Newtown families to announce lawsuit against gunmaker

[styrgwillidar]

Naturally Second Amendment advocates would like to make the case that more guns means safer streets. But just because this logical fallacy is quoted by foxnews, that does not make it any less of a fallacy.

Similarly, anti-gun advocates would like to make the case that more guns mean more dangerous streets. But just because this logical fallacy is quoted by (insert news service/organization here), that does not make it any less of a fallacy.

As you said, correlation doesn’t equal causation. Crime rates have dropped across most of the developed world - not just in the US. (Difficult to asses if one compares nation to nation due to differences in reporting, i.e. some nations like the US report incidents as homicides even where no one was convicted, and includes manslaughter in homicide totals- some other countries report only incidents as homicides if someone is convicted and don’t include manslaughter) But the trend in most developed nations has been downward- regardless of the gun laws. So, I agree it is difficult to ascribe the decrease in gun violence to just the more liberal concealed carry laws of the past couple of decades. However, since the number of guns has markedly increased during the same period, one can see there is not a correlation (much less a causation) between greater numbers of guns and an increase in crime.

 

[styrgwillidar]

That may be what trained, but then you take a George Zimmerman, and, no matter what you think of the case, I think this is pretty clearly a man who saw himself as the righteous protector of his neighborhood and would have never gotten out of his car if he wasn’t armed.

Big picture here: let’s not forget that the legal gunowner of the weapons used in the Newtown massacre herself was killed by her own weapons because she did not properly secure them.

This whole idea that everyone can be trained properly to use these weapons is just plain wrong.

You’re entitled to your opinion. But there is no evidence to support it. I do agree, he was an idiot to look out for his neighbors and be concerned about them. It is much better to adopt the philosophy of Rick in Casablanca. “I stick my neck out for nobody.”

Instead of calling the police about a suspicious character during a time where there had been multiple break-ins, he should have just continued to the store and not called the police. I mean sure, someone had broken in on that woman and her child, but the intruder had just run away so even if the suspicious character was going to break in somewhere, they probably just would have run away if confronted. Sure would have been a lot easier on him to just look out for himself.

 

[Crossbones]

You’re entitled to your opinion. But there is no evidence to support it. I do agree, he was an idiot to look out for his neighbors and be concerned about them. It is much better to adopt the philosophy of Rick in Casablanca. “I stick my neck out for nobody.”

Instead of calling the police about a suspicious character during a time where there had been multiple break-ins, he should have just continued to the store and not called the police. I mean sure, someone had broken in on that woman and her child, but the intruder had just run away so even if the suspicious character was going to break in somewhere, they probably just would have run away if confronted. Sure would have been a lot easier on him to just look out for himself.

Of course, he did call 911 and was told that they didn’t need him to follow anyone. And that’s also the guidelines of the neighborhood watch. And maybe if he had followed the dispatcher and the guidelines, he would have actually been watching out for his neighbors instead of killing one of them.

Do you go to a doctor that regulars kills his patients?

 

[styrgwillidar]

I didn’t. You might want to read back over the remarks with a discerning eye, if you really though I called anyone names.

As a rule, most do not need guns in their private live. I sure wouldn’t want to mess with them unarmed.

No you didn’t call anyone names. You phrased it as proposition that one could look at the situation that a person who chooses to carry a weapon could be considered the pantywaist. The coward. I chose to springboard off that concept in my response.

I think there is a problem in people considering a fight as sport vice combat. They are two very different things. I have seen enough people who viewed fighting as a sport who ran into people who viewed fighting as combat to understand the difference and was trying to illustrate the point. It isn’t about winning, it is about survival.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Of course, he did call 911 and was told that they didn’t need him to follow anyone. And that’s also the guidelines of the neighborhood watch. And maybe if he had followed the dispatcher and the guidelines, he would have actually been watching out for his neighbors instead of killing one of them.

Do you go to a doctor that regulars kills his patients?

And he stopped following him. As both the dispatcher and the girl on the phone with Trayvon testified. Hence, his statement that, “They always get away.” As he transitioned to talking to the dispatcher about where he would meet the responding police and hung up. The dispatcher testified he ended the call because Zimmerman had lost sight of Trayon and was returning to his vehicle, he had stopped following Trayvon as the dispatcher requested.

He wasn’t on neighborhood watch at the time, he was going to the store and noted someone he thought was acting suspiciously.

Again, far better in our society to mind our own business and let our neighbors fend for themselves-- if Zimmerman had focused on that, the whole thing never would have occurred.

 

[Crossbones]

And he stopped following him. As both the dispatcher and the girl on the phone with Trayvon testified. Hence, his statement that, “They always get away.” As he transitioned to talking to the dispatcher about where he would meet the responding police and hung up. The dispatcher testified he ended the call because Zimmerman had lost sight of Trayon and was returning to his vehicle, he had stopped following Trayvon as the dispatcher requested.

