop massive purchases? Possibly, but I doubt it. Out of curiousity, has there ever been a really effective gun law?
168. CalGal - Feb. 22, 1999 - 9:39 PM PT
"Of course there's agreement. "
As usual, you miss the point. The Ms was wondering why gun collectors and dealers and their lobbies were complaining. Why couldn't they learn to live within the limit? Don't they understand that we have to address the problem?
This is not a situation where everyone agrees there is a problem and the nature of the disagreement is over how it is solved. This is a situation where the opponents don't even agree that there is a problem.
A lot of people might vaguely support gun control, but they aren't *fanatic* about it. When you look at the nature of this debate, it is framed by people filled with passionate conviction on both sides. And in that debate, there is no consensus that there is a problem.
As I said, 12 guns a year is either far too many guns, or an unreasonable restriction. In the current environment, where anyone is allowed to own as many guns as they want, it is an unreasonable restriction. If it works, hey. No argument from me.
But the Ms' point was that this was the machinations of the gun lobby, that collectors don't care because 12 guns a year is enough. That is not true. They do care, and what I was addressing is *why* it makes sense, given the current environment, that they would be upset.
169. elliot803 - Feb. 22, 1999 - 9:46 PM PT
CalGal:
"No. Gun collectors are squawking. Also, the purpose of the Ms' post was to point out how unreasonable it was for them to squawk. I was saying that given points x, y, and z, that it was unreasonable for her to expect them *not* to."
The gun collectors who are squawking *are* the gun lobby (or more precisely, a part of the gun lobby). And it is completely unreasonable of them to squawk. But then, they're not exactly reasonable people.
"Right now, they can purchase as many guns as they like. You are saying, "12 guns a year is sufficient." That, from their POV, is an extreme limitation."
Only from their point of view, which is warped, could it be considered extreme.
"However, it is not really a limitation, since it's not an effective law. Because they aren't, in fact, limited to one gun per month. They are limited to one gun per month per dealer. There is no limit on how many guns a person can purchase--or, as I said, that is my working assumption."
If it's only an "assumption" that it applies on a per dealer basis, you have no basis for saying it's not an effective law. Even if the assumption is true, that still doesn't mean it's not an effective law. No one knows how it will affect gun sales.
"Yes, I know. I meant literally what I said--I didn't know whether it would pass muster or not."
It seems unlikely in the extreme to fail constitutional muster, given that no gun control law, including outright bans, has ever been struck down on Second Amendment grounds.
"Out of curiousity, has there ever been a really effective gun law?"
Yes, they're all effective.
170. elliot803 - Feb. 22, 1999 - 9:57 PM PT
CalGal:
"As usual, you miss the point. The Ms was wondering why gun collectors and dealers and their lobbies were complaining. Why couldn't they learn to live within the limit? Don't they understand that we have to address the problem?"
No, as usual, you miss the point. You claimed that there isn't really any agreement on the need to restrict guns and I pointed out that there is MASSIVE agreement.
"This is not a situation where everyone agrees there is a problem and the nature of the disagreement is over how it is solved. This is a situation where the opponents don't even agree that there is a problem."
There is no political or social issue on which "everyone" agrees, so your observation is irrelevant. There are probably thousands of existing laws about which there is less "agreement" than there is about gun control laws, including the one-gun-a-month law.
"A lot of people might vaguely support gun control, but they aren't *fanatic* about it. When you look at the nature of this debate, it is framed by people filled with passionate conviction on both sides. And in that debate, there is no consensus that there is a problem."
Of course there's consensus that there is a problem. Very few people think that 40,000 firearm deaths a year, and countless more injuries, isn't a serious problem.
"As I said, 12 guns a year is either far too many guns, or an unreasonable restriction. In the current environment, where anyone is allowed to own as many guns as they want, it is an unreasonable restriction."
This is nonsense. The "current environment" is what's unreasonable, not the proposed restriction.
"But the Ms' point was that this was the machinations of the gun lobby, that collectors don't care because 12 guns a year is enough."
