Do you think that gun manufacturers should be held liable for gun deaths caused by their products? Car manufacturers are taken to the cleaners when their cars start killing lots of people. So, why are gun manufacturers protected by the NRA and the gun/tobacco lobby? Isn't true freedom all about being fair to all, and treating everybody equally?
>>29682348
Because guns don't fail when someone uses them to kill others. If a gun has a malfunction and kills or injures someone, then sue them. If a person drives a car through the crowd, pursue legal action against the driver not the manufacturer.
>>29682348
Freedom is not equality, but freedom is a way to make yourself equal.
>>29682348
>Isn't true freedom all about being fair to all, and treating everybody equally?
I cannot believe that you are actually this pants-shittingly stupid.
Manufacturer defects are the company's fault, hence recalls. However, if the product(the gun or the car) does not malfunction in any way from a factory defect, any use of the product by the consumer is up to them and no fault can be placed on the company.
>>29682348
You make valid points. The gun cartel in Washington has bullied well-meaning Democrats for too long. It's time we stood up to the NRA and took our country back!
>>29682390
>no fault can be placed on the company
Tobacco companies are liable for the deaths they cause, so down with the NRA!!1
>>29682390
Killing people is not functioning as intended. More people are killed by guns every year than live in some countries in the Pacific. Wouldn't it be better if the government was working FOR the people instead of bullying us into a state of constant warfare on our streets?
>>29682348
>He thinks car manufacturers can be held liable for drunk driving deaths
Pls try again.
>>29682406
A car manufacturer gets sued if the airbags fail to go off in a crash and kills the driver, not when that driver decides to go full GTA and drive down a busy sidewalk at 40 MPH.
>>29682348
The only thing I find shit about the whole suing the manufacturers was since they couldn't win the game , they went and changed the rules. That's the only part that left a bad taste in my mouth because it downtown benefit the people in the slightest. That being said no, you can't sue one idiot for what another idiot does.
>>29682408
When Ford released a car with brakes that didn't stop the car, and the car seemed to be built for the express purpose of killing the driver, they got taken to court and were taken to the cleaners in a big way. Why should guns be any different? Explain your reasoning without resorting to racist slurs or xenophobic bigotry.
>>29682406
Why are you so afraid to blame the one behind the trigger, faggot?
>>29682406
Killing people is the owner not using it as intended, barring self defense circumstances.
>Muh gun deaths
2/3s suicides and look at per capita since the USA has far higher population than most countries.
>But the government is moving against the people this way
Except they aren't, million of people have said, then protested about, then voted to keep guns laws the same as they are now, or loosen them up more. In the mean time, despite record high sales, gun related crimes are still following.
>>29682406
More people are killed by falling coconuts than live in some countries in the Pacific.
>What are micronations.
>>29682348
Doesn't really make sense imo, if anything fault should lie with the dealers if they let someone buy a gun without meeting proper requirements, etc. The only time the manufacturers should be held responsible is if the gun is faulty in some way or fails to meet legal safety standards, or if they sell guns directly to the black market or something. Same with cars, really - the manufacturer is held responsible only if it's some actual flaw with the car, not if the driver is irresponsible or actually tries to kill people.
>>29682406
The purpose of a gun is to accelerate projectiles to velocities sufficient to cause harm. If the gun does that, it's working as intended. Unless it discharges on its own or something, there's nothing wrong with the gun itself. If used in unlawful killing, it's the human side that should be held responsible.
>>29682445
>still following.
Still falling*
>>29682434
Because that isn't the fault of the user. If the owner of the car uses the car to kill people it isn't the manufacturers fault, it's the user's.
>>29682441
The killer is of course responsible, but he shares responsibility with a large number of nefarious individuals who helped enable and seduce him into committing the crime.
>>29682434
See >>29682421
I could see a gun manufacturer getting sued if, say, the locking lugs failed on bolt action rifle and flew out the back and impaled the operator through the face. Or the chamber exploded simply from using ammunition listed as approved in the user manual and blinded the shooter and several bystanders.
Not when that shooter decides to shoot someone in the face just because. Manufacturer did nothing wrong there.
>>29682428
Lemme reword this.
The gun companies were losing alot of cases because by all God given right in the eyes of the law they were found guilty of the cases they did manage to lose. They then lobby to Congress to pass a law which states you're not allowed to sue gun companies because no real reason, it's just not allowed anymore.
>>29682445
>Killing people is the owner not using it as intended,
Guns are designed for the express purpose of killing. You can't deny this.
>>29682474
Yes I can. Guns are built for the express purpose of shooting things. People are on the long list of things they can shoot. It's still up to the owner to choose what they shoot with the gun.
>>29682474
Guns don't kill people you fucking retard. Listen to the NRA
>>29682434
There's different assumptions behind guns and cars. A car is expected to stop when you hit the brakes, if it doesn't, then the manufacturer is at fault (assuming the owner or someone else didn't neglect maintenance or something along those lines). A gun is EXPECTED to kill someone if you fire it towards them. So you have only yourself to blame if a gun does exactly what it's supposed to do.
>>29682462
So... the Feds and the ATF?
Law abiding gun owners are already law abiding by default.
>>29682456
>The purpose of a gun is to accelerate projectiles to velocities sufficient to cause harm.
The maker of lawn darts was sued and forced to stop selling his product because it was so dangerous. Guns are about twenty times more deadly than lawn darts. Hence, the manufacturers are wantonly selling deadly death-sticks. They should be prosecuted.