He wasn’t on neighborhood watch at the time, he was going to the store and noted someone he thought was acting suspiciously.

Again, far better in our society to mind our own business and let our neighbors fend for themselves-- if Zimmerman had focused on that, the whole thing never would have occurred.

Well, no, he was following him and lost him - probably frightening the young man in the process.

He was part of the neighborhood watch at the time. So, he’s not ‘on duty’ so he doesn’t need to follow the rules.

That said, I agree with your last statement. If Zimmerman had focused on minding his own business, the whole thing wouldn’t have occurred. Kind of like the incompetent doctor would have been better off never becoming a doctor in the first place, no matter how much he ‘cared’.

 

[styrgwillidar]

But what is so great about noting a lack of correlation in this instance, unless it also says something about causation? You just acknowledged that the decrease in crime may be caused by other factors. Therefore we still have the possibility that crime might have decreased even more if guns were reduced, in addition to whatever other factors were responsible for the reduction in crime.

So great? I have no idea. It’s simply the same point you are making- there is a vast difference between correlation and causation. Certainly the decrease may be caused by other factors. But, there has been a substantial increase in gun ownership and the number of guns in circulation as the crime rate has dropped. Ergo, increasing the numbers of guns does not increase crime. Your statement that decreasing the number of guns will result in a decrease in crime is not supported by any data. In fact, the only available data indicates that crime has dropped while the number of guns increased. Note, in the US it has dropped in all categories of violent crime while nations establishing stricter gun laws have seen lower rates of gun-crime, but increases on other types of violent crime.

The other point being, the laws proposed to reduce the number of guns will in fact make people more vulnerable to crime, but there is no evidence to indicate it will have a positive affect since crime is being lowered without taking those steps. So, why should we make the law-abiding more vulnerable to crime without any substantive date to support taking that action?

 

[styrgwillidar]

Well, no, he was following him and lost him - probably frightening the young man in the process.

He was part of the neighborhood watch at the time. So, he’s not ‘on duty’ so he doesn’t need to follow the rules.

That said, I agree with your last statement. If Zimmerman had focused on minding his own business, the whole thing wouldn’t have occurred. Kind of like the incompetent doctor would have been better off never becoming a doctor in the first place, no matter how much he ‘cared’.

He lost him because the dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he had gotten out of his car, and Zimmerman responded ‘Yes’. The dispatcher than said, “We don’t need you to do that”. Zimmerman said ‘ok’, and according to the dispatcher, indicated he’d stopped following Trayvon and the topic shifted to where to meet the responding police.

Yes, I agree. We should stick to our own business and leave others to theirs. We have no business looking out for others, that’s their responsibility not ours. Again, much better to go through life with Rick’s attitude “I stick my neck out for nobody”.

Sorry - wandering off topic here… the parents of these kid must be in such terrible pain. I am confident that they believe they are doing what is right in terms of making things better. I don’t think they are after money as much as trying to make some sense out of this tragedy that has befallen their families.

 

[pnewton]

No you didn’t call anyone names. You phrased it as proposition that one could look at the situation that a person who chooses to carry a weapon could be considered the pantywaist. The coward. I chose to springboard off that concept in my response.
.

You still are not taking what I said the way I said it. I made no statement. I asked a question because I found it ironic that if one had to call someone that name, I would not thing the one carrying some sort of force equalizer could be seen as the weaker one. That is counter intuitive to my way of thinking. I was not even the one that introduced the word. I do not know if I was not clear, your are not reading, or you are being obtuse, but I did not say anything that should spring the way you jumped.

I want to make it clear that I disown any opinion close to the one that I have been characterized as having. They are not mine. They are being foisted upon me.

. Or as Admiral Halsey said (referring to an old Louisiana gambler’s adage) Never give a sucker an even break.

As opposed to doing unto others as you would have others do to you?

Society is not war. Our fellow citizens are not our enemies. If we live as if life was a war in which we need to be armed and seek an unequal advantage over others, then people will die over our hurt feelings, our misunderstanding or our rash actions. This is the disadvantage of deadly force. It is hard to recall mistakes.

 

[Crossbones]

He lost him because the dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he had gotten out of his car, and Zimmerman responded ‘Yes’. The dispatcher than said, “We don’t need you to do that”. Zimmerman said ‘ok’, and according to the dispatcher, indicated he’d stopped following Trayvon and the topic shifted to where to meet the responding police.

Yes, I agree. We should stick to our own business and leave others to theirs. We have no business looking out for others, that’s their responsibility not ours. Again, much better to go through life with Rick’s attitude “I stick my neck out for nobody”.

