Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, March 26, 2018

OTP 2018 March 26: He struck out at baseball, but made it big in politics. Now he’s returned to his first love

In 1937, a group of standouts from the Negro baseball league, as it was known, was lured to the Dominican Republic for a barnstorming tournament against the country’s home-grown talent. Soon enough, the sun-and-fun adventure became a life-and-death proposition; the competition, it turned out, was for the benefit of the homicidal dictator Rafael Trujillo. The instruction given the visiting all-stars was simple: “You better win.”


While baseball is at the heart of the book, “The Pitcher and the Dictator” — the pitcher being the legendary Satchel Paige — the story is about much more, including gunboat diplomacy, the blood-drenched history of the Dominican Republic and, not least, the prevalence of racism and repression in mid-20th century America.


“One of the great ironies,” Smith said in an interview, is the visiting black players were “coming from the land of the free, home of the brave, and they’re going into one of the most repressive dictatorships in the world. Yet in some sense they have more freedom in that repressive dictatorship than they do in the United States.”

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: March 26, 2018 at 08:12 AM | 1703 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: history, negro leagues, off-topic, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 18 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›
   1. Traderdave Posted: March 26, 2018 at 10:21 AM (#5642993)
First!


Taste it, chowderheads!
   2. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 26, 2018 at 10:39 AM (#5643009)
From the previous thread:

Schools are much safer than they used to be.

Safer since when?
   3. Zonk is a Doppleclapper Posted: March 26, 2018 at 10:40 AM (#5643010)
In lieu of this week's OTP, I think it would be much better if everyone took the time to learn CPR instead.
   4. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 10:41 AM (#5643011)
Sure, one could argue that the amount of eggs you eat in your breakfast is immaterial but what if you have pancakes at 8pm? Is that still considered breakfast?
   5. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 10:43 AM (#5643014)
In lieu of this week's OTP, I think it would be much better if everyone took the time to learn CPR instead.

I took it in high school and had to get certified again like 4 years ago but I've told pretty much anyone that would listen if you're choking or need CPR and I'm the only one you've got to help you then you're dying.
   6. Traderdave Posted: March 26, 2018 at 10:45 AM (#5643016)
Sure, one could argue that the amount of eggs you eat in your breakfast is immaterial but what if you have pancakes at 8pm? Is that still considered breakfast?


Breakfast is simply the first meal eaten after rising and it makes no difference what it is. If you're on a bender and sleep til 1PM, the first thing you eat is considered breakfast, even if it's a sandwich or some leftover chicken soup.
   7. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 10:45 AM (#5643017)
Copied from end of other thread:

Mentally unstable people having access to guns has made schools safer?
Maybe it's less lead in drinking water. Maybe it's global warming. Maybe it's the increasing length of baseball games. Whatever the cause is, the fact is that there are fewer people being shot at school.

And in terms of bad logic, I am just as critical of the idiots who cite Katie Steinle as an argument about immigration. There might be good reasons to worry about illegal immigration, but an incredibly rare low probability event like a random/accidental shooting of a pedestrian is not one of them. People who got hysterical about it were just as stupid as these kids this weekend (or the other day with the school walkout). Their anger was misdirected and their policy proposals would've been costly and ineffective. No reason that these kids should get a pass just because the left-wing media agrees with their views and hypes them up in comparison to the anti-illegal immigration people.
   8. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 10:48 AM (#5643018)
but what if you have pancakes at 8pm?


Breakfast for dinner! Thanks, Mom!
   9. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: March 26, 2018 at 10:50 AM (#5643019)
the fact is that there are fewer people being shot at school.


Citation?
   10. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 10:50 AM (#5643020)
Sure, one could argue that the amount of eggs you eat in your breakfast is immaterial but what if you have pancakes at 8pm? Is that still considered breakfast?