That is not my understanding of what MsIT said. Show me where you think she said that.
171. CalGal - Feb. 22, 1999 - 10:04 PM PT
Elliot,
Discussions with you are amazingly tedious.
"It seems unlikely in the extreme to fail constitutional muster, given that no gun control law, including outright bans, has ever been struck down on Second Amendment grounds. "
Yes, I get that. As I said, I was merely qualifying my main sentence, which is that it is an ineffective law.
"Only from their point of view, which is warped, could it be considered extreme. "
And the point of view of the law, which says that they can have as many as they want.
"If it's only an "assumption" that it applies on a per dealer basis, you have no basis for saying it's not an effective law. Even if the assumption is true, that still doesn't mean it's not an effective law. No one knows how it will affect gun sales. "
No. It's not an assumption that it's on a per dealer basis. The assumption was that there is no limit on the amount of guns a person can own or purchase.
It is an ineffective law if the purpose was to restrict guns purchased, but it is still possible to purchase as many guns as you want. It may *slow* the sale of guns because people are inconvenienced. But the people it inconveniences won't be the people the law targeted.
"Yes, they're all effective."
Ah, yes. The states and cities are suing the gun manufacturers because their gun control laws aren't working. That's pretty fucking effective.
I am genuinely curious; please provide statistics of the success of gun control laws of any sort. One would think with all the hand clutching and hair tearing you do on this subject, you'd be eager to present the success stories.
172. CalGal - Feb. 22, 1999 - 10:11 PM PT
Elliot,
Your whole argument is "Because I said so, dammit!"
Enough.
Look. All the law had to do in order to be effective was to limit all gun collectors to *one gun purchase* a month. According to the Ms' posts, the law wasn't written that way.
Why wasn't it written that way, Elliot?
Answer that question realistically, rather than spout boring propaganda that no one questions and maybe you'll start getting the point. But if you're not going to make the effort, then rant away all by your lonesome.
173. CIGARLAW - Feb. 22, 1999 - 11:49 PM PT
THE ONLY GUN CONTROL THIS NATION NEEDS IS A SHARP EYE AND A STEADY HAND.
i'm not going to get into this yet. elliot is wrong. i am right. case closed.
now, to the topic at hand. these lawsuits are a danger to our form of gov. i am disgusted with the members of my profession for pursuing them.
174. CIGARLAW - Feb. 22, 1999 - 11:56 PM PT
btw, it seems to that at one time there were polls showing the majority of the pop. thought anyone infected with hiv ought to be quanantined. also, when i was a kid calif. voters passed an initiative by an overwhelming margin hat essentially said it was okay to discriminate in housing based on race.
polls come and go. alas, if we want to run on polls, liberty always loses.
175. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 8:34 AM PT
CalGal:
"Yes, I get that. As I said, I was merely qualifying my main sentence, which is that it is an ineffective law."
And it is the erroneousness of that qualification that I was addressing. I've dealt with the baseless claim that the law is ineffective elsewhere.
"And the point of view of the law, which says that they can have as many as they want."
"The law" doesn't have a point of view. Only people do. Most people do not seem to believe that a limit of one gun purchase a month is "extreme."
"It is an ineffective law if the purpose was to restrict guns purchased, but it is still possible to purchase as many guns as you want. It may *slow* the sale of guns because people are inconvenienced. But the people it inconveniences won't be the people the law targeted."
You have no basis for this claim. It is speculation built on assumption. It is silly to claim that a law will be ineffective when you don't even know what restrictions the law imposes.
"Ah, yes. The states and cities are suing the gun manufacturers because their gun control laws aren't working. That's pretty fucking effective."
The gun control laws are working. But they're not the whole solution. They're one tool in the fight againt gun violence. Lawsuits against negligent gun manufacturers are another tool.
"Why wasn't it written that way, Elliot? Answer that question realistically, rather than spout boring propaganda that no one questions and maybe you'll start getting the point."
