Newtown families to announce lawsuit against gunmaker

[Peebo]

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.

Unfortunately the gun manufacturers didn’t produce a faulty gun…what law suit is appropriate

 

[oldcatholicguy]

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.

Hey, we can also institute a poll tax for those who vote and a freedom of speech tax for anyone making a public statement. Don’t want to exercise those rights, don’t vote or speak. Other “good” ideas- religious tax, equal protection under the law tax, 4th Amendment tax, 5th Amendment tax.

 

[Crossbones]

Hey, we can also institute a poll tax for those who vote and a freedom of speech tax for anyone making a public statement. Don’t want to exercise those rights, don’t vote or speak. Other “good” ideas- religious tax, equal protection under the law tax, 4th Amendment tax, 5th Amendment tax.

I don’t think these are equivalent. For example, speech costs nothing. Speech, by itself, rarely puts someone at risk (maybe FIRE! in a crowded theater, but that is an example where speech is restricted by law despite the Constitutional protection). I am hard-pressed to come up with an example where the other rights carry such a heavy societal burden as the right to bear arms.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I don’t think these are equivalent. For example, speech costs nothing. Speech, by itself, rarely puts someone at risk (maybe FIRE! in a crowded theater, but that is an example where speech is restricted by law despite the Constitutional protection). I am hard-pressed to come up with an example where the other rights carry such a heavy societal burden as the right to bear arms.

How much money did it cost the local, state, and federal governments to deal with the various protests and the riot in Missouri? How much did the anti-Wall Street protests cost the local, state, and federal governments?

 

[Crossbones]

How much money did it cost the local, state, and federal governments to deal with the various protests and the riot in Missouri? How much did the anti-Wall Street protests cost the local, state, and federal governments?

Not sure. I guess it’s an increment cost as probably police that would have been on normal patrol were concentrated in a particular location instead with additional support. The military armaments were free from the federal government.

So, I guess to answer your question, probably not all that much, especially compared to the murders of twenty some 7 year olds.

 

[styrgwillidar]

…

Speech, by itself, rarely puts someone at risk

…

No. The pen is in fact mightier than the sword. The weapon is nothing without someone having the motive to use it towards an end.

ETA: …and if someone has the motive, they will find/obtain weapons and use them.

Speech is incredibly dangerous because it motivates action. The Catholic Church’s martyr’s are an example-- without the Word, they would not have stood up for it and would not have been killed. Similarly throughout history the rabble-rousers have motivated folks to follow them into violence in the name of political ideals.

Most of the spree shooters are found to have followed some writing or philosophy, taken an extreme interpretation.

In fact, two police officer were shot dead and there is much debate about why. Officers on the NYPD saw this coming, they saw the words of their leadership seeming to validate hatred against them- saw the folks marching in the street yelling about wanting dead police officers. Last week they circulated a statement indicating that those officers signing the statement did not want the Mayor and head of the city council to attend their funerals if they were killed.

Why do you think so many governments have tried to control speech and the free flow of ideas?

 

[Crossbones]

No. The pen is in fact mightier than the sword. The weapon is nothing without someone having the motive to use it towards an end.

Speech is incredibly dangerous because it motivates action. The Catholic Church’s martyr’s are an example-- without the Word, they would not have stood up for it and would not have been killed. Similarly throughout history the rabble-rousers have motivated folks to follow them into violence in the name of political ideals.

Most of the spree shooters are found to have followed some writing or philosophy, taken an extreme interpretation.

In fact, two police officer were shot dead and there is much debate about why. Officers on the NYPD saw this coming, they saw the words of their leadership seeming to validate hatred against them- saw the folks marching in the street yelling about wanting dead police officers. Last week they circulated a statement indicating that those officers signing the statement did not want the Mayor and head of the city council to attend their funerals if they were killed.

Why do you think so many governments have tried to control speech and the free flow of ideas?

Repressive governments don’t like free speech to protect themselves. On the other hand, many murderers are mentally ill first and then use other’s speech as an excuse to justify those own world views. As such, I don’t think speech is a primary cause of the insane to do something that is detrimental to society.

 

[ucfengr]

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.

By that logic, newspapers and TV and radio news broadcasts should be forced to buy insurance in case their reporting causes riots as in Ferguson or NYC.

 

[Crossbones]

By that logic, newspapers and TV and radio news broadcasts should be forced to buy insurance in case their reporting causes riots as in Ferguson or NYC.

I’m not sure how reporting the truth makes a newspaper liable for a riot.

On the other hand, not securing your high power weapons from a mentally ill person living in your house probably makes you liable.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Not sure. I guess it’s an increment cost as probably police that would have been on normal patrol were concentrated in a particular location instead with additional support. The military armaments were free from the federal government.

So, I guess to answer your question, probably not all that much, especially compared to the murders of twenty some 7 year olds.

The estimate for just the National Guard and State Highway Patrol is somewhere between 11 and 12 million dollars. Assuming 100,000 protestors in Missouri that would come out to a free speech tax of around $110 for just the NG and Highway Patrol per protestor. Then of course there’s the other law enforcement agencies involved with security, emergency services, non-emergency services or government agencies involved for the protests and riot, oh and then of course the riot itself. I wonder how much money Mr. Brown’s family would have to put up for riot protection insurance prior to being allowed to make a public statement about the death of their son or the verdict of the Grand Jury.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I’m not sure how reporting the truth makes a newspaper liable for a riot.

On the other hand, not securing your high power weapons from a mentally ill person living in your house probably makes you liable.

Sure it doesn’t. But please, tell us more about how there is no way at all for a mentally ill person to read a news report and use that as a basis for committing some criminal act.

 

[Crossbones]

The estimate for just the National Guard and State Highway Patrol is somewhere between 11 and 12 million dollars. Assuming 100,000 protestors in Missouri that would come out to a free speech tax of around $110 for just the NG and Highway Patrol per protestor. Then of course there’s the other law enforcement agencies involved with security, emergency services, non-emergency services or government agencies involved for the protests and riot, oh and then of course the riot itself. I wonder how much money Mr. Brown’s family would have to put up for riot protection insurance prior to being allowed to make a public statement about the death of their son or the verdict of the Grand Jury.

It’s really more a case of liability. I don’t have much doubt that the mother of the shooter of the Newtown children would be found liable in a court of law for failing to keep her high-powered weapons stored safely from the mentally ill man living in her household.

Now, would the protestors for liable for the crimes that took place in Ferguson? I would argue not. Would Mr. Brown’s family be liable for those crimes? Well, with the exception of the stepfather who said “Let’s burn this place down” I would argue not. On the other hand, the stepfather’s words, well, that would make an interesting case.

On the liability insurance, why are you so sure it would be expensive? If these incidents are truly rare, then the cost would be minimal.

 

[Crossbones]

Sure it doesn’t. But please, tell us more about how there is no way at all for a mentally ill person to read a news report and use that as a basis for committing some criminal act.

To me, there are two questions:

Is a newspaper liable for reporting the truth if a mentally ill person uses that truth as justification in his own head to commit a crime?

Is the mother of the Newtown shooter liable for failing to secure her weapons from someone she knew to be mentally ill?

I’m going with no to the first and likely yes to the second. Do you see that differently and if so, why?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

It’s really more a case of liability. I don’t have much doubt that the mother of the shooter of the Newtown children would be found liable in a court of law for failing to keep her high-powered weapons stored safely from the mentally ill man living in her household.

Now, would the protestors for liable for the crimes that took place in Ferguson? I would argue not. Would Mr. Brown’s family be liable for those crimes? Well, with the exception of the stepfather who said “Let’s burn this place down” I would argue not. On the other hand, the stepfather’s words, well, that would make an interesting case.

On the liability insurance, why are you so sure it would be expensive? If these incidents are truly rare, then the cost would be minimal.

“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.”

Rarity of an event and cases of liability don’t actually matter for your argument.

 

[Crossbones]

“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.”

Rarity of an event and cases of liability don’t actually matter for your argument.

Not sure that it doesn’t. We’ve got like three discussions going between us right now, so maybe you can put your points in a single response and I’ll follow up off that.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Not sure that it doesn’t. We’ve got like three discussions going between us right now, so maybe you can put your points in a single response and I’ll follow up off that.

No, we have one discussion. I’m presenting evidence that your idea is deeply flawed and you’re trying to not directly answer my evidence because your idea is deeply flawed. I’ll make it easy. Requiring someone to pay a fee or tax in order to exercise one protected and fundamental right means we can require someone to pay a fee or tax in order to exercise any of their protected and fundamental rights.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Various politicians spoke out even prior to Grand Juries making rulings with the implication that justice was not done, that there had been a grave miscarriage. The usual suspects said the usual things to ratchet up tensions for their own purposes. To the point that the protestors in New York were shouting - ‘What do we want? Dead Cops’ as they marched along.

The media didn’t report the truth, they reported every rumor as if it were truth. They assisted in creating mythology. Out of some bias or hidden agenda? Or simply because it made good copy and got them clicks and sold advertising? I don’t know- but even now folks are repeatedly referring to what turned out to be rumor as fact.

The interesting thing in the future will be, as in any other mass movement, will the folks manipulating it lose control of it and fall victim to it themselves?

BTW- as for controlling speech, are you familiar with the IRS auditing the Tea Party organizations and delaying their approval until they could no longer participate and be a factor in the elections? Keeping them from having a voice? The number of audits performed on their donors? The illegal sharing of that information by IRS officials with politicians? I agree, repressive governments really don’t like free speech. Same thing on college campuses-- the growing trend to shout down or shut out the voices and viewpoints of some folks vice listening for understanding of contradictory views.

 

[Crossbones]

No, we have one discussion. I’m presenting evidence that your idea is deeply flawed and you’re trying to not directly answer my evidence because your idea is deeply flawed. I’ll make it easy. Requiring someone to pay a fee or tax in order to exercise one protected and fundamental right means we can require someone to pay a fee or tax in order to exercise any of their protected and fundamental rights.

More that it seemed like we had three different threads to follow at once.

Ok, I’ll assume your caught up and have made the points you wanted to make.

I think the question is that is it Constitutional for the government to insist on people carrying liability insurance for the free exercise of a Constitutional right. You have argued no, it is not, and I’ll be honest, I don’t know.

I think since there is a cost associated with using a firearm (owning, maintaining and paying for ammunition),then it might be Constitutional. Furthermore, there are laws on the books that require storage of firearms to prevent children from gaining access. These laws require additional cost (such as a locked storage cabinet) and have not been found unconstitutional. I’m not sure that requiring another additional cost so that the full cost of ownership is on the hands of the weapon owner as opposed to society at large is unconstitutional.

You have provided precedents that could be used to argue against its Constitutionality such as a poll tax. In my opinion, there are differences as the Courts have restricted freedoms associated with rights as well as the example above, but your point is taken and makes a certain amount of sense to me. So your argument may well win the case. I guess we’ll have to wait for the Supreme Court to decide.

 

[Crossbones]

Various politicians spoke out even prior to Grand Juries making rulings with the implication that justice was not done, that there had been a grave miscarriage. The usual suspects said the usual things to ratchet up tensions for their own purposes. To the point that the protestors in New York were shouting - ‘What do we want? Dead Cops’ as they marched along.

The media didn’t report the truth, they reported every rumor as if it were truth. They assisted in creating mythology. Out of some bias or hidden agenda? Or simply because it made good copy and got them clicks and sold advertising? I don’t know- but even now folks are repeatedly referring to what turned out to be rumor as fact.

So, do you think you could prove liability in court? I really don’t think so.

The interesting thing in the future will be, as in any other mass movement, will the folks manipulating it lose control of it and fall victim to it themselves?

BTW- as for controlling speech, are you familiar with the IRS auditing the Tea Party organizations and delaying their approval until they could no longer participate and be a factor in the elections? Keeping them from having a voice? The number of audits performed on their donors? The illegal sharing of that information by IRS officials with politicians? I agree, repressive governments really don’t like free speech. Same thing on college campuses-- the growing trend to shout down or shut out the voices and viewpoints of some folks vice listening for understanding of contradictory views.

What do I think of it? Utter bunk and a betrayal of the public trust.

 

[ucfengr]

I’m not sure how reporting the truth makes a newspaper liable for a riot.

On the other hand, not securing your high power weapons from a mentally ill person living in your house probably makes you liable.

The vast majority of “mentally ill” people have never harmed anyone. Mental health professional can’t tell you with any meaningful certitude which mentally ill people are going to harm someone. I’m not sure how you expect the mother, who’s not a mental health professional, to determine if her son is dangerous enough that he shouldn’t have access to weapons in the house. You may as well expect newspaper publishers to make sure the stories they report have no potential for causing a riot and make them liable if it does.