>>29682434
Because that's a manufacturer's defect. If a gun fires, sends the bullet generally in line with the sights and does so without a signifigant chance of injuring the shooter, it is functioning as intended.
Just as is a car that someone steers into a herd of bicyclists. You can't sue the manufacturer for that. You can only take it out on the person who misused a functioning product.
Nigger faggot.
>>29682460
The user had the option to not drive their death machine.
>>29682486
no, a gun's purpose is to shoot shit.
that can be paper, game animals, trees, explosives, and sometimes, people.
the gun does not fire on its own and when it does, it is functioning fine.
it is always the shooters fault.
>>29682486
Again, it's the presumed intent of use of the product. Lawn darts WOULD be legal if sold with the same licensing requirements as guns. But the manufacturer decided that wasn't worth the trouble.
>>29682486
>wantonly selling deadly death-sticks
by this logic, Obama would have been impeached and thrown in prison a long time ago then
>>29682486
>Throw pointy sticks at people
>Expect them not to die or get injured
And
>Shoot people
>Expect them not to die or get injured
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Turns out killing and injuring others is against the laws regardless of the tool.
>>29682496
They also had the option to drive it safely and responsibly without injuring others.
>>29682462
A gun manufacturer making a gun that doesn't fail isn't aiding or enabling a crime, since they have no knowledge of what their weapons may be used for.
>>29682434
>"Pls try again" is racist slurs and xenophobic bigotry
Fuck it, this is fun enough to reply to.
Such a car would not be functioning as desired by a typical user or, presumably, as advertised.
If a gun blew up in the hand and killed the operator, then the gun manufacturer could be held liable. If a gun does what guns are supposed to do, spit out bullets, then they cannot be held liable if the user points those bullets at another person.
Likewise, if a car blows up and kills the user, the company can be held liable. However if the car does what cars are supposed to do and propels several tons of metal and gasoline in excess of 100mph, the company cannot be held liable if someone points that speeding mass of steel at a pedestrian.
If the product does harm only because the user intends harm, the company can have no liability.
>>29682480
You can practice on an electric guitar without it being plugged into an amplifier, but that doesn't change the fact that it is designed to be played with an amp. Just because you can shoot paper targets to practice does not mean that guns aren't ultimately designed to kill. Less-than-lethal options exist, but how many stun guns and cans of pepper spray do you own vs. how many guns you own? I rest my case.
>>29682482
You seem confused,
>>29682521
guns only kill people when the user decides to kill someone with a gun.
the gun does not kill someone, it is a tool.
just like a knife doesn't kill someone, the stabber does.
>>29682484
Gun owners are CONSTANTLY likening guns to cars in trying to justify how "few" gun deaths there are a year. You don't get to get out of the comparison this time.
>>29682484
Wrong. A gun is expected to fire a projectile accurately and without fail or injury to its operator. Doesnt matter if that target is a piece of paper, a ton can, a criminal robbing a liquor store, or an innocent civilian- it is completely up to its user. This is why the user is to blame.
You under observe, this is simple logic, but you are twisting it. They just make simple single or double action tools that operate the same every time. They cannot control what people use those tools for. If you see a guy walking on a sidewalk and you drive into him and kill him, you get the ticket, not the car. You told the car what to do, the car doesnt have a will power. As for makers getting sued to hell n back, thats be cause they made a tool with thousands of possibke issues that are not 100% in your control. A gun is 100% in your control -point and shoot. Socialism is about equality and everybody being equally poor giving the government full control. Freedom is exercising your free will to do as you please without legal repercussions. Granted that moral crimes ar.frowned.upon by the masses..
>>29682514
Yeah, none of that makes any sense.
What about this? It's one of the most commonly used hunting rifles in North America. Is it made to kill people?
>>29682500
How many tasers do you own and how many guns do you own? To put it another way: how many nerf guns, water pistols, cap guns, airsoft and other non-lethal weapons do you own?
Guns' purpose is to KILL.
>>29682514
>Just because you can shoot paper targets to practice does not mean that guns aren't ultimately designed to kill.
Guns aren't designed to kill, they're designed to shoot things. Sometimes this means people. And, once again, self defense situation do exist. And, once again, it's illegal to murder someone regardless of the tool used.
>Less-than-lethal options exist, but how many stun guns and cans of pepper spray do you own vs. how many guns you own? I rest my case.
I don't own any. Because when it's my life on the line vs someone who's attacking me, I'll always take their life before risking my own. If I have a chance to avoid violence altogether that would be taken, but if it comes to violence then it'll be their life that's ended.
>>29682406
So you admit that guns aren't tools for killing?
>>29682503
Why? He's won two Nobel Prizes. He's a great president and a great man who has accomplished a lot, such as reducing the price of gas by nearly 50% and bringing the races together, closer than ever before. Are you sure you didn't mean Bush or Trump?
>>29682504
You know what I'm arguing. If lawn darts are subject to these laws, then gun companies should be subject to the laws too. It's only fair. That's the price of freedom.
>>29682567
Obama is responsible for reducing gas prices? How? I'm genuinely curious. Same with the race thing.
>>29682549
I don't get the point you're trying to make.
a gun's purpose is not to kill.
its purpose is as such;
>fire a cartridge and send a bullet downrange in accordance with the sights every time the trigger is pulled, without harming the operator
all it's doing is firing where it's pointed, and it's working fine.
where killing comes into play is when the user points the gun at a person and pulls the trigger
>>29682508
>build a killing stick and sell it to any two-bit criminal just walking out of a halfway house
>implying they have no knowledge of what their weapons may be used for
Yeah, sure.