By your own admission, you don't even know how the law was written. It's a waste of time discussing why a law was written a certain way when you don't even know how it was written.
176. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 8:43 AM PT
Cigarlaw:
"i'm not going to get into this yet. elliot is wrong. i am right. case closed."
Well it's me, a large majority of Americans, and virtually everyone in Canada, Europe and Australia on one side, and you and your fellow gun nuts on the other.
Did you see Politically Incorrect last night? They discussed guns and gun control. Only one member of the panel was pro-gun (Republican nutjob Floyd Brown). He got creamed by the other panelists and Bill Maher. Maher winced when Brown mentioned that he had just gotten his 13-year-old son his first gun ("A Boy's First Gun"--warms the heart, doesn't it?). An Australian actress on the panel was particularly outspoken about the insanity of gun laws in America.
177. CalGal - Feb. 23, 1999 - 8:50 AM PT
"An Australian actress on the panel was particularly outspoken about the insanity of gun laws in America."
Well, if an Australian actress thinks so, I think we should run right out and change the laws IMMEDIATELY.
178. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 9:07 AM PT
Brilliant rebuttal, CalGal.
179. Adrianne - Feb. 23, 1999 - 9:10 AM PT
Well, if the Australian actress is Nicole Kidman, chances are PE will be here shortly supporting her comments.
180. CalGal - Feb. 23, 1999 - 9:13 AM PT
Brilliance is hardly required when the best you can muster for your argument is an Australian actress on a latenight show.
181. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 9:21 AM PT
Adrianne:
It wasn't Nicole Kidman. Her name was Peta something. And she might have been a Kiwi.
CalGal:
"Brilliance is hardly required when the best you can muster for your argument is an Australian actress on a latenight show."
Yes, that's right. Mentioning that one actress is the BEST ARGUMENT I have made for gun control. God, you're a moron.
182. CalGal - Feb. 23, 1999 - 9:32 AM PT
Elliot--the fact that you bothered to post it at *all* as a persuasive factor was pretty funny.
183. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 9:37 AM PT
I didn't post it as a "persuasive factor."
I'm laughing at you. Hahahaha!
184. CalGal - Feb. 23, 1999 - 9:42 AM PT
And even when you're laughing, you're humorless. Truly tragic.
185. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 9:56 AM PT
Brilliant rebuttal, CalGal.
186. CoralReef - Feb. 23, 1999 - 10:08 AM PT
Peta? Probably the woman from the television version of La Femme Nikita. And yes, it's hard to believe this thread has devolved to this point.
187. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 10:18 AM PT
CalGal:
"I am genuinely curious; please provide statistics of the success of gun control laws of any sort."
Okay, here's one example. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, since it was passed in 1994, the Brady Law has prevented 242,000 handgun sales to criminals, mentally ill people, and others who would otherwise have been able to purchase the guns. 1997 alone, 69,000 people who were prohibited by law from buying handguns.
188. CalGal - Feb. 23, 1999 - 10:40 AM PT
Elliot,
Well, I should have expected that. And I will accept it as proof that the Brady law is effective at making criminals and others work harder at getting guns.
Has it been effective at keeping the guns out of their hands entirely? Has the murder rate dropped as a result?
I can look at any gun control law and see an easy work around. To me, that clearly hampers their effectiveness at controlling the ownership of guns.
So what is the purpose of gun control laws? To make it more difficult for people to get guns? Or to cut down on the number of people who are killed by guns?
When you declare your support for gun control, you always mention the people who are killed. But when you are asked to prove the effectiveness of gun control, you can only cite the number of guns that haven't been sold at that particular point in time.
Can you draw a line from that fact to less violence as a result?
Now--I'm not going to taunt you that you didn't provide proof. But the "proof" I was looking for is any evidence that gun control laws are effective at stopping violence.
And you can't bring up any other country as evidence, because they don't count.
189. CalGal - Feb. 23, 1999 - 10:42 AM PT
Incidentally, there may be proof of this as well. I just haven't seen it yet.