If it is used the same way, breaking your fast as the first meal of the day, sure. It's not like arms today are being used to kill things is some novel unforeseen use because arms in 1786 were used primarily to repair wagons or churn butter. If "arm" meant in 1786 "take your horse to the blacksmith and get it new shoes," then yes, the word arm has changed.

I'm actually far more open to required training and looking at backgrounds for all gun transactions than most conservatives or libertarians (just for the record, I'm not a conservative or a Republican). But I'm not willing to cede that with people using it as a pretense to incrementally deprive me of the right (I don't exercise the right, but choosing not to exercise a right is an inherent part of a right). I no more trust a Democrat on a "common sense gun restriction" than a Democrat ought to trust a Republican on "common sense abortion regulation." At this point, I won't support *any* gun control legislation that also doesn't have language that protects the basic civil right from a Heller/McDonald reversal.
   11. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 10:51 AM (#5643021)
People who got hysterical about it were just as stupid as these kids this weekend (or the other day with the school walkout).


IMHO, these kids are anything but stupid. They are bright, articulate, and clear in their communications.

Now, people who get hysterical...well, I'll stop there.
   12. Zonk is a Doppleclapper Posted: March 26, 2018 at 10:51 AM (#5643023)
Just a quick aside for Gonfalon's counting purposes -- PA GOPer Ryan Costello has announced he won't seek reelection to his house seat. The filing deadline has passed for the May primary - it's up to Costello to determine whether he stays on the ballot or not. If not, though, he did have a some dude primary challenger about whom nothing is known. This seat is almost certainly a goner regardless with the PA courts map - so it's basically a matter of whether the PA GOP wants to offer up a better sacrificial lamb or just throw in the towel on it.
   13. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 10:53 AM (#5643024)
The use of "arm" is identical here. A semi-automatic handgun at its core is a more advanced version of a flintlock pistol. There's no different meaning here. It's like arguing that breakfast is defined as eating two eggs and that eating four eggs means, not that you're eating a larger breakfast, but that it can't even be breakfast at all. That's the argument of an imbecile (Shredder).
Moreover, the concept of rapid fire guns existed at the time the 2nd Amendment was adopted. They were not in common use, and they were not (duh) as effective as modern firearms, but the founding fathers were not limited to thinking of single shot flintlocks when they composed the RKBA. They knew -- or at least could have -- of more powerful weapons, and they did not choose to exclude these from its scope.

Regulated, in the modern sense, is a completely different word than trained. It is not a more advanced version of training. Now, if the only objection here is that there should be more advanced training, I don't actually have a quarrel with that; my issue there is that it's a pretense for civil right deniers. But it's not; taking away things, as those here are advocating, isn't a more advanced version of training.
The fact that he's misusing the word is of far less import than the fact that he's distorting what the 2A says. It does not say, e.g., "The right of well-regulated militias to bear arms shall not be infringed." Nor does it say, "If well-regulated militias are essential, then people can bear arms." It states as a fact, not as a condition, that well-regulated militias are essential. And then it asserts as a matter of law the right of the people, not the right of militia members, to keep and bear arms.
   14. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 10:55 AM (#5643026)
Newsflash, no one made them come out and demonstrate. They wanted to, it was their choice. They get to have freedom of assembly.


Banal Mouse strikes again.
   15. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 10:59 AM (#5643029)
Doing something about minors getting shot to death in schools doesn't seem that pathetic.


The problem should certainly be looked at; I've offered my own ways to address it. (But since "Ban guns!" is the only thing the left finds acceptable, the discussion goes nowhere.)

That said, a child has a far greater chance drowning in a pool, or being the victim of a car accident, then he or she does getting shot up in a school. Some measure of perspective really should be considered here. In fact, the best "solution" would be to tell kids and schools to ignore this entire issue, because it is utterly unlikely to ever happen to them or to anyone they know.
   16. Morty Causa Posted: March 26, 2018 at 10:59 AM (#5643031)
Breakfast is simply the first meal eaten after rising and it makes no difference what it is

Then the expression "skipping breakfast" has no meaning unless you never eat again ever? Or, like me, you never rise.
   17. Zonk is a Doppleclapper Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:00 AM (#5643032)
Ultimately, civic engagement is a positive thing.