>>29682584
>blaming a victim of our shit system
>>29682509
So, in your deranged, racist mind, blowing off the hand of a criminal is worse than blowing off the head of a poor urban youth who is just trying to put food on the table?
>>29682348
>Car manufacturers are taken to the cleaners when their cars start killing lots of people.
If the car malfunctions, and if a gun malfunctioned and killed someone a gun company might be sued.
However what you're proposing is more like someone driving into a crowd of people and the victims suing Ford. If someone were beat with a baseball bat, should their families sue Louisville Slugger? If they were stabbed should they sue Ka-Bar?
The very concept is absurd.
1: Murder is already illegal.
2: The companies were told by the government that their product was legal and
3: The constitution says that the people have a right to bare arms.
And finally as to the particulars of the Sandy Hook case....Lanza killed all those kids and blew his brains out ten minutes before the cops entered the school. He could have used a single shot shotgun and still have finished with 9 minutes to spare, the concept that the death toll was higher because he used an AR-15 is just blatantly false.
>>29682531
>guns only kill people when the user decides to kill someone with a gun.
Never heard of an accidental discharge, I see.
>>29682584
>What are background checks at every FFL
Without using google, you can tell me what an FFL is, right?
>>29682567
You mean aside from being the driving factor in the massive increase in gun sales in the last few years, or because he freely give the same firearms that he claims shouldn't be in American hands to violent rebels.
>>29682576
Lawn darts being banned is absolutely a stupid thing, though I'm pretty sure the company went out of business due to constant frivolous lawsuits more than actually being shut down from the government.
http://cnsnews.com/commentary/cnsnewscom-staff/more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013
>>29682584
>I literally have no idea how guns are sold, the post
>>29682567
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
Sole reason why guns are not ever going to go away is because the same faggots in power who want to take away law abiding gun owners firearms are the same faggots breaking their own laws while trying to take more and more from people who have committed no crime.
People get all uppity about guns and violence while ignoring the fact that they are here for a reason.
You really think Obama gives a shit about Sandy Hook?
car makers get sued when their products fail and cause harm.
tyrone shooting Jamal or /r9k/ shooting /fit/. Is not a product failing.
>>29682602
You mean a "negligent discharge"?
Guns don't randomly go off, they go off accidentally because someone handles them in a negligent manner.
>>29682540
We've been over this. It's a cop out. Let's move on.
>>29682550
Cop out.
>>29682557
No moral factory owner should be selling instruments of mass murder to any child, grandmother or pregnant mom.
>>29682579
>>29682579
COP OUT
O
P
O
U
T
>>29682584
>Implying criminals can get guns legally
>Implying they wont get guns
T-the gun control works guys
>>29682606
>what is lying
>>29682602
I was simplifying my argument.
ND's are a factor but they aren't what we're talking about, are we?
want to actually attempt to refute my statement next time?
>>29682434
That's a defect and isn't intended to work that way. If a gun is used in a killing with intent then it performed as expected therefore no lawsuit can take place as there is no defect with the product. Do you get it now you trolling retard
>>29682596
>1. Murder is already illegal.
And selling a machine that the manufacturer knows kills people has been subject to strict federal regulation in other industries for decades. Just look at the warnings they print on cigarette boxes about cigarettes' potential to KILL. The same warnings do not appear on guns.
>>29682625
>Cop out.
>Curse you for showing me what an idiot I am, I'll just ignore your post and keep believing my deeply held beliefs, because to do as little as entertain the notion I'm wrong will shatter my worldview.
>>29682641
So I just made up a government form while we were talking?
>>29682633
no, I legitimately did not understand the point anon was trying to make.
it's not a cop out if it's genuine.
>>29682625
>>29682633
>Given multiple examples of why the manufacturer cannot be at fault and the very idea is retarded
>C-COP OUTT
>>29682614
>>29682617
Obama never did any of that. You listen to Rush Limbaugh too much. Those are just Rethuglican lies.
>>29682625
>>29682633
I tend to agree that guns are made more to kill things than generically "shoot", but holy god you're a faggot.
>>29682624
Accidental discharges are a thing...
>>29682634
>criminals
>doing things legally
Something ain't right here.
>>29682666
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/10/us/gun-sales-terrorism-obama-restrictions.html
http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales/
Do CNN and NY Times listen to Rush Limbaugh
>I certainly don't, given that I'm Canadian
>>29682645
If a two year old can get a hold of his father's weapon and kill his three year old sister, it's accidental, OK. And it's a public health crisis.
>>29682666
>Rethuglican lies
how are republicans thugs?
a thug is;
>a violent person, especially a criminal
they were elected, they didn't force themselves into office.
>>29682689
>And it's a public health crisis
No it's negligence on the part of the father. Society isn't responsible for one person's action, and it isn't just to punish everyone for a single person's actions. Unless you also agree with restricting Muslims because some of them are extremists.
>>29682653
>>29682657
>>29682662
We've been over this. Just because you can put holes in paper does not change the fact that guns are designed to kill. If you think I'm wrong, try to prove me wrong without greentexting sarcasm like you've been doing. Use arguments and evidence. Show me multiple examples of GUNS that are not nerf guns - firearms - which are NOT designed to kill - where the bullet is so weak that death of the victim is not the main goal. Go ahead. I'll wait.