190. cartman69 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 10:59 AM PT
Maher frequently uses his show as a bully pulpit for gun control. Ironically, he also uses it regularly to argue for legalizing drugs. Looking at both issues as functions of personal responsibility, I don't see how he can take both stances without some internal conflict. At any rate, I saw the show last night as well, and was not quite as impressed by Peta Wilson's opinions as Elliot apparently was (though I agree that Floyd Brown is an idiot).
One of the main topics on the show referred to a law that stipulates that if a kid gets hold of an unsecured weapon left by an adult, and goes out and hurts/kills someone/himself, the adult should be liable. This is perfectly fine, except for the example they used -- the Jonesboro, Ark., shootings. One would think, from the frantic wailing of the law's proponents, that these little darlings innocently found Granddad's loaded 45 and couldn't control it. Fact is, the little creeps broke into a secured building, into a locked case, and purposefully loaded the guns themselves. These kids were trained & experienced with firearms, and did what they did with malice and deliberation. I fail to see how this is the grandfather's fault.
Cigarlaw makes a good point in Message #174: polls are not a very good way to make law. If they were used for legislation, we'd probably still have segregated schools & drinking fountains.
191. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 11:48 AM PT
CalGal:
What criterion do you propose for evaluating the effectiveness of gun control laws?
The claims you make about lack of "proof" apply to every single criminal law on the books. There's no "proof" that any of these laws reduce violence, so unless you see this as a reason to repeal all criminal law, it is irrelevant. What matters is evidence. The evidence--from statistics such as the ones I cited--is that the laws are working.
192. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 11:50 AM PT
cartmhan:
"One of the main topics on the show referred to a law that stipulates that if a kid gets hold of an unsecured weapon left by an adult, and goes out and hurts/kills someone/himself, the adult should be liable. This is perfectly fine,..."
Good. We agree about this.
193. bjc4000 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 11:55 AM PT
Cartman,
"Maher frequently uses his show as a bully pulpit for gun control. Ironically, he also uses it regularly to argue for legalizing drugs."
I hardly find it ironic. Others owning and carrying a gun affects me more than someone owning and carrying a joint.
Maher has frequently said that owning a gun is not so horrible just that gun lovers should just admiot that they love guns not protecting themselves from tyranny. As Maher said, your closet full of guns is not going to stop the gunships and stealth bombers.
194. bjc4000 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 11:56 AM PT
Cartman,
"Maher frequently uses his show as a bully pulpit for gun control. Ironically, he also uses it regularly to argue for legalizing drugs."
I hardly find it ironic. Others owning and carrying a gun affects me more than someone owning and carrying a joint.
Maher has frequently said that owning a gun is not so horrible just that gun lovers should just admit that they love guns not protecting themselves from tyranny. As Maher said, your closet full of guns is not going to stop the gunships and stealth bombers.
195. CalGal - Feb. 23, 1999 - 11:59 AM PT
Elliot,
"There's no "proof" that any of these laws reduce violence, so unless you see this as a reason to repeal all criminal law, it is irrelevant. "
Yes, but in these cases a wrong was done to someone, which is why it is a crime. Reducing violence is not the goal, punishing the act is the goal. So no proof is needed.
But you are arguing that restrictions on buying guns are necessary in order to prevent violence. Earlier, you cited some thousands of deaths every year that were directly attributable to the easy access of guns.
So surely you should be able to demonstrate that gun control actually prevents deaths.
196. jonesatlaw - Feb. 23, 1999 - 12:06 PM PT
One of the problems in gun control is that the gun lobby views any legislation concerning firearms as absolutely prohibited by the second amendment. This is nonsense, however it is repeated frequently by those who should know better.
The question is not whether there should be "gun control" but rather what form should it have.
