ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags gun manufacturers , gun violence , lawsuits

Reply
Old 3rd July 2019, 02:55 PM   #1
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,763
Gun Makers Sued Over Las Vegas shooting

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compa...nae?ocid=ientp

Quote:
The complaint, filed in state court in Nevada Tuesday, alleges that the makers of the 12 different semiautomatic rifles used in the mass shooting knew they could be easily modified to fire like fully automatic machine guns.
Actually not true. The ATF has repeatedly defined bump fire as semi-auto and distinct from full auto. Even though bump stocks are now defined as machine guns, bump firing is not like a machine gun except for rate of fire.

Quote:
The manufacturing and sale of new fully automatic weapons is prohibited under federal law.
Also not true.

Quote:
Ms. Mesner-Hage and other attorneys for the parents of Carrie Parsons, who was killed at the age of 31, said they hope to advance the case under an exception to the federal immunity law that says manufacturers may be liable for injuries resulting from violations of state laws dealing with the marketing and sale of their products.
I wonder what state laws concerning the marketing of these guns were violated?

Ranb
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 05:18 PM   #2
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,884
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compa...nae?ocid=ientp

Actually not true. The ATF has repeatedly defined bump fire as semi-auto and distinct from full auto. Even though bump stocks are now defined as machine guns, bump firing is not like a machine gun except for rate of fire.
Surely, this is mere semantics? What really matters is not what the legal definition is, but what the result is.

- A shooter firing a machine gun can fire at a rate much higher than they could with a semi-automatic.

- A shooter firing a semi automatic fitted with a bump stock can fire at a rate much higher than they could without one.

The people who are at the other end with high velocity bullets tearing onto their flesh and killing their friends and the people around them - they don't really care about the legal niceties of firearms definitions.
__________________
#THEYAREUS
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 06:28 PM   #3
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,763
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
- A shooter firing a semi automatic fitted with a bump stock can fire at a rate much higher than they could without one.
Bump firing without a bump stock is just as fast as with a bump stock. Didn't we discuss this before?

If they want to fight in the court of public opinion, then semantics would matter. But they are in a court of law instead. They can't just say it was "like a machine gun so it should be illegal" when actual machine guns are legally bought and sold in the USA, even a few new ones.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 10:00 PM   #4
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,462
I'm pretty sure this doesn't have a whelk's chance in a supernova of achieving anything useful.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 10:08 PM   #5
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,884
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Bump firing without a bump stock is just as fast as with a bump stock. Didn't we discuss this before?
Yes, we disagreed, and I continue to disagree.

Perhaps you can fire that fast, most people will not be able to match this...

https://youtu.be/K2IOZ-5Nk5k?t=264

... with a single trigger pull per shot and without a bump-stock. I'm a regular shooter, I've tried and I can't get near it and maintain any kind of accuracy.
__________________
#THEYAREUS
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2019, 06:46 AM   #6
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,157
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
... with a single trigger pull per shot and without a bump-stock. I'm a regular shooter, I've tried and I can't get near it and maintain any kind of accuracy.


Surely that's the key difference between traditional bump firing, and using a bump stock? As I understand it, in the traditional way of bump firing, the stock must be pulled forward off the shoulder to pull the trigger, which obviously has an impact on control of the firearm, and as such on the accuracy.

A bump stock would not appear to have that problem. It might not be as accurate as a proper automatic weapon, but it's reasonable to assume it would be more accurate than traditional bump firing.

If I were them, that's the argument I would use while suing the bump stock manufacturers, rather than the firearm manufacturers.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2019, 07:04 AM   #7
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 15,027
Essentially, the plaintiffs' argument is that the manufacturers knew the guns had recoil which made bump stocks possible, and did nothing about it.

Maybe they should be suing Isaac Newton.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2019, 07:41 AM   #8
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,834
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Essentially, the plaintiffs' argument is that the manufacturers knew the guns had recoil which made bump stocks possible, and did nothing about it.

Maybe they should be suing Isaac Newton.
Can you cite the plaintiffs' argument?