I'm sorry some people have a problem with the opinions - sorrier still some people feel the need to warp them - but that's how civic engagement works. A decent chunk of these kids will be voters this fall. Most will be eligible by 2020.

I, for one, welcome our new youth overlords. I would remind them that as a trusted poster, I could be of great assistance rounding up others to work in their underground virtue mines.
   18. McCoy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:01 AM (#5643034)
They knew -- or at least could have -- of more powerful weapons, and they did not choose to exclude these from its scope.

That's a bit of a stretch I think. A gun was in existence on the other side of the world so therefore because the founding fathers didn't specifically deal with it they're okay with it seems a bit of absurd step in logic.
   19. Morty Causa Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:01 AM (#5643035)
Can the State or City pass laws and ordinances banning guns from bars?
   20. BrianBrianson Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:02 AM (#5643036)

Schools are much safer than they used to be.

Safer since when?


I mean - did you read that list? It has school massacres going back to the 1700s.
   21. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:02 AM (#5643037)
No reason that these kids should get a pass just because the left-wing media agrees with their views and hypes them up in comparison to the anti-illegal immigration people.


Tell us how Bush and the Israelis did 9/11 next, David!
   22. PreservedFish Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:03 AM (#5643038)
The problem should certainly be looked at; I've offered my own ways to address it. (But since "Ban guns!" is the only thing the left finds acceptable, the discussion goes nowhere.)


Blame the parents more? What else?
   23. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:05 AM (#5643040)
From the previous thread:

Safer since when?

https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/02/schools-are-still-one-of-the-safest-places-for-children-researcher-says/

Just in case you don't get to it -- there are like ten three-syllable words in the opening paragraph -- the answer to your question would be according to:

Fridel and Fox used data collected by USA Today, the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Report, Congressional Research Service, Gun Violence Archive, Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries, Mother Jones, Everytown for Gun Safety, and a NYPD report on active shooters.


Leaving aside that history didn't begin in the 90's, the first chart in your link doesn't support the headline, the second chart seems to indicate that nobody died at Parkland, and the third chart ends at 2015.

P.S. Funny how the master of three-syllable words hasn't yet figured out how to use the <a> tab on a website that IIRC he used to have something to do with. Should we provide you with a tu-torial for future reference?
   24. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:08 AM (#5643041)
The problem should certainly be looked at; I've offered my own ways to address it. (But since "Ban guns!" is the only thing the left finds acceptable, the discussion goes nowhere.)

Blame the parents more? What else?

Arm all the teachers!
   25. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:10 AM (#5643043)
Schools are much safer than they used to be.


Safer since when?

I mean - did you read that list? It has school massacres going back to the 1700s.


Of course I went over the list, but unless I'm missing something, "safer" is a relative term, and "safer than they used to be" is nothing but an unsupported assertion without any given baseline for comparison.
   26. Lassus Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:13 AM (#5643045)
Arm all the teachers!

That's not fair, they only want selected, well-regulated teachers to be armed.
   27. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:13 AM (#5643046)
Then the expression "skipping breakfast" has no meaning unless you never eat again ever? Or, like me, you never rise.

There is such a thing as informal language. McGruff wasn't literally saying that we should physically consume the concept of crime using our jaws. You probably don't have anywhere near a million things you need to do during a given day.
   28. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:13 AM (#5643047)
Banal Mouse strikes again.


When someone says something really dumb - like David did - sometimes a banal observation is the right one. Hearing a Libertarian whine about how people freely choose to spend their time, while he wastes it in an even less productive fashion, doesn't require a deep rebuttal.