>>29682692
You mean, aside from lynching People of Color and preventing integrated schools for 100 years?
>>29682679
Exactly my point. Criminals will get their stuff illegally. Gun control does nothing
>>29682704
You are the one making a positive claim. Namely that guns are designed to kill. You haven't provided evidence of you claim, therefore your claim can be dismissed without evidence.
>>29682348
Obvious bait, but I'll bite. Are we gonna start suing Louisville Slugger when someone gets their brains beaten in by a baseball bat? Or how about suing Anheuser-Busch when someone is killed by a drunk driver? Why would a company sell something to the public knowing that the product could cave a skull in, or cause someone to drive recklessly and dangerously?
>>29682652
I think we're on the same page here. We should take those warnings off cigarette packaging, right?
>>29682717
Now I know you're baiting...
>>29682704
we aren't saying some guns weren't designed to kill, we're saying that they can be used for other purposes, and that killing is a decision that the operator makes, not the firearm.
do you not understand this?
>>29682666
>written off as republican and listening to rush limbaugh
Rush Limbaugh wishes my type of people to be killed off, faggot.
>>29682702
>No it's negligence on the part of the father. Society isn't responsible for one person's action
It can be both. When a man's daughter contracts Ebola, and the man hugs her tightly and then goes to work later that day, he may be breaching safety protocol, but it would still contribute to a public health crisis.
>>29682717
You do realize that it was Democrats that were forming lynch mobs and anti-integration rallies for years, right? Or am I just caving by giving you your (You)?
>>29682348
Can't sue when the person was clearly using a defensive weapon for offense. Nigger failed to use it for its proper function.
>>29682704
Well, humans are capable of taking many gunshots before they die. If you look at the many posthumous citations for the Medal of Honor, the human body can accept insults such as explosions, shrapnel, bullet wounds and continue to function.
Most pistols will require several rounds to kill their targets. Their aiming could be improved to kill humans. And so on.
>>29682704
Even though this is retarded as fuck ill take a lil nibble right quick.
Birdshot nigga, ratshot, rubber bullets, rubber slugs. Bait harder plz k thanks
>>29682704
How about the guns they use in biathlon?
>>29682348
guns are designed to kill
if you pay for a gun and it breaks down on you, injuring you, that's the company's fault
if you pay for a gun and go out shooting people, that's you're fault, you used the gun as a weapon
same logic applies to cars, simple.
>>29682734
an ebola epidemic is completely different from some isolated accidental firearms deaths.
now if toddlers all over the US started killing people with guns in a very short amount of time for no reason, you may have somewhat of a point.
>>29682734
Are you saying that negligent behavior is contagious? Seriously, come back when you can argue.
>>29682719
Why have any laws?
>>29682725
>You haven't provided evidence of you claim, therefore your claim can be dismissed without evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
>>29682739
These are just Rethuglican lies.
>>29682742
Why do you think you are judge, jury and executioner? You are none of these things, and thus do not have the right, given to you by the state, to take a human life.
>>29682744
You are thinking in terms of modern medicine, but guns were designed long before it. Without treatment, even a gunshot to an extremity can result in death.
>>29682746
Those are bullets, not guns. Keep trying.
>>29682762
>These are just Rethuglican lies.
see
>>29682692
>>29682762
Ok, so people do things and you can't legislate it away. This that nothing to do with what a firearm was designed for. Show me proof that guns were designed to kill.
>>29682762
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
This just in, cars are designed to kill!
>>29682747
You think those couldn't kill?
>>29682752
>isolated
Don't make me laugh.
>>29682753
Ever heard of video games?
>>29682652
Actually they do print warnings on the boxes firearms come in.
>>29682787
And every box of ammunition.
>>29682782
Car manufacturers are subject to lawsuits when their products kill. Yet gun manufacturers STRANGELY are not. Thank you for proving my point.
>>29682785
>Ever heard of video games?
Yeah, those things that studies have shown don't influence behavior.
>gun/tobacco lobby
Funny how no one has pointed this out.
>>29682762
I really wanna just pass over this shit, but I hear the same stuff from kids in college. If you're gonna cite gun violence rates as proof that guns are designed to kill, then why not cite vehicle-related fatality rates that must, by your logic, prove that cars are designed to kill.
And so the fact that MLK and other civil rights leaders were Republican, and that the Klan was basically the armed wing of the Democratic party, is proof that the Republicans have been the racists all along?
Go be a numb digger somewhere else.
>>29682794
Only when the cars kill because of manufacturer defect, not because someone ran another person over.
>>29682800
You think Adam Lanza didn't play lots of video games before killing all those young, innocent children?
>>29682762
>I can't use it to defend myself when its a matter of life or death.
My fucking life is worth more then someone who is going to take it. If I'm going to hell for killing a person, it better be the person trying to kill me.
>>29682356
/thread
>>29682794
If someone hits you with their Mustang and injures you, do you have the right to sue Ford?
>>29682785
>Show me multiple examples of GUNS that are not nerf guns - firearms - which are NOT designed to kill - where the bullet is so weak that death of the victim is not the main goal. Go ahead. I'll wait.
>which are NOT designed to kill
>You think those couldn't kill?
I think they could, but that isn't what they were designed for.
>>29682810
Lanza had mental disorders, and wasn't properly treated for them.