Actual text of lawsuit available at bottom of this article: https://portermedium.com/2019/07/law...8-injured-500/

The plaintiff's actual argument cites powerful recoil and removable stock.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 4th July 2019 at 07:56 AM.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2019, 10:17 AM   #9
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,763
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Actual text of lawsuit available at bottom of this article: https://portermedium.com/2019/07/law...8-injured-500/

The plaintiff's actual argument cites powerful recoil and removable stock.
The first three pages read like a poorly written novel.
Paragraph 59 consists of stupid hyperbole.
Paragraph 60 is not true.
Paragraphs 90, 91 and 92 neglect to mention that the ATF initially said the Akins Accelerator was a semi-auto rifle.
The document goes on in the next several paragraphs to cite industry hyperbole as credible.
Paragraphs 151 to 162 keep repeating the claim that the bump firing was automatic when it was actually semi-auto.
Paragraph 172 and 173 misquotes the law regarding NFA firearms.
Paragraph 176 is not true.
Paragraph 197 again identified the rifles used as machine guns.
Paragraph 198 claims a violation of state and federal law that the ATF specifically said was not true.
Paragraph 201 seeks to shift the burden of proof to the defendant.

I'm no lawyer, but I think their case as set out in the link sucks.

Last edited by Ranb; 4th July 2019 at 10:21 AM.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2019, 10:25 AM   #10
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,834
While I don't think they have a case myself, I think you've gone overboard there.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2019, 10:26 AM   #11
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,763
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
While I don't think they have a case myself, I think you've gone overboard there.
Can you be more specific?
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2019, 10:46 AM   #12
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,507
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Yes, we disagreed, and I continue to disagree.

Perhaps you can fire that fast, most people will not be able to match this...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


... with a single trigger pull per shot and without a bump-stock. I'm a regular shooter, I've tried and I can't get near it and maintain any kind of accuracy.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


It's not difficult. As for accuracy, the Vegas shooter wasn't concerned with that. All he had to was throw enough lead into a crowd. Could've been much worse if he took proper aim.
__________________


The better you get, the harder you work.
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2019, 12:51 PM   #13
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 15,027
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Can you cite the plaintiffs' argument?

Actual text of lawsuit available at bottom of this article: https://portermedium.com/2019/07/law...8-injured-500/

The plaintiff's actual argument cites powerful recoil and removable stock.
Yeah, the gist of it is paragraph 92: "Despite the fact that bump stocks... unequivocally converted AR-15s into fully automatic machine guns, the Defendant Manufacturers did nothing to change the design features of the weapon that rendered it susceptible to simple modification."

And what were those design features that the manufacturers refused to change? As you cited: "powerful" recoil and removable stocks.

At what stage of manufacture is the powerful recoil added? If I were buying any kind of firearm, I'd definitely want them to omit the recoil, even though it would ruin my chances of bump-firing or bump stock modification. Of course, some would complain that my recoil-free weapon was far deadlier than normal due to its much greater ease of accurate repeat fire, and should therefore be made illegal. But it wouldn't come to that, because it's physically impossible.* That's why I'm suggesting they should have sued Isaac Newton.

As for removable stocks, guns are manufactured out of assembled parts, and stocks are made of different materials than the lock, for good reasons. Should the manufacturer have bonded the stocks in place with Gorilla Glue to make sure no one can remove and replace them? (It wouldn't be strong enough anyhow.) Or used one-way screws? (Which can easily be drilled out.) If they found a way, it would make them impossible to repair. All to prevent a user modification that was legal. And which wouldn't have prevented people from designing bump stock modifications that clamped onto the stock instead of replacing it.

I'm not judging our firearms laws here. I'm judging the merits of this lawsuit under those laws. Given that gun manufacturers have been given legal immunity from liability for the fact that their products fire bullets, this suit attempts to hold them accountable for negligently failing to magic away their rifles' recoils and for negligently making guns out of parts that can be disassembled. It's nonsense.


*Yes, there are such things as recoilless rifles. No, that technology can't be used for small arms. Or it if were, it would make it even easier to convert the weapon to highly accurate repeat fire using only simple external parts.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2019, 01:55 PM   #14
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,834
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
At what stage of manufacture is the powerful recoil added?
Do you really need this stupid question answered?
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2019, 02:28 PM   #15
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,884
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


It's not difficult. As for accuracy, the Vegas shooter wasn't concerned with that. All he had to was throw enough lead into a crowd. Could've been much worse if he took proper aim.
Thanks for posting the video. It perfectly illustrates what I have been saying; that using a bump stock makes it much easier to deliver a high rate of fire than without one

When the shooter in this video is bump firing without a bump stock, he can't keep it up. He has eight attempts to get it started, firing bursts of 3, 1, 4, 7, 1, 1, 7 and 6 shots respectively; total 30 shots over a period of 13 seconds - average rate of fire 138 rpm. However, with a bump stock, he gets it right first time, firing 23 shots in 2Ĺ seconds - average rate of fire 558 rpm.

For reference, last week, I had the opportunity to fire a semi-automatic weapon; an ex-RNZAF Steyr AUG. I was able to empty a 25 round magazine in under 9 seconds - average rate of fire 187 rpm - why would I bother trying to bump fire it?
__________________
#THEYAREUS
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2019, 03:30 PM   #16
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,507
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
When the shooter in this video is bump firing without a bump stock, he can't keep it up. He has eight attempts to get it started, firing bursts of 3, 1, 4, 7, 1, 1, 7 and 6 shots respectively; total 30 shots over a period of 13 seconds - average rate of fire 138 rpm. However, with a bump stock, he gets it right first time, firing 23 shots in 2Ĺ seconds - average rate of fire 558 rpm.
Neither of those rifles have bump stocks.
__________________


The better you get, the harder you work.
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2019, 03:43 PM   #17
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 15,027
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Do you really need this stupid question answered?

Why no, it's what's sometimes called a rhetorical question.

Do you understand the point that gun manufacturers are literally being sued for failing to remove the recoil from their rifles?
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2019, 04:04 PM   #18
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,834
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Why no, it's what's sometimes called a rhetorical question.

Do you understand the point that gun manufacturers are literally being sued for failing to remove the recoil from their rifles?
No, it would be a bit stupid to understand it that way. It's even a stupid way for you to phrase the question and implies that maybe you should be asking that question you thought was rhetorical.

The lawsuit is complaining about the power of the recoil, not it's mere presence. And that is a design parameter. And they could have designed it with more or less recoil (and if you look up the history of the weapon you could actually know what they did about this point).

Conservation of momentum is demanded by Newton's third law, not gun recoil.

And your earlier stupid assertion about Gorilla Glue as if it were the only alternative to how they could mount the stock make it's look like you're really desperate to keep mass murdering weapons around.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2019, 05:16 PM   #19
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 29,495
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Why no, it's what's sometimes called a rhetorical question.

Do you understand the point that gun manufacturers are literally being sued for failing to remove the recoil from their rifles?
A co-worker's wife was sued by a scam lawyer and scam plaintiffs who pulled out in front of her deliberately on a busy road, and she rear-ended them. They claimed she was responsible "because she could have swerved into oncoming traffic and creamed herself instead of rear-ending" them.

So, yes, I can believe it.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 05:03 AM   #20
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,998
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Surely, this is mere semantics? What really matters is not what the legal definition is, but what the result is.

- A shooter firing a machine gun can fire at a rate much higher than they could with a semi-automatic.

- A shooter firing a semi automatic fitted with a bump stock can fire at a rate much higher than they could without one.
If we are calling the bump stock ROF "much higher" then we need a new superlative to describe machine gun ROF.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 07:49 AM   #21
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,834
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
A co-worker's wife was sued by a scam lawyer and scam plaintiffs who pulled out in front of her deliberately on a busy road, and she rear-ended them. They claimed she was responsible "because she could have swerved into oncoming traffic and creamed herself instead of rear-ending" them.
Did Carrie Parsons and 57 others die by gun fire in Las Vegas or do you think it was a scam?
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 07:57 AM   #22
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,178
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-105
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 11:19 AM   #23
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 15,027
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
No, it would be a bit stupid to understand it that way. It's even a stupid way for you to phrase the question and implies that maybe you should be asking that question you thought was rhetorical.

The lawsuit is complaining about the power of the recoil, not it's mere presence. And that is a design parameter. And they could have designed it with more or less recoil (and if you look up the history of the weapon you could actually know what they did about this point).

Not so. There is no unit of measure or actual figure cited in the lawsuit for either (1) how powerful the recoil of an AR-15 is, or (2) what numerical threshold constitutes excessively powerful. In the absence of any figures or any basis for comparison, the descriptor "powerful" is meaningless. Any recoil at all dissipates energy over time; that is to say, it has power. If that's what the plaintiffs mean by "powerful," then indeed they ARE complaining about the mere presence of recoil. If they mean the power exceeds some acceptable threshold, let's see the figures.

For what it's worth, I looked at multiple reviews and comparisons of the AR-15 versus other rifles with similar shooting characteristics. They generally describe the recoil of the AR-15 as unremarkable. (If you want to see video of a guy firing multiple rounds with the butt held against his nose, YouTube is your friend.)