Make better points and I will rebut them with more complex replies.
   29. PreservedFish Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:15 AM (#5643048)
I think we can all agree that a proper definition of "breakfast" is needed before we can move forward with a debate on gun control and the second amendment.
   30. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:16 AM (#5643049)
Hear hear!
   31. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:17 AM (#5643050)

Of course I went over the list, but unless I'm missing something, "safer" is a relative term, and "safer than they used to be" is nothing but an unsupported assertion without any given baseline for comparison.


Andy's Playbook B: Make a demand for evidence and then, when confronted with the exact thing he asks for, be too unintelligent to be able to understand what he's reading.

(Playbook A is to simultaneously be the largest practitioner of and largest criticizer of whataBOUTism)
   32. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:18 AM (#5643052)
Trump Struggles to Find Lawyers to Represent Him

“Working for a president is usually seen as a dream job. But leading white-collar lawyers in Washington and New York have repeatedly spurned overtures to take over the defense of Mr. Trump, a mercurial client who often ignores his advisers’ guidance. In some cases, lawyers’ firms have blocked any talks, fearing a backlash that would hurt business.”

“The president lost two lawyers in just the past four days, including one who had been on board for less than a week.”


This difficulty attracting good people, burning through the few good ones he actually gets, and the obsession with winning the news cycle (battle) and not the long run (war) is inexorably catching up to the GOP Trump administration. It is a bit like a Zamboni crash, slow motion and predictable, but not without its entertaining aspects.
   33. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:20 AM (#5643054)
I think we can all agree that a proper definition of "breakfast" is needed before we can move forward with a debate on gun control and the second amendment.


So long as it includes brunch, lunch, dinner, supper, and afternoon tea then sure. We can skip such innovations such as second breakfast and elevenses.
   34. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:22 AM (#5643055)
The problem should certainly be looked at; I've offered my own ways to address it. (But since "Ban guns!" is the only thing the left finds acceptable, the discussion goes nowhere.)

Blame the parents more? What else?


Arm all the teachers!


The best solution is Do Nothing.

It also happens to be the most cost effective.
   35. Lassus Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:24 AM (#5643056)
Andy's playbook works better than calling people names like a Youtube commenter upset about support for Andre-Hamelin's sparing legato.
   36. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:27 AM (#5643057)
The best solution is Do Nothing.

It also happens to be the most cost effective.


Even if true so what? I really love how we were treated to endless discussions about how we absolutely had to take seriously the grievances of the Trump voters seriously, even when they were obviously bogus.

We would discuss their "concerns" even when everyone with half a brain saw they were dumb. But no we couldn't just dismiss the precious Trump voter, because they mattered and even their silly nonsensical concerns mattered. And the whole election (according to some here) turned on the rage those Trump voters felt when ignored and disparaged by those evil Liberals!

Now we have a bunch of actual and future voters with their own concerns, but mysteriously their concerns can be brushed aside as meaningless. THEY are not important. Those crazy kids should do something productive!

Funny how some concerns can be ignored on the basis of being "groundless" and other concerns MUST be paid attention to no matter how groundless they are. Hmmm, it is almost like there is a pattern here.
   37. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:27 AM (#5643058)
Jolly's playbook works better than calling people names like a Youtube commenter upset about support for Andre-Hamelin's legato.

Jolly would play Sorabji with farts.

After 8 years of needing to at least try to be diplomatic about Jolly's copious bullshit, it's quite liberating to not have to pretend to be nice. I'd need to live to be 180 to balance that particular ledger.

[Edit: Changed the name to Jolly. I used his forename out of habit, but if he's not making it public, I shouldn't be using it. My apologies to you, Lassus, for altering your quote slightly, but it was my fault that your response had the name.]
   38. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:28 AM (#5643059)
The best solution is Do Nothing.


Funny how you boys didn't apply your "Do Nothing" theory to 9/11.
   39. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:29 AM (#5643060)
Andy's Playbook B: Make a demand for evidence and then, when confronted with the exact thing he asks for, be too unintelligent to be able to understand what he's reading.