>>29682804
>I really wanna just pass over this shit, but I hear the same stuff from kids in college. If you're gonna cite gun violence rates as proof that guns are designed to kill, then why not cite vehicle-related fatality rates that must, by your logic, prove that cars are designed to kill.
Exactly my point. So, why aren't gun manufacturers subject to lawsuits when their products start killing lots and lots of people?
>And so the fact that MLK and other civil rights leaders were Republican, and that the Klan was basically the armed wing of the Democratic party, is proof that the Republicans have been the racists all along?
Rethuglicans and Southern Democrats (i.e., Republican Democrats) switched sides back before things went sour.
>>29682406
Find a solution to gang violence and quit blaming guns. If you actually knew anything about reality you'd realize that most gun deaths are caused by gang violence or suicide. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens won't take them out of the hands of criminals.
A simple "No." suffices. Did the gun manufacturer specifically advertise the firearm as the best means to murder other human beings? No? Then the answer is "No.".
Also something something bill of rights but who cares about old pieces of papers just ban guns already its 2016
2
0
1
6
>>29682808
You may actually be surprised. No, not only when it's a defect. And gun manufacturers actually are protected by laws.
>>29682804
I find it so fucking annoying that people ignore the history of the Klan with the Democrats while stereotyping Repubs as racist and white.
Literally in every essence, gun control is racist and was used to stop blacks in the south from being able to protect themselves from the real "white oppressors".
If you support gun control you are actually supporting the Klan and racism, end of story.
>>29682794
Can you show me a case where a car manufacturer was successfully sued when the person driving the car deliberately ran someone down?
>>29682822
How many people on /k/ do you think DOESN'T have a mental disorder? I see all these threads where people are pretending to be Russians and being really weird, eating canned slavic fish. That's not something that a sane human being does. I hope they are receiving treatment and medication.
>>29682810
>correlation =/= causation
So if violent video games turned people into killers, wouldn't all those 12 year olds on Cawadooty who banged my mom be mass murderers?
>>29682828
see >>29682813
If someone knowingly commits a vehicular assault on you with their car, by no defect of the vehicle and by total fault of the driver, do you get to sue the company?
>>29682831
>solution to gang violence
So stop being racist and oppressing inner city youths into joining gangs? Gang violence is a result of white exploitation of blacks.
>>29682855
being Russian and eating canned salvic fish isnt a mental illness, you racist fuck
>>29682836
Yeah, the Protection in Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Which says that lawful commerce is legal, and misuse of products doesn't mean you can sure the manufacturer. Defects in the gun can lead to lawsuits just fine, someone murdering another person doesn't mean the manufacturer is responsible at all.
>>29682855
>People can't enjoy roleplay and niche communities because it makes me feel weird
>Of course transexuals are exempt from this because they make Republicans feel weird.
>>29682833
>Did the gun manufacturer specifically advertise the firearm as the best means to murder other human beings?
Except that's exactly how guns are marketed!
>>29682849
Kia. Nuff said.
>>29682348
Bait
>>29682434
>the car seemed to be built for the express purpose of killing the driver
When would this ever happen? What guns are built expressly for killing the operator? Your example makes no sense.
No, a manufacturer should not be held liable for the actions of the person using the product. I could go beat someone to death with a length of steel pipe, should the maker of the pipe be sued? No. Guns have more uses than "omg killing children!!11." Please look up things like target shooting, hunting, and self defense. Also, if you're going to use the whole "ebil raycis gun owners" argument, please keep in mind that one of the original purposes of gun control was to keep firearms out of the black community during the Jim Crow era, and remember that this idea came from the Democrats at the time.
>>29682863
>thinks the whites are oppressing city youth to join gangs and kill each other
>thinks blacks are still getting exploited by whites
wew lad. good attempt
Self defense is murder, right.
The only real murder happening here is this board taking this thread seriously.
Ban guns 2016 fuck rights, fuck your freedom.
>>29682882
>What guns are built expressly for killing the operator?
22,000 suicide deaths, by gun, a year would like to have a word with you.
>>29682892
All men are created equal. If there is inequality or inequity anywhere, it is the result of exploitation. Don't you know anything?
>>29682872
>Kia. Nuff said.
No, it isn't enough said. Give me a link to a specific case, please.
>>29682895
they were used to kill the operator, not built for it.
there's no Ruger Suicide Special you fucking retard
>>29682872
>except thats exactly how guns are marketed!
post source. Show us a gun manufacturer actually marketing the killing of human beings as the sole reason for buying their product.
>protip: deer doesnt count.
>>29682894
I don't think anyone is.
Plus OP created a loophole for people to talk about gun control and violence on here technically.
22,000?
My words are "Good on you, keep up the hard work of giving others easy ways out."
>>29682905
So you're telling me that a man born with two legs is equal to a man born with no legs? Whew...
>>29682762
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1924_Democratic_National_Convention#Ku_Klux_Klan
>>29682916
Yes, but women are only worth 77%
>>29682909
>used to kill the operator, not built for it
Just like how lawn darts were built for family fun, but they ended up killing family pets, and causing serious injury to children.
>>29682922
>Baiting this hard.
>>29682929
(You)
>>29682911
>>29682905
>This is bait.
>>29682928
those were accidental deaths caused by a manufacturer oversight and user retardation.
>>29682928
So you're saying that misuse of inanimate objects by people may result in injury or death? Alert the presses, this is important news.