Quote:
Conservation of momentum is demanded by Newton's third law, not gun recoil.

The function of a gun is to rapidly impart a lot of momentum to a projectile. Recoil is the inevitable result of that fact, given the law of conservation of momentum.

The engineering of altering or minimizing recoil in a firearm is complex. There are mechanisms that do indeed reduce recoil by reducing the forward momentum of the mass ejected from the gun during a shot. Not, of course, that of the projectile (except a little, as an undesired side effect) but the additional combustion gases also normally ejected forward. By redirecting some of that gas to eject backward instead, a net reduction in total recoil is achieved. There's a limit to that, though. To completely negate recoil, a mass of gas or other material equal to that of the projectile (plus any forward-venting gases) would have to be ejected rearward at the same speed. (Or a smaller mass at proportionally higher speed, etc.) That's practical for some artillery but not, for obvious reasons, for a hand-fired weapon.

Other recoil-ameliorating mechanisms involve moving masses and springs that temporarily, for as long as the mass keeps moving rearward, compensates for the initial recoil. When the moving compensating mass comes to a stop, though, its momentum is imparted back to the gun. So the momentum of recoil is not reduced at all, but it is spread out over time, up to (but not exceeding) the cycle time of the automatic weapon. This can have some benefit, but since it doesn't reduce the recoil momentum, it would not have any effect on the workability of a bump stock device that makes use of that momentum.

Quote:
And your earlier stupid assertion about Gorilla Glue as if it were the only alternative to how they could mount the stock make it's look like you're really desperate to keep mass murdering weapons around.

The lack of any suggestions in the lawsuit regarding what manufacturers should have done to prevent owners from removing and replacing the stock forces me to speculate. And if you'd read carefully, you'd have noticed that Gorilla Glue was not my only suggestion. It's true that I was unable to come up with any suggestion that was truly practical. Perhaps you can do better. The plaintiffs couldn't, though, and that's what matters. In the absence of any such specifics, that aspect of the suit does indeed amount to complaining that guns are manufactured out of assembled parts.

As for what stating these facts makes me look like, if I saw you setting out to hike fifty miles across a desert in high summer wearing flip flops and carrying a half-liter bottle of Pepsi, and I pointed out that you're not adequately equipped for the task, would that make me look like I'm desperate for you to get stranded and die of thirst? This suit will fail because it doesn't make an adequate case. Clapping my hands and proclaiming that I really truly believed that powerful recoils and removable parts create liability wouldn't make any difference. What I want has nothing to do with it.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 12:05 PM   #24
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,834
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Can you cite the plaintiffs' argument?

Actual text of lawsuit available at bottom of this article: https://portermedium.com/2019/07/law...8-injured-500/

The plaintiff's actual argument cites powerful recoil and removable stock.

I'm repeating the link to the actual lawsuit, rather than address Myriads burlesque of it.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 12:45 PM   #25
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,834
Some more simple factual stuff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_...fle#Modularity

So despite Myriad's protestation that it would be impossible to make a gun that can't be modified, it's actually the case that the AR-15 is designed to be easy to modify.

So the claim in the lawsuit isn't that the manufactures didn't do the impossible, it's that they did way too much to make it possible to modify this rifle.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 03:16 PM   #26
Pope130
Illuminator
 
Pope130's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,015
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Some more simple factual stuff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_...fle#Modularity

So despite Myriad's protestation that it would be impossible to make a gun that can't be modified, it's actually the case that the AR-15 is designed to be easy to modify.

So the claim in the lawsuit isn't that the manufactures didn't do the impossible, it's that they did way too much to make it possible to modify this rifle.
The AR-15 was not designed to be easy to modify. It was designed to be as light as possible, and easy to construct and maintain. This resulted in a modular construction scheme, which does make it easy to change parts. Regardless of that point, the manufacturers who are being sued did not design the AR-15 at all, so are not responsible for the design concept. The AR was designed to meet a government requirement at the Armalite Division of Fairchild Aircraft Company, a firm that no longer exists.
Pope130 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 03:46 PM   #27
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,834
Originally Posted by Pope130 View Post
The AR-15 was not designed to be easy to modify. It was designed to be as light as possible, and easy to construct and maintain. This resulted in a modular construction scheme, which does make it easy to change parts.
You just explained a potential reason for why it was designed that way, not that it wasn't.