Sorry - wandering off topic here… the parents of these kid must be in such terrible pain. I am confident that they believe they are doing what is right in terms of making things better. I don’t think they are after money as much as trying to make some sense out of this tragedy that has befallen their families.

So, Zimmerman was only breaking the rules of the Neighborhood Watch instead of both breaking the rules of the Neighborhood Watch and disobeying the dispatcher, who wasn’t there to confirm exactly what Zimmerman was doing.

Listen, if you want to go into battle with a guy like Zimmerman, who cares and is probably more likely to accidentally kill you than the enemy, go for it. Of course, he probably doesn’t get through basic as generally, while you might like guys that care, the military drums the incompetent out.

And, yes, we’re off topic a bit here.

 

[styrgwillidar]

You still are not taking what I said the way I said it. I made no statement. I asked a question because I found it ironic that if one had to call someone that name, I would not thing the one carrying some sort of force equalizer could be seen as the weaker one. That is counter intuitive to my way of thinking. I was not even the one that introduced the word. I do not know if I was not clear, your are not reading, or you are being obtuse, but I did not say anything that should spring the way you jumped.

I want to make it clear that I disown any opinion close to the one that I have been characterized as having. They are not mine. They are being foisted upon me.
As opposed to doing unto others as you would have others do to you?

Society is not war. Our fellow citizens are not our enemies. If we live as if life was a war in which we need to be armed and seek an unequal advantage over others, then people will die over our hurt feelings, our misunderstanding or our rash actions. This is the disadvantage of deadly force. It is hard to recall mistakes.

No- polite society is not war. I am a polite and law abiding member of society, I expect others to be the same. I find that if I treat them in that manner, everyone I have encountered thus far responds in kind. Any disagreement is dealt with civilly with discussion, debate and consideration of one another’s opinion. My father’s sacrifices in pulling himself out of the area he was raised spoiled me. Almost my entire life has been lived in a very civil and peaceful environment where people do not resort to violence or physical harm. And as I said-- I have been taught and raised to avoid violent conflict. You seem to think that folks having the effective means to defend themselves when there is a threat to their life will result in them resorting to it when there is no threat to their life. That somehow, a person who seeks to avoid violence, who sees it as a last resort, will abandon that viewpoint and philosophy simply because they carry a piece of hardware. The data on CCW holders across the US shows differently-- they are the least likely group of people to be involved in crime or violence. In fact, at lower rates than the police. Again, they seem, at least so far in the US, to be those folks whose first objective is to avoid having to use the firearm at all.

Unfortunately, not everyone in the world has been raised the same way, or views life the same way as I do. My career in the Navy and traveling around the world taught me the wisdom of my father’s words. I have seen folks who have been the victims of attacks and assaults- it isn’t pretty. There are those who view others as prey. Read ‘Mindhunter’ or other accounts of true crime. There are evil people in this world. They will not be reasoned with, they will not be merciful, they will utilize every advantage they can get, they aren’t like you and I, they are the Adam Lanzas of this world. They are willing to do things you and I can’t fathom and could never do. Any person who attacks you is your enemy, whether you care to recognize that or not. I admire any person who sticks to the road of peace and non-violence to the point that they are willing to be killed to set an example for their attacker. The catechism and doctrine of the Church does not require it, but I do admire it if it is a conscious choice- that they’ll lay down their life to try and bring their attacker to God.

But I do have a problem in disarming people who would prefer to choose otherwise.

 

[styrgwillidar]

…
Listen, if you want to go into battle with…
…
And, yes, we’re off topic a bit here.

My point is, I don’t want to ‘go into battle’ at all. But I wouldn’t mind the option to have the effective means to defend myself and those I am responsible for…

But more on topic. I don’t think the parents from Newton want money, I do think they want to make things better. Someone else mentioned the appropriate thing is push our representative to have the laws changed, which is what I think these parents really want. But what would be an improvement?

I see the issue as keeping guns out of the hands of those that shouldn’t have them. Not in punishing everyone by stripping them of their rights. Our rights shouldn’t be dependent on what criminals choose to do. Violent people, mentally ill people should be prevented from having weapons. (Although that’s pretty tough since folks use knives and cars and about anything else as weapons). California passed a law recently which I think tries to go down the right road. Just as all but one of these spree shootings in the past 50 years has happened in a gun-free zone, virtually all have been done by people that were known to have mental issues. The California law allows for family members to report relatives having mental issues to the state, which then confiscates the weapons. Seems pretty reasonable-- if there’s a method for verifying whether they’re unstable or not. Main criticism seems to be concern over vindictive relatives using the system to harass people. And the cost/time of clearing things up if they do. I think those kinds of issues can be addressed.

I think the Newton families could push for something like that nationally. A greater ability to initially take custody of someone’s firearms and get them evaluated in terms of being a risk. Again, it seems like after every one of these we found out that the families knew there was a problem, had tried to get treatment, or confinement, but due to existing laws regarding the mentally ill had not been successful in getting the folks confined/treated.

 

[ucfengr]

Well, as said earlier, a woman (or man) who is in need of protection, a person defending country or community.

On the other hand, a person can choose to carry a gun just to make themselves more powerful and dangerous. This could result in someone choosing to “stand their ground” when a retreat would keep someone alive.

Everybody has the potential to encounter a situation in which they will need to protect themselves or their family. A firearm is the most efficient tool for that use, and, counter intuitively, it’s the one least likely to have to be used in the situation. Brandishing it is often sufficient to discourage an attacker. This is less likely to be the case if you’re relying on your decades of martial arts training, or your impressive gym-built physique (you do have those, right?).

“Stand Your Ground” is independent of gun laws. Many places with very restrictive gun laws don’t impose a “duty to retreat” upon their citizens.

 

[Crossbones]

My point is, I don’t want to ‘go into battle’ at all. But I wouldn’t mind the option to have the effective means to defend myself and those I am responsible for…

But more on topic. I don’t think the parents from Newton want money, I do think they want to make things better. Someone else mentioned the appropriate thing is push our representative to have the laws changed, which is what I think these parents really want. But what would be an improvement?

I see the issue as keeping guns out of the hands of those that shouldn’t have them. Not in punishing everyone by stripping them of their rights. Our rights shouldn’t be dependent on what criminals choose to do. Violent people, mentally ill people should be prevented from having weapons. (Although that’s pretty tough since folks use knives and cars and about anything else as weapons). California passed a law recently which I think tries to go down the right road. Just as all but one of these spree shootings in the past 50 years has happened in a gun-free zone, virtually all have been done by people that were known to have mental issues. The California law allows for family members to report relatives having mental issues to the state, which then confiscates the weapons. Seems pretty reasonable-- if there’s a method for verifying whether they’re unstable or not. Main criticism seems to be concern over vindictive relatives using the system to harass people. And the cost/time of clearing things up if they do. I think those kinds of issues can be addressed.

I think the Newton families could push for something like that nationally. A greater ability to initially take custody of someone’s firearms and get them evaluated in terms of being a risk. Again, it seems like after every one of these we found out that the families knew there was a problem, had tried to get treatment, or confinement, but due to existing laws regarding the mentally ill had not been successful in getting the folks confined/treated.

The problem with your suggestion is that the owner of the guns did have a legal right to own them and was not mentally ill, so she would not be covered under the law. I had suggested that those who own such firearms hold an insurance with a value in line with the damage they could do. Probably with these weapons, given the number of murders that were committed with them, it should be a $100 million policy. The cost of the policy would probably be a reflection of many factors such as the mental state of the household members and how well the weapons were secured.

 

[Peebo]

There’s no point in trying to sue the arms manufacturer…they are only producing a product that a person has a right to own under the second amendment…the only real option would be to change the constitution…good luck on trying to do that.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There’s no point in trying to sue the arms manufacturer…they are only producing a product that a person has a right to own under the second amendment…the only real option would be to change the constitution…good luck on trying to do that.

The fact that guns are a legal product has no bearing on whether a law suit is appropriate. Automobiles are also a legal product, yet auto makers have been sued for having fault safety systems.

 

[shockerfan]

The problem with your suggestion is that the owner of the guns did have a legal right to own them and was not mentally ill, so she would not be covered under the law. I had suggested that those who own such firearms hold an insurance with a value in line with the damage they could do. Probably with these weapons, given the number of murders that were committed with them, it should be a $100 million policy. The cost of the policy would probably be a reflection of many factors such as the mental state of the household members and how well the weapons were secured.

So the 2nd amendment only applies to rich people (or anyone who can afford the policy)? This requirement would be in the same league as a poll tax.

 

[Crossbones]

So the 2nd amendment only applies to rich people (or anyone who can afford the policy)? This requirement would be in the same league as a poll tax.

Guns and ammunition is not free, so I don’t know if having to pay money to exercise a right necessarily makes the proposal unconstitutional.

 

[shockerfan]

Guns and ammunition is not free, so I don’t know if having to pay money to exercise a right necessarily makes the proposal unconstitutional.

One cost is by choice…the other is not. It is mandated by the government.

 

[Crossbones]

One cost is by choice…the other is not. It is mandated by the government.

Both costs are by choice. One wouldn’t pay the cost if one didn’t exercise the right. It just more accurately reflect the total cost of exercising the right.