Lawn darts is the only argument laid down here.
Lawn darts.
Why not lawn grenades?
>>29682922
And blacks are only worth 60%.
>>29682348
Bait troll thread, but car makers are sued when the car poses a saftey risk to the driver causing injury or death.
So to be apples to apples, a gun owner could sue colt because they purposefully used cheap pot metal and not use proper heat treatment and said colt 1911's start blowing up and shreddong the users hand.
Suing a car maker because a terrorist drove a car they manufactured into an abortion clinic cannot sue the car maker.
Cause you know, common sense and none of are stupid, you are not stupid are you?
Same with a family of gang members suing smith and wesson because a cop used an M&P on their dindu father/husband because common sense and we are not stupid.
And same would go for a knife maker if a customer who bought their knife set used the wrong knife and technique to remove the stone from an Avacado.
Etc. Ad infinity.
Please report and sage this thread for just being /pol/ instead of /k/ related.
>>29682936
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here...
>>29682939
Your best example is decades old, at best? Please try again.
>>29682939
Nothing here implies or explicitly states that killing the burglar was Mrs. Dock's goal.
>>29682939
Got anything recent?
Your old black and white gunporn isnt doing it for me you boring fuck.
>>29682941
>or user retardation
In other words, the user deliberately used a lethal implement to kill people? Just like with guns.
>>29682943
All I'm saying is let gun manufacturers be treated the same as all other companies. Equality is what this country was founded on.
>>29682945
Because lawn darts were real things that were forced to stop being sold because of a lawsuit.
>>29682951
Here is your (you)
>>29682960
>>29682956
>>29682955
>literally get proven wrong
>decide that moving the goalposts is the best way to save face
I'm laughing at you because you're in the first and last stage of denial: denial.
>>29682961
>a lethal implement
potentially lethal, just like a gun.
death via gun is not universal.
getting shot in the leg and getting shot in the eyeball are two totally different situations with two totally different outcomes.
guns are potentially lethal, as are kitchen knives, lawn darts, rocks, screwdrivers, icepicks, etc.
should I sue ka-bar if someone stabs me with a bayonet?
>>29682939
>>29682956
this. she was defending herself, and was marketed to her defending herself, not killing the burglar. try again
>>29682961
>All I'm saying is let gun manufacturers be treated the same as all other companies. Equality is what this country was founded on.
They already are. If they fuck up and their product doesn't function as intended, and injures the user then they can be sued, the same as every other industry. And just like any other industry, they aren't responsible because people intentionally misuse their products to harm others, it's the fault of the person who harms others. There isn't any difference in how they're treated.
>>29682969
USA doesn't have anti-SLAPP laws, meaning they just kept getting sued by ignorant retards who can't use things safely until they went bankrupt.
>>29682982
Honestly, it seems to me that the poster is more about how easy it is to aim the handgun, and that it came in handy when a woman was able to defend herself in a home invasion. It literally never says it was designed to kill, just that it was designed to be easy to aim.
>>29682977
Look, left to his own devices, a man with no legs would likely die of starvation before a man with two functioning legs. If you can tell me with a straight face that those two men are equal, then I'll show you a man who doesn't properly understand the distinction between equity and equality.
>>29682969
Bitch I'm talking about lawn grenades no one cares about your liberal fantasy of having an alternative means of having firearms removed from the hands of american citizens so you can feel like you did anything in your pathetic existence. Some parents whore daughter got killed by some faggot and tired to sue the people that sold the ammo and now have to pay legal fees which the fucking Brady foundation won't even help pay.
Good going, gungrabbers.
Go step on a Lego lawn grenade.
>>29682982
Guns are never going away.
>>29682982
where in the picture does it state that this gun was designed to kill the burglar? it only claims to be an easy to use pistol- easy enough that a woman with no training used it effectively in a home defense.
try again.
>>29682993
Your going to take a picture of your mirror?
>>29683000
>>29682992
>>29682985
>all this damage control
Why mention the burglar getting shot at all? It's always been distasteful to talk about murdering people, but intelligent adults can infer the purpose of the killing-machine because we have brains, unlike you.
>>29682996
this is bad....somehow? That's the natural state of any introduced technology. Nothing goes away, once introduced.
>>29683032
Then what the fuck happened to mini discs?
>>29683005
>Ad Hominem.
>>29683027
wait, are you advocating for women and your glorious people of color to not have a way to defend themselves against their white cis male shitlord oppressors?
you're a fucking bigot, wow
>>29683027
Still not saying that it's designed to kill people. What you infer from it is up to you. Some people like knowing they can defend themselves at home, which isn't murder.
>>29683037
You still know about them. I never said the technology would continue to be used.
>>29683046
>What you infer from it is up to you.
Don't play innocent. There is only one interpretation, despite how much of a smart-alec you are.
>>29683027
>distasteful to talk about murdering people
criminals getting what they deserve is distasteful?
lel
>intelligent adults can infer the purpose of the killing-machine because we have brains, unlike you.
>killing machine
>literally in an example where she used it to save her life.
if you dont understand that without the gun something horrible could have happened, you are literally retarded.
>>29683056
I just see an ad for an FN Five Seven, and the person firing the gun happens to be a female.
what do you see?
>>29683042
>baiting this hard
C'mon, man, I even used the wrong "your/you're". Try harder.
>>29683056
No there isn't. I get that women may feel more comfortable if they know they have a handgun they can rely upon in their home. I don't get anything to the tune of "go out and kill people at every opportunity" like you suggest.
>>29683052
I bet you forgot, though.
>>29683061
She was not judge, jury or executioner. The government did not issue her a license to kill. It was murder.
What I see here is a smart-alec: >>29683062
>>29683032
I was implying the opposite of bad, actually.
>>29683072
I'm pretty sure self defense is a reason to be allowed to kill...
>>29683071
Strawmanning won't make me wrong.
>>29683072
>Defending your home from invasion is murder
Not according to US law.
>>29683072
>She was not judge, jury or executioner. The government did not issue her a license to kill. It was murder.
Absolutely wrong, it was self defense. When you are being attacked it is more than reasonable to defend yourself, which that women did. Once again, it was not a murder.
>>29683082
>Strawmanning won't make me wrong.
Claiming you're right doesn't make it so.
>>29683072
again, how fucked up are you, to the point where, if you see a gun in any ad you think "holy shit I can kill someone with this"
do you see a firearm and just scream?
also, that ad is talking about self defense.
novel concept, really.
it means being able to defend yourself from an attacker who usually has a weapon or some advantage, by using a weapon of your own.
neat, right?
also it's smart aleck, not smart alec, you fucking idiot
>>29683064
I don't even know who the fuck I'm replying to anymore. Men are not equal by nature. 1 and 1 are equal. The should be treated as equal. A black man and a white woman are not equal. They should not be treated as equal. However they should be given equitable consideration. Follow me? Or did I lose you again?
>>29683072
>>29683085
Was about to say... according to the same government said judge, jury and executioner are from, it's called self defense. Not murder.
>>29683072
>I bet you forgot, though.
I didn't have to look up what they were, so no. Same principal as the day of the dead, if somebody remembers it, it isn't gone.
>>29682356
Rarely is first post in a thread is the most succinct and perfect answer to the question at hand. Well done.
>>29683072
she was a victim of a crime, nothing else. Nothing.
the government does not give a license to kill, But we all have a right to life, self preservation, and defense.
>>29683081
It's NEVER ok to kill.
>>29682348
>gun/tobacco lobby
Surely you mean the gun/tobacco/rape/video game piracy/pedophilia lobby?
>>29683085
Then the law needs to be changed.
>>29683096
So you admit that people have a right to life, self preservation, and self defense, but you condemn someone who uses said rights?
>>29683105
It's absolutely ok to kill someone who is threatening your life. If they are the aggressor they will more than likely take your life, and will likely continue to harm people. When your life is in danger, it is perfectly reasonable to respond with life ending force.
>>29683105
Sometimes it's justified. We shouldn't be speaking absolutes anon. By that metric you're a complete fucking idiot with no redeeming values, thanks for starting this shit thread.
>>29683105
Have fun being dead then.
Useless.
>>29683109
so you want defenseless, innocent people to be killed in home invasions, muggings, etc?
>>29683092
Spoken like a racist, misogynist Rethuglican.
>>29683105
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>29683109
>>29683092
Not him, but:
>Follow me? Or did I lose you again?
Ad Hominem.
And for the record, I think you are correct, no person is equal to another.
>>29683121
Aha, look guys, I found the troll.
>>29683121
Spoken like a true baiting liberrhoid. Shouldn't you be writing articles for the Huffington Post right now?
>>29683118
It's only a problem to him when blacks are killed.
>>29683096
>nothing else
Aside from a murderer, but I'm sure you didn't need me to tell you that.
>>29683105
Tell that to your white blood cells.
>>29683105
>>29683130
It's wasn't ad hominem, I had to re word my point so he understood. Except, I realized that he is just baiting.
>>29683140
No one asked for your snide comment. Why are you even here if it's obvious you dislike firearms, fuck off.
>>29683143
>white blood cells
>white blood
>white
So it's impossible to not be racist for anyone then :^)
>>29683091
I don't think that. Stop projecting.
If you are watching a play, and someone places a gun on the fireplace mantle, do you really think that the gun won't go off by the third act? Really?? Guns exist for the purpose of being shot, and they are designed so that when they do shoot, they kill. There is no way you can possibly prove me wrong.
>>29683140
No, you're someone who survived being attacked by a violent criminal.
>As opposed to being a victim of a violent crime and dying.
>>29683131
Except he was actually acting like a racist, misogynist Rethuglican. Nice try, though.
>>29683152
Guess i should rename my white blood cells cop cells then...
>the human body's own police force
>>29683163
That was me.
>>29683147
Mine wasn't an Ad Hom, either, fuckwit.
>>29683153
>they are designed so that when they do shoot, they kill.
They are designed so that they shoot. A consequence of getting shot is dying, or being wounded. It's up to the person holding the gun to decide what gets shot.
>>29683153
Guns only go off when you pull the trigger.
>>29683156
The minute she turns a lethal weapon against a desperate man, down on hard times but just trying to put food on the table, she becomes a murderer.
>>29683153
>ad hominem; the post
>>29683175
>Not Ad Hominem.
>Fuckwit.
>>29683153
Anon, you don't specify is the gun is loaded or not. I'm assuming you do mean them to be loaded. If they are, the cartridge may heat up and burst, but there are safety mechanism built into most competent arms that will shield users from hot gases, even then why would you place a loaded firearm near your fireplace. That's like shifting blame away from yourself if you placed gasoline near the fire. Granted gas and firearms are different beast, but they would both achieve the misplaced autistic effect you desire.