And the pertinent point is that it IS easy to modify. And it is easier than it has to be. And easier than it could be.

Originally Posted by Pope130 View Post
Regardless of that point, the manufacturers who are being sued did not design the AR-15 at all, so are not responsible for the design concept.
From the article I just cited:
Quote:
In 1964, Colt began selling its own version with an improved semi-automatic design known as the Colt AR-15.[10] After Colt's patents expired in 1977, an active marketplace emerged for other manufacturers to produce and sell their own semi-automatic AR-15 style rifles.
Originally Posted by Pope130 View Post
The AR was designed to meet a government requirement at the Armalite Division of Fairchild Aircraft Company, a firm that no longer exists.
"No longer exists"? Without any mention of this:
Quote:
ArmaLite sold the patent and trademarks to Colt's Manufacturing Company in 1959.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 04:39 PM   #28
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,911
There is just no way to decrease recoil so much bump-fire wouldn't be possible. especially with bump-stock. They go after manufacturer, because they have money, nothing more, nothing less.
The stock was legal. It's not anymore, but it was at the time. Not unknown, not not-considered. It was studied, and proclaimed legal.
The gun was legal. It is STILL just as legal as it was at the time.

Trying to prove all guns with recoil are illegal is really gonna be tough job ..
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 04:59 PM   #29
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,834
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
There is just no way to decrease recoil so much bump-fire wouldn't be possible. especially with bump-stock. They go after manufacturer, because they have money, nothing more, nothing less.
The stock was legal. It's not anymore, but it was at the time. Not unknown, not not-considered. It was studied, and proclaimed legal.
The gun was legal. It is STILL just as legal as it was at the time.

Trying to prove all guns with recoil are illegal is really gonna be tough job ..
If this is directed at me you might noticed that I said I don't think they will win quite a while back. And FFS they aren't trying to prove all guns with recoil are illegal. They are going after one gun and one gun only, the AR-15.

But still, Myraid and Pope130 still seem to me to be completely misrepresenting things.

Are you so cynical that you are certain the plaintiffs only goal can be money? No possibility that stopping this from happening again or less often is their motive?
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 05:11 PM   #30
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,911
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
If this is directed at me you might noticed that I said I don't think they will win quite a while back. And FFS they aren't trying to prove all guns with recoil are illegal. They are going after one gun and one gun only, the AR-15.

But still, Myraid and Pope130 still seem to me to be completely misrepresenting things.

Are you so cynical that you are certain the plaintiffs only goal can be money? No possibility that stopping this from happening again or less often is their motive?
AR-15 actually has relatively low recoil, compared to many other semi-auto rifles. It IS attack on all guns.

I see no possibility claim like this can stop this happening in the future. How ? Even if they win, which I doubt. Will it do something with amount of guns already among people ? All it can achieve is some crazy muzzle breaks being mounted on all semi auto rifles.

And yes, I am that cynical. Why go after gun manufacturer ? Why not after bump-stock manufacturer ? That was the very device which converted the gun in somewhat automatic. That was the "loophole" device. Even if it was considered legal at the time.
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 05:12 PM   #31
Pope130
Illuminator
 
Pope130's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,015
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
....But still, Myraid and Pope130 still seem to me to be completely misrepresenting things.

Are you so cynical that you are certain the plaintiffs only goal can be money? No possibility that stopping this from happening again or less often is their motive?
I have no knowledge of the plaintiffs motives, nor do I think that their motives are relevant to the case. Their argument seems to hinge on a criticism of the intent of the design, and the existence of recoil. Yet they have not (and can not) bring suit against the designer of the weapons, who is dead, the firm for which he created the design, which no longer exists, nor against physics. They could, I suppose, have named the manufacturer of the ammo used, since that is the source of the recoil, but have not done so.
Pope130 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 05:20 PM   #32
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 15,027
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Some more simple factual stuff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_...fle#Modularity

So despite Myriad's protestation that it would be impossible to make a gun that can't be modified, it's actually the case that the AR-15 is designed to be easy to modify.

So the claim in the lawsuit isn't that the manufactures didn't do the impossible, it's that they did way too much to make it possible to modify this rifle.

The unusually modular design of the AR-15 applies to the firing mechanism components, like the upper and lower receivers and so forth.

But the replaceable stock is the complaint raised in the lawsuit, and being able to remove and replace that is not unusual modularity. Rifle stocks are removable and replaceable. That's as true for a bolt-action Remington you can buy at Walmart as it is for the AR-15. It's as unusual a feature as a car having removable replaceable wheels.

Google "replacement rifle stock" and be appalled at the results. People just make and sell those things whenever they feel like it. That's because they're all removable and replaceable.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 05:27 PM   #33
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,834
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
AR-15 actually has relatively low recoil, compared to many other semi-auto rifles. It IS attack on all guns.
Can you find anything in the suit where all guns are mentioned? I see nothing but AR-15.

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
I see no possibility claim like this can stop this happening in the future. How ? Even if they win, which I doubt. Will it do something with amount of guns already among people ? All it can achieve is some crazy muzzle breaks being mounted on all semi auto rifles.
I don't have answers to those questions but I'm reminded of the Onion headline "'No Way To Prevent This, Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens "

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
And yes, I am that cynical. Why go after gun manufacturer ? Why not after bump-stock manufacturer ? That was the very device which converted the gun in somewhat automatic. That was the "loophole" device. Even if it was considered legal at the time.
Not sure I'm following your reasoning. Do bump-stock manufacturers not have money? Seems to me that if they left out those manufactures that would be a sign they are going after the AR-15 because they want it off the market. The bump stocks already are.

ETA: Further along those lines, it looks like several of the defendant's are not obvious sources of big bucks.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 6th July 2019 at 05:50 PM.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 05:29 PM   #34
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,834
Originally Posted by Pope130 View Post
I have no knowledge of the plaintiffs motives, nor do I think that their motives are relevant to the case. Their argument seems to hinge on a criticism of the intent of the design, and the existence of recoil. Yet they have not (and can not) bring suit against the designer of the weapons, who is dead, the firm for which he created the design, which no longer exists, nor against physics. They could, I suppose, have named the manufacturer of the ammo used, since that is the source of the recoil, but have not done so.
FFS, Colt is responsible for their products. Doesn't ******* matter that the original designer is dead. JFC, that is a desperate argument.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 05:41 PM   #35
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,834
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Google "replacement rifle stock" and be appalled at the results. People just make and sell those things whenever they feel like it. That's because they're all removable and replaceable.
I went to the trouble of googling this from a separate network to make sure my earlier searches wouldn't influence results but yet got pages dominated by AR-15 parts. Not sure what you expected me to learn from this.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 06:30 PM   #36
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 15,027
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
I went to the trouble of googling this from a separate network to make sure my earlier searches wouldn't influence results but yet got pages dominated by AR-15 parts. Not sure what you expected me to learn from this.

From that, you should learn that Google can find you.

My top result is Stocky's Rifle Stocks. Second is Boyd's Hardwood Gunstocks. Third is McMillan Fiberglass Stocks. Nothing on the first two pages is "dominated by AR-15 parts," though of course there are sites that sell AR-15 stocks, just as there are those selling hunting rifle stocks, competition rifle stocks, tactical rifle stocks, and so forth. This is because rifle stocks are removable and replaceable.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 06:31 PM   #37
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,911
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Can you find anything in the suit where all guns are mentioned? I see nothing but AR-15.
It attacks qualities of AR-15, which are present in all guns.

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
I don't have answers to those questions but I'm reminded of the Onion headline "'No Way To Prevent This, Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens "
That's irrelevant. This discussion about specific case. Not about what should be done. I have many opinions about that, but that would be off topic.

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Not sure I'm following your reasoning. Do bump-stock manufacturers not have money? Seems to me that if they left out those manufactures that would be a sign they are going after the AR-15 because they want it off the market. The bump stocks already are.

ETA: Further along those lines, it looks like several of the defendant's are not obvious sources of big bucks.
Not sure who manufacturer of bump stock was, but since those devices are way simpler and cheaper, and illegal now, I would guess they are less likely to be good source of money.
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 08:34 PM   #38
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,834
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
From that, you should learn that Google can find you.
Uh, no.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 08:35 PM   #39
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,834
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
It attacks qualities of AR-15, which are present in all guns.
OK. Please cite such a section. Quote it here.

Maybe you have a valid case that this case might indicate that all guns should be banned. Show your evidence and we'll decide.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 6th July 2019 at 09:01 PM. Reason: Spelling and consequent clarity
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2019, 05:06 AM   #40
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,452
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Did Carrie Parsons and 57 others die by gun fire in Las Vegas or do you think it was a scam?
Poor appeal to emotion attempt noted
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:08 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.