The problem is that guns easily cross boarders in our county. Much like the experience of "dry counties" in southern states, the laws are widely disregarded. When they are so easily avoided, the laws are not fairly tested as policy. That is the key portion of the Brady Bill, its widespread application. Has it reduced murder rates? I think anyone would be hard pressed to present empirical evidence that would show causation. I do note that murder rates are down recently. I would hesitate to assign this to any one factor. Demographic shifts in population, the consolidation of power in the crack wars, increased incarceration rates all would play a role in murder rates. I would gues that their effects are larger than Brady. That isn't to say that it is not worthwhile. Even a small reduction in accidental death or homicide would likely be worth the effort involved.
197. CalGal - Feb. 23, 1999 - 12:18 PM PT
Jones,
"One of the problems in gun control is that the gun lobby views any legislation concerning firearms as absolutely prohibited by the second amendment. "
No, I don't think that at all. However, it is interesting that the US is always compared with countries that have absolute bans on handguns. Would you agree that any such law here is unlikely to pass the Supreme Court?
The toughest "gun control" laws can't make it that hard to own a gun as long as it is legal to own a gun. In this regard it is fairly similar to restricting someone by pulling their driver's license.
And in all the analysis of the lower crime rates recently, I have yet to see anyone give credit to gun control.
198. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 12:53 PM PT
CalGal:
"Yes, but in these cases a wrong was done to someone, which is why it is a crime. Reducing violence is not the goal, punishing the act is the goal. So no proof is needed."
Nonsense. Apparently, you've never heard of deterrence. Murder laws, rape laws, assault laws, drunk-driving laws, gun control laws, and so on are all intended to reduce violence by deterring such crimes. Punishing violators is part of the deterrent effect of the law. A gun dealer who violates the Brady Law is subject to criminal penalties just like a driver who violates drunk-driving laws.
"But you are arguing that restrictions on buying guns are necessary in order to prevent violence. Earlier, you cited some thousands of deaths every year that were directly attributable to the easy access of guns. So surely you should be able to demonstrate that gun control actually prevents deaths."
No, "directly" is your word, not mine. Gun violence is attributable to lack of restrictions on guns in the same way that drunk-driving violence is attributable to lack of restrictions on alcohol. There's no "proof" that any criminal law prevents deaths. There's just evidence. The evidence indicates that the laws work.
199. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 1:01 PM PT
CalGal:
"No, I don't think that at all. However, it is interesting that the US is always compared with countries that have absolute bans on handguns. Would you agree that any such law here is unlikely to pass the Supreme Court?"
No, I would not. Gun bans similar to those that exist in foreign countries have been enacted in a number of U.S. jurisdictions and have survived constitutional challenges. In any case, it is not true that the U.S. is "always compared with countries that have absolute bans on handguns" (which countries would those be, by the way?).
"The toughest "gun control" laws can't make it that hard to own a gun as long as it is legal to own a gun."
Yes, they can make it very hard.
"And in all the analysis of the lower crime rates recently, I have yet to see anyone give credit to gun control."
I see a lot of credit going to gun control.
200. cartman69 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 1:19 PM PT
Elliot Message #192:
We agree to a certain extent. I don't automatically presume responsibility on the part of an adult if a kid commits a crime with a gun. Sometimes the kid knows what he's doing, as in the Jonesboro case. Sometimes the weapons are locked and secured, as in the Jonesboro case.
Look, if an adult is so shit-stupid as to leave a loaded weapon where a kid (even if the kid knows about guns) can get at it easily, then fine -- it's the adult's fault, and he should be liable for the consequences. But it's not the gun manufacturer's fault, it's not the gun dealer's fault, any more than it's your fault or my fault.
And if the guns are securely locked, and unloaded, and the kids broke in, loaded them and used them, like in Jonesboro, then all bets are off. It is absolutely the responsibility of those boys, just as it would have been if they had grabbed steak knives from the silverware drawer and taken *those* to school, instead of guns.
Kids are actually sometimes responsible for their criminal actions. Whether they should be held legally culpable as if they were adults is another matter. Still, they'll most likely be back on the streets when they turn 18, which is a shame.