>>29683183
The man was invading her property
>>29683176
>They are designed so that they shoot
We've been over this. If you want something that "just shoots", then why don't you buy airsoft only? How many airsoft guns do you own vs. firearms?
God, this thread makes me understand what the 'Strayans see in shitposting.
>>29682348
Guns manufacturers should only be held accountable if the gun blows up in the owner's face due to quality control/manufacture defect.
NOTHING ELSE
>>29683182
That is far from universal. Ever heard of an accidental discharge?
>>29683185
Wow, you really don't know what "ad hominem" means, huh.
>>29683183
>The minute she turns a lethal weapon against a desperate man, down on hard times but just trying to put food on the table, she becomes a murderer.
You're making assumptions. And a man who is willing to harm another over material possessions is a violent thug, regardless of circumstances, and suffered the consequences of his actions.
>>29683193
No airsoft guns, because I don't want airsoft guns. I want to be able to target shoot, hunt, and should the need arise, defend myself.
>>29683193
a gun is a tool.
it can be used for many things, including, but not limited to;
>harvesting food from animals
>self defense
>hobby/fun
a firearm is a tool.
it only becomes a weapon when you use it with malicious intent.
>>29683193
Anon, what is the root claim you're making here. Stop beating around the bush with your qualifiers and fucking say what you want to say.
>>29683188
It's a metaphor. Maybe that's a little difficult for you to understand. I should have known we'd have problems with this topic.
>>29683187
>>29682794
Jesus fucking christ, how thick is your skull?
This thread has gone on waaaay too long.
>>29683213
Fantastic, thanks for clearing that up.
>>29683196
Jokes on them anyway, buncha nogunz.
>>29683202
Accidental discharges do not exist. It is a lazy term used as an excuse by those who have big egos and can't admit they fucked up. They also should not have been handling firearms in the first place.
Negligent discharge is the word you are looking for.
>>29683204
>hunt, and should the need arise, defend myself.
You just proved me right.
>>29683223
>That pic
thanks, didn't have that one. Got any more?
>>29683212
He was trying to say that people should be able to sue manufacturers after someone shoots someone else with their product. Except he was destroyed in one post and so is shitting around without admitting defeat and claiming victory with every post.
>>29683231
Lemme fish around for one. Maybe I do.
>>29683212
Read the thread. I said it a million times already.
>>29683228
>Accidental discharges do not exist
They ABSOLUTELY do exist.
MODS
O
D
S
SEND THIS TROLL THREAD TO >>>/pol/ WHERE IT BELONGS PLEASE.
>>29683229
>You just proved me right.
How so? Everyone is still unsure what you are trying to argue, except "firearms are designed for murdering only" which was soundly destroyed, and "firearms manufacturers are exempt from the law" which was also soundly destroyed.
>And that self defense is murder, so more of a personal view, but legally it is not and nobody here agrees with you on this.
>>29683228
What if you pressed on the side of a pistol and it shot
>>29683229
if there is nobody to help you, and someone breaks in your home, would you rather be defenseless and forced into hiding, or have the ability to level the playing field and stop an attack?
>>29683251
Not every pistol is that obscure ww2 Japanese sidearm.
>>29683258
Just saying
>>29683247
Don't play coy. Anyone can read the reply history or re-read the OP and clearly see what case is being made. Your posts are embarrassing to read, for both of us. How can anyone be in such denial as you are right now? I hope that you are just trolling.
>>29682356
Absolutely based.
>>29683243
>They ABSOLUTELY do exist.
give me a definition and cite no less than 3 recent (in the past 5 years) examples.
I don't want your opinion in this post, I just want examples and the definition of an "accidental discharge". I'll wait.
>>29683258
>be presented with evidence that proves you wrong
>only way to save face is to move the goalposts...AGAIN
This is a familiar pattern for you.
>>29683252
Impersonating the police is a felony.
>this thread
>>29683276
how is defending yourself impersonating police?
if the suspect is gone and you're dead, the police are useless.
>>29683243
Got a source of an "accidental discharge" that doesnt involve some dumbass US cop blaming his stupidity on his issued pistol?
Or any source that doesnt involve the user doing something to the gun that it was not designed for?
Even if a gun could go off on it's own, like leaving it on top of a fireplace, you should be held liable for it since you left it there knowing.
A gun going off may not have been the intention of someone but only they can cause it.
>>29683272
>gun is manufactured with, or develops a defect with regular use
>charge ammo into weapon
>top bullet in magazine fires when brought into battery
Your status: ANALLY ANNIHILATED
>>29683265
So you're saying the firearms manufacturers are treated differently than any other manufacturer? See the first post in this thread. Keep reading it until you understand it. PLCAA is designed to prevent frivolous unwinnable lawsuits from being spammed at firearms manufacturers who are blamed for how people misuse their products, a phenomenon which only exists for that industry. When people drive cars through crowds, they blame the person, not the manufacturer, but if someone kills another with a gun, the manufacturer is now somehow implicated, which is false and won't hold up in court, but legal costs are expensive and so PLCAA protects the firearms manufacturers from the unethical lawsuits designed to bankrupt them.
>>29683276
>self defense in your own home is impersonating police
You aren't even trying, your should probably close you laptop, go outside, and reevaluate your life.
>>29683292
That is still intention by the user to set the weapon off like that. Not accidental you tard.
>>29683242
>fish around
>>29683246
Thanks to both of you