Just to be clear, this is Dan's idea of "exact" evidence: A headline that makes an assertion, followed by a chart that shows exactly one school shooting with more deaths than Parkland; a second chart that leaves Parkland out altogether;** and a third chart whose data end in 2015. You're going to have to do a bit better than that.

** Unsurprisingly, since upon further inspection it ends in 2016

   40. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:29 AM (#5643061)
“Working for a president is usually seen as a dream job. But leading white-collar lawyers in Washington and New York have repeatedly spurned overtures to take over the defense of Mr. Trump, a mercurial client who often ignores his advisers’ guidance. In some cases, lawyers’ firms have blocked any talks, fearing a backlash that would hurt business.”


The biggest concern I'd have representing Trump is that he would expect me to do something unethical or even criminal in my representation of him. Because he doesn't seem to know or care what the ethical rules are.

The second problem is that it would be a difficult representation because he would likely ignore my legal advice. Clients are certainly free to ignore legal advice but when they do it often causes more work for the lawyer, more headaches, and drives up costs -- and the latter is undesirable because such a client is likely to ultimately blame that on the lawyer -- as well as blaming the bad outcome on the lawyer despite him not following the lawyer's advice. The other problem with a client ignoring your legal advice is that it increases the odds that the client will run into further trouble and bring you close to a clear ethical line which will necessitate your withdrawal.

The third problem is that Trump may not pay his legal bills.

But as to a "backlash that would hurt business," I'm skeptical. Yes the media and the left demonizes anyone who works for Trump because they've all gone insane, but intelligent and rational people don't engage in that.
   41. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:30 AM (#5643062)
Andy's playbook works better than calling people names like a Youtube commenter upset about support for Andre-Hamelin's legato.

Dan's playbook works better when it's only fact-checked by Sara Sanders.
   42. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:31 AM (#5643063)
A semi-automatic handgun at its core is a more advanced version of a flintlock pistol.


A stick of dynamite is at its core a more advanced version of a firecracker. A phosgene gas generator made from carbon tetrachloride is at its core a more advanced version of a "tinfoil & pool acid in a 2-liter bottle" bomb. And so on and so on.
   43. PreservedFish Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:31 AM (#5643064)
The problem should certainly be looked at; I've offered my own ways to address it. (But since "Ban guns!" is the only thing the left finds acceptable, the discussion goes nowhere.)
...

The best solution is Do Nothing.


I'm not sure what I expected.
   44. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:31 AM (#5643065)
(But since "Ban guns!" is the only thing the left finds acceptable, the discussion goes nowhere.)


Literally no one on "the left" has proposed "ban guns!" This is, of course, where Ray and David, et al, join the gaping maw of stupidity that is the Fox & Friends demographic.
   45. PreservedFish Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:33 AM (#5643066)
Yes the media and the left demonizes anyone who works for Trump because they've all gone insane, but intelligent and rational people don't engage in that.


Most businesses can't afford to ignore irrational customers. Many thrive on them. Even some law firms, I'd bet.
   46. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:36 AM (#5643068)
Literally no one on "the left" has proposed "ban guns!" This is, of course, where Ray and David, et al, join the gaping maw of stupidity that is the Fox & Friends demographic.


You're not fooling anyone.
   47. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:36 AM (#5643069)
The best solution is Do Nothing.

I'm not sure what I expected.


Do you find that solution irrational? Why?
   48. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:40 AM (#5643072)
You're not fooling anyone.


Tell us how Bush and the Israelis did 9/11 next, Ray.
   49. Zonk is a Doppleclapper Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:43 AM (#5643073)
Do you find that solution irrational? Why?


Because there are things that could be done to make these shootings less deadly - things have previously passed constitutional muster. A better version of the 90s era assault weapons ban for one.

We've discussed it before, but there's a distinct and undeniable difference between the damage done to a body from bullets out of a semi-auto rifle with a muzzle velocity of 3000 to 3500 fps and a handgun with muzzle velocities of half or 1/3 of that.

Don't confuse "solution" with "mitigation"...
   50. PreservedFish Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:44 AM (#5643074)
Do you find that solution irrational? Why?


Well, it's not a solution. But is it impossible that Do Nothing is the best course of action? No, it's not impossible. I was just amused by the transition from "I have great solutions that people ignore!" to "just ignore the problem."

I wouldn't be shocked if the actual best thing would be to get the major media to all agree not to cover school shootings, using the "don't show a streaker on television" logic. Fat chance of that.

As for me, I think that more gun control is a fine idea, particularly stricter controls or outright bans on the supermurder weapons that the Vegas guy used, for instance (yes, I know that wasn't a school). I don't have a problem with the second Amendment in general - I'm not a hunter but I have tons of friends that are - just with those that think it's practically limitless.

And I fully support the kids that marched. They give a ####, and they're exercising their free speech. Good for them.
   51. BrianBrianson Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:45 AM (#5643075)
Of course I went over the list, but unless I'm missing something, "safer" is a relative term, and "safer than they used to be" is nothing but an unsupported assertion without any given baseline for comparison.


If you included that link as a non sequitur, sure you can see why people would be confused. Otherwise, it doesn't seem to demonstrate much.

But of course, it's piss-easy for anyone to verify that violence in schools is decreasing for example, including murders if one is interested in facts rather than ideology.

The overall trend isn't surprising - violence and murder have been decreasing for the last few hundred years (albeit with occasional upticks). No reason schools should be different.

Interesting, the last link notes that 1-2% of murders of kids occur at school. Given that kids spend 12~15% of their time at school, it may well be the safest place for them.
   52. BDC Posted: March 26, 2018 at 11:56 AM (#5643080)
CPR training for high-school students reminded me that while I didn't have it, I did participate in some sort of training. This was c1975 in New Jersey. As I've mentioned, I was a theater kid, so when some class or other needed disaster training, I was recruited as a victim. I was told to put on injury/wound makeup and a torn costume, given a bag of stage blood and a pump, and was supposed to lie around writhing and bleeding so that I could be treated. This being a public high school in New Jersey, the blood device didn't work and the disaster students didn't know what to do when I told them where I was supposed to be bleeding. But at least everybody got out of class for the day.

There is no political point to this story.
   53. PreservedFish Posted: March 26, 2018 at 12:02 PM (#5643086)
Haven't they greatly simplified the CPR instructions that they give to the general public? I think that you're no longer supposed to do mouth-to-mouth breathing, and no counting. You just pump on the person's lifeless chest until professionals arrive. I suppose I could confirm this with a quick googling, but nah.
   54. Random Transaction Generator Posted: March 26, 2018 at 12:02 PM (#5643087)
That said, a child has a far greater chance drowning in a pool, or being the victim of a car accident, then he or she does getting shot up in a school.


For years people have been doing things (and enacting laws) to reduce the occurrence of the first two.
Most governments insist that people have fences and gates around their pools to reduce the chance some small child will wander into the pool and drown. Most governments insist that public pools have lifeguards on duty when they are open. Seat belt laws exists because governments wanted to reduce the chance of injury/death in car accidents.

I'm not sure why any act that tries to reduce the third occurrence should be abandoned because not as many people get killed that way.
That's like saying people shouldn't spend money on prostate cancer research because more people get killed by other forms of cancer.
   55. Shredder Posted: March 26, 2018 at 12:04 PM (#5643091)
Literally no one on "the left" has proposed "ban guns!" This is, of course, where Ray and David, et al, join the gaping maw of stupidity that is the Fox & Friends demographic.
The disconnect here (surprise surprise) comes from David being disingenuous*. Of course someone arguing for the ban of even one type of assault weapon (of which presumably more than one exist) is calling for a ban of guns, plural. Now, in the normal parlance of these discussions, most of us read "ban guns" as "ban all guns", which of course almost no one is calling for, at least no one who is taken seriously. But in David's mind, calling for the ban of more than one actual, physical gun is calling for the technical ban of "guns". So David can say people are arguing for banning guns, even though after any such ban were enacted, there would still be plenty of perfectly legal guns available. He's kind of like the literal doctor from Arrested Development.

*Ray, on the other hand, is just an idiot.
   56. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 12:12 PM (#5643094)
For years people have been doing things (and enacting laws) to reduce the occurrence of the first two.
Most governments insist that people have fences and gates around their pools to reduce the chance some small child will wander into the pool and drown. Most governments insist that public pools have lifeguards on duty when they are open. Seat belt laws exists because governments wanted to reduce the chance of injury/death in car accidents.

I'm not sure why any act that tries to reduce the third occurrence should be abandoned because not as many people get killed that way.
That's like saying people shouldn't spend money on prostate cancer research because more people get killed by other forms of cancer.


Gun purchase and use is already heavily regulated.
   57. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 26, 2018 at 12:17 PM (#5643097)
Of course I went over the list, but unless I'm missing something, "safer" is a relative term, and "safer than they used to be" is nothing but an unsupported assertion without any given baseline for comparison.

If you included that link as a non sequitur, sure you can see why people would be confused. Otherwise, it doesn't seem to demonstrate much.

But of course, it's piss-easy for anyone to verify that violence in schools is decreasing for example, including murders if one is interested in facts rather than ideology.

The overall trend isn't surprising - violence and murder have been decreasing for the last few hundred years (albeit with occasional upticks). No reason schools should be different.

Interesting, the last link notes that 1-2% of murders of kids occur at school. Given that kids spend 12~15% of their time at school, it may well be the safest place for them.


I'm sure that overall, schools are safer than the homes with an out-of-control parent, or a neighborhood infested with gangs or drugs. They always have been, and they always will be. But what does that have to do with the assertion that "schools are much safer than they used to be?"

And once again, the links both Dan and you are citing as some sort of irrefutable evidence don't support that original assertion of David's.

Your first link only goes up through 2015, and doesn't specifically deal with school murders.

Your second link also doesn't cite a single study that goes beyond either 2015 or 2014.

And your third link ends at 2010. It's as if the 57 school shootings since 2015 don't even register on the radar.

If you want to argue that schools aren't much more dangerous now than they were in selected previous years, that's one thing. Obviously in any given year there'll be blips in both directions. But the idea that "schools are much safer now than they used to be" is simply an assertion.
   58. PreservedFish Posted: March 26, 2018 at 12:18 PM (#5643098)
Gun purchase and use is already heavily regulated.


Oh, problem solved then. I'm sure that the government has already nailed this one - they tend to get everything just right, don't they?
   59. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 26, 2018 at 12:24 PM (#5643102)
It has school massacres going back to the 1700s.


yeah, but most of those were bear attacks.
   60. PreservedFish Posted: March 26, 2018 at 12:33 PM (#5643105)
yeah, but most of those were bear attacks.


Relevant! I was listening to a podcast on the second amendment the other night, and it had the audio from the Heller Supreme Court hearing. The first time Justice Kennedy opened his mouth, and thus tipped his hand, was when he asked if the Founders wanted the people to have guns to protect them from threats such as bears.
   61. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 12:37 PM (#5643107)
Gun purchase and use is already heavily regulated.


How so? Not seeing that one. Moreover, the gun industry has been explicitly carved out of the possibility of civil damages for the use of their product. So they don't even have to face the type of lawsuits other manufacturers have to face. Adjusted for their danger, they're the least regulated product in the United States -- easily.
   62. Jay Z Posted: March 26, 2018 at 12:41 PM (#5643109)
Moreover, the concept of rapid fire guns existed at the time the 2nd Amendment was adopted. They were not in common use, and they were not (duh) as effective as modern firearms, but the founding fathers were not limited to thinking of single shot flintlocks when they composed the RKBA. They knew -- or at least could have -- of more powerful weapons, and they did not choose to exclude these from its scope.


Then bombs on planes then. Not bombers, but individuals carrying bombs on planes.

Clearly a bomb is an arm. Things akin to bombs I'm sure existed when the founders were around. They didn't exclude them from 2A, so they're allowed. Refusing to let an individual board a plane with a bomb is clearly a violation of the broad interpretation of 2A.

Of course, DMN would have that the airplanes are private companies and should be able to set their own rules. It's really more efficient for the airlines to be covered under law, but DMN pedantically says they can't. In Libertopia the actual result would probably be governments-in-all-but-name popping up. You have to sign up to be part of the "governed", but once you do, it's pretty much the same. The libertarians can stay on their tiny compounds and not engage in commerce, while the rest agree to be governed.

So the private actors airlines can ban bombs. But they can't do it per government, though they can create a government-in-all-but-name to ban them collectively. And leave the market for allowing bombs on planes, which is zero, to "flourish."

Anyway, per broad interpretation of 2A, bombs on planes are clearly allowed. As I have mentioned before, the pro-gun lobby does not really welcome the broad interpretation of 2A being put into place, because it's insane and risks repeal. Broad interpretation is just a talking point in the court of public opinion, not something the pro-gun side wants to put into active practice.
   63. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 12:46 PM (#5643113)
Of course, DMN would have that the airplanes are private companies and should be able to set their own rules. It's really more efficient for the airlines to be covered under law, but DMN pedantically says they can't.


He's a troll. He's lashing out at the kids who marched, because they're already smart enough to have ditched doctrinaire libertarianism ... and he isn't.

Anyway, per broad interpretation of 2A, bombs on planes are clearly allowed.


Nuclear bombs in houses are allowed. Nuclear bombs are arms, which is why we have treaties like the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty that cover them.
   64. Zonk is a Doppleclapper Posted: March 26, 2018 at 12:48 PM (#5643114)
Heh...

So - I can only assume Fox or talk radio or some other similar sources were making a big deal out of it, but I've noticed a decided uptick in some people (only obliquely referenced her - i.e., kids being 'used') complaining about 'shadowy liberal organizations' footing the bills for logistics, etc of the weekend's marches.

Quite hilariously, the orgs that helped fund many of the marches are 501(c)(4) organizations... you may have heard of one such org years back - something United.

   65. SteveF Posted: March 26, 2018 at 12:48 PM (#5643115)
Anyway, per broad interpretation of 2A, bombs on planes are clearly allowed.

Well, using a bomb on a plane isn't a particularly effective form of self-defense, one might argue. If the 2A is broadly interpreted to include a right of self-defense, then banning bombs on plans wouldn't encroach upon that right.
   66. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 12:49 PM (#5643118)
How so? Not seeing that one. Moreover, the gun industry has been explicitly carved out of the possibility of civil damages for the use of their product. So they don't even have to face the type of lawsuits other manufacturers have to face. Adjusted for their danger, they're the least regulated product in the United States -- easily.


? As far as I'm aware, gun manufacturers can be sued for product liability if there's a manufacturing defect, just as any other product manufacturer can be.

If you stab me with a knife I can't sue the knife manufacturer for that either.
   67. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 12:49 PM (#5643119)
If the 2A is broadly interpreted to include a right of self-defense, then banning bombs on plans wouldn't encroach upon that right.


Banning them in the home would. And banning them in private hands would badly harm the fight against tyranny that allegedly underpins the right.
   68. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 12:50 PM (#5643121)
As far as I'm aware, gun manufacturers can be sued for product liability, just as any other product manufacturer can be.


No, they can't be.

Link

In October 2016, a Connecticut Superior Court judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the families of some victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting against the manufacturer, the wholesale distributor, and the retailer of the semi-automatic rifle used in the shooting. Judge Barbara Bellis ruled that the suit "falls squarely within the broad immunity" provided to gun manufacturers and dