Nobody responsible for guns to criminals

[Tero]

Just every once in a while, rarely, cases go to court.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/13/us/milwau ... index.html

[Tero]

This too, brought to you by NRA, who also have protected all kinds of nuts so far.

In the years before passage of the act, victims of firearms violence in the United States had successfully sued manufacturers and dealers for negligence on the grounds that they should have foreseen that their products would be diverted to criminal use.[2] The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectio ... n_Arms_Act

[JimC]

I think blaming the gun manufacturers for the criminal use of guns is too narrow.

The entire society, people, government and history of the USA is to blame.

[Drewish]

We should just sue the Constitution and be done with it.

[Tero]

Terrorist comes to America/or native American becomes radicalized, goes to nearest place for gun (Wal mart?) and shoots cop.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/09/us/philad ... icer-shot/

this is what you get with no control over hand guns.

[Seth]

Just every once in a while, rarely, cases go to court.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/13/us/milwau ... index.html

As they should, and if the dealer committed a crime, he should be punished for it. But, don't you see, the laws we have already deal with such crimes and more laws won't improve things.

[Seth]

This too, brought to you by NRA, who also have protected all kinds of nuts so far.

In the years before passage of the act, victims of firearms violence in the United States had successfully sued manufacturers and dealers for negligence on the grounds that they should have foreseen that their products would be diverted to criminal use.[2] The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectio ... n_Arms_Act

...Unless of course they actually do violate the law, which is the case in the case you cite, which was brought to court, where the dealer was found culpable.

The purpose of the Act however is to prevent frivolous lawsuits against manufacturers and dealers that have no purpose other than to abuse the legal system to interfere with and infringe on the lawful activities of gun manufacturers and dealers.

The distinction to be drawn between the case you cite and the Act is that in the case you cite the jury found that the dealer violated federal law by knowingly selling a gun to a straw buyer, which is already illegal.

The Act only indemnifies manufacturers and dealers against claims that they should be legally responsible for the criminal and unlawful use a firearm that they lawfully manufactured, distributed and sold to a qualified buyer pursuant to federal laws already in place, including a NICS background check after the fact. The Act was put in place to prevent the specious claim that gun manufacturers and dealers are perpetually liable for whatever anyone might do with a firearm that was legally created and sold by them.

So...again...non sequitur.

[Seth]

Terrorist comes to America/or native American becomes radicalized, goes to nearest place for gun (Wal mart?) and shoots cop.

You didn't even read the article did you? If you had, you would know that the 9mm handgun the perp used was a stolen gun, stolen from the home of a police officer, the theft and possession of which is of course entirely illegal.

this is what you get with no control over hand guns.

Your idiot arguments have reached their zenith with this one. You're simply a deranged liar and nothing else.

[Tero]

Good I have you to read. I was sure it would be Walmart. Not exactly a Cabela's customer.

[Tero]

Too many guns floating around in urban areas. He had a gun before. Then,the city was unable to keep guns from criminals. Ban all handguns. Not needed.

Archer's criminal history
Archer was allegedly armed with a 9mm Glock 17 that was reported stolen in 2013 from the home of a police officer.

"It is one of the things that you regret the most, when an officer's gun is stolen that it is used against one of your own," Commissioner Ross said.

Archer had been in trouble with the law before over gun violence.

He was arrested in 2012 after a domestic dispute. Archer "pulled a small black and silver semiautomatic handgun from his waist and pointed it towards the complainant's stomach while grabbing the complainant's shirt," according to the affidavit for probable cause.

He pleaded guilty to assault and carrying a gun without a license, court records show.

On Thursday, Archer was out on probation and scheduled to be sentenced Monday for careless driving, forgery and driving with a suspended or revoked license in a 2014 case.

Thursday night he allegedly opened fire on Hartnett.

[Seth]

Good I have you to read. I was sure it would be Walmart. Not exactly a Cabela's customer.

Nice to see you admit to not even reading your own citations when you try to make idiot arguments that there are no controls on buying guns.

[Seth]

Too many guns floating around in urban areas. He had a gun before. Then,the city was unable to keep guns from criminals. Ban all handguns. Not needed.

But wait, just a post or two ago you admitted that grandma did need a gun and that her having a gun made the decision of the scumbags who tried to rob her into a bad one, and that you yourself are a shivering coward who lives in terror of "youth from the ghetto" and "rednecks, and does so by your own choice not to arm yourself for your own protection.

So, self-evidently, according to your own arguments, there are not "too many guns" and in this case there were just the right amount of guns to save this elderly woman from being robbed and/or killed. And as for the would-be cop-killer, it was the guns the cops had that took him out of circulation, but not before he almost killed a cop and almost escaped. Had he not been such a poor shot he would have killed the cop and nobody would have been able to chase him down right away. So once again the only thing that stopped a killer with a gun was a law-abiding citizen with a gun.

Moreover, you admit above that the city was "unable to keep guns from criminals," which means that the "ban on all handguns (in the possession of criminals)" that has existed for several hundred years has had zero effect on keeping guns from criminals. So, by what logic do you assume that banning "all handguns" is going to change things in that respect? Criminals clearly get guns even though they are not permitted to have them, and by your own admission the city's efforts to prevent that from happening are ineffective, so how is taking guns away from law-abiding citizens (presuming arguendo that you could manage it, which you can't) going to keep guns away from criminals?

And, presuming again arguendo that you succeeded in confiscating all guns from law-abiding citizens (which attempt will actually only result in YOU getting dead and the confiscation of no handguns), how then is grandma going to plug the next thugs that try to rob, rape and/or murder her, which you just proved was a valuable thing for her to have?

Not that you give a flying fuck about grandma or anyone else who gets robbed, raped and/or murdered by criminals, whether said criminals have a gun or a knife or a baseball bat, to begin with. Clearly you don't. Clearly you like to dance on the graves of those murdered by criminals and you revel in their deaths because you idiotically think it lends weight to your asinine arguments for banning law-abiding citizens from owning guns for self-defense.

That's the worst, most immoral and unethical sort of rationalization that there is, and you are just as morally responsible for any and all deaths or injuries that happen to law-abiding citizens that your sort of rhetoric and activism cause to be denied their right to keep and bear a handgun for personal protection as the criminal who robbed, raped and/or murdered them. And in my opinion you ought to be put in a cell WITH one of those thugs so you can be his bitch and experience what it is to be helplessly unarmed when someone decides to fuck you in the ass every day for the next 50 years.

Maybe that will change your opinion on the value of an armed citizenry.

[Tero]

"Criminals are generally not prosecuted for attempting to buy a firearm once they fail a background check at a firearm retailer."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/27/opinions/ ... index.html

[Seth]

"Criminals are generally not prosecuted for attempting to buy a firearm once they fail a background check at a firearm retailer."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/27/opinions/ ... index.html

And whose fault is that? It's the federal government's fault for refusing to prosecute such cases, just as it refuses to prosecute virtually ANY "felon with a gun" crimes based on state felony crime apprehensions of criminals in illegal possession of guns, which is supposed to get an automatic 5 year minimum sentence.