US Connecticut Shooting

[mlp]

Manufacturers and dealers?



Or just dealers?

Bars can be held responsible for selling booze to someone who is obviously drunk. But last I heard, the liquor manufacturer
could not be held responsible.

There have been claims brought against manufacturers of those high alcohol content drinks that come in cans (sorry, can't remember what they're called), that look sort of like beer cans, but pack a big punch, on the theory that the sole reason for them is to get people drunk as fast as possible. You know the stuff - the manufacturers' marketing is aimed directly and specifically at young men, and in particular at inner city youth.

The same reasoning would apply to manufacturers of armor piercing ammunition, the ammunition that's designed to *explode* on impact, etc., when it's sold by manufacturers to dealers who sell to the public. The PLCAA prohibits all such claims.

 

[das_nut]

There have been claims brought against manufacturers of those high alcohol content drinks that come in cans (sorry, can't remember what they're called), that look sort of like beer cans, but pack a big punch, on the theory that the sole reason for them is to get people drunk as fast as possible. You know the stuff - the manufacturers' marketing is aimed directly and specifically at young men, and in particular at inner city youth.

Getting drunk as fast as possible isn't against the law. Such a lawsuit is silly.

The same reasoning would apply to manufacturers of armor piercing ammunition, the ammunition that's designed to *explode* on impact, etc., when it's sold by manufacturers to dealers who sell to the public. The PLCAA prohibits all such claims.

I consider the following lawsuit silly as well.

 

[mlp]

Getting drunk as fast as possible isn't against the law. Such a lawsuit is silly.

I consider the following lawsuit silly as well.

I have no doubt you do.

The survivors of those killed by drunks and by ammunition whose sole purpose is to cause as much internal injury as possible, even after passing through a wall or other obstacle may have a different view.

Perhaps you'll be one of the lucky ones who goes through all of life sheltered.

 

[Envy]

Should companies stop selling dangerous things - but to what degree?

 

[das_nut]

The survivors of those killed by drunks and by ammunition whose sole purpose is to cause as much internal injury as possible, even after passing through a wall or other obstacle may have a different view.

So you're against all alcohol stronger than beer or whine, I take it?

By the way, most rifle ammunition will go through a wall. Rifles tend to be able to pierce a bullet proof vest.

 

[mlp]

So you're against all alcohol stronger than beer or whine, I take it?

I'm pretty much against any form of whine. It irritates me to no end.

By the way, most rifle ammunition will go through a wall. Rifles tend to be able to pierce a bullet proof vest.

Conversation might be more productive if you read any given sentence in its entirety.

 

[das_nut]

I'm getting the impression you don't know much about guns, TBH.

 

[Eleven]

I know if someone pulls the trigger on one and the bullet hits someone, there's a substantial chance it will cause severe injury or death. That's really the basics of guns, guns 101 if you will.

 

[das_nut]

With such a simplistic definition, they sound rather dangerous. Of course, the question is if people should have them.

 

[Eleven]

With such a simplistic definition, they sound rather dangerous.

Yes, rather. Very rather.

 

[mlp]

I'm getting the impression you don't know much about guns, TBH.

And I'm getting the impression that your reading comprehension isn't the best, TBH.

 

[das_nut]

Bad news.

 

[das_nut]

And I'm getting the impression that your reading comprehension isn't the best, TBH.

Well, if you didn't know much about guns, then I could see how you would be under that mis-impression.

 

[mlp]

Bad news.

See, here's part of the problem - we have very different ideas about what constitutes "bad news." No wonder we also have very different ideas about the importance of other things.

 

[mlp]

Well, if you didn't know much about guns, then I could see how you would be under that mis-impression.

I'd like to see you explain how anything I said had anything at all to do with the ability of standard rifle ammo to pass through walls. Really, I would.

 

[das_nut]

I'd like to see you explain how anything I said had anything at all to do with the ability of standard rifle ammo to pass through walls. Really, I would.

ammunition whose sole purpose is to cause as much internal injury as possible, even after passing through a wall or other obstacle.

 

[das_nut]

See, here's part of the problem - we have very different ideas about what constitutes "bad news."

Would you say the news was being good for publicly breaking the law?

 

[mlp]

And you prove my point, that I didn't say what you apparently thought I did.

Remember, I know that a standard bullet shot out of a handgun, much less a rifle, can penetrate a wall. It's the event that triggered the murder/suicide in my family.

Would you say the news was being good for publicly breaking the law?

"The news" didn't break the law. News media (specifically one representative of the news media) broke the law, thereby generating news.

 

[Wolfie]

"Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact.

The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak. If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point. The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed).Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed. "

To be fair, Obama's kids are just a little more likely than your average kids to need armed guard protection. The crazies would come out of the woodwork otherwise, since that school is filled with children of the rich and famous.

 

[das_nut]

To be fair, Obama's kids are just a little more likely than your average kids to need armed guard protection. The crazies would come out of the woodwork otherwise, since that school is filled with children of the rich and famous.

That is true. But if armed people work for protecting them, why wouldn't being armed work to protect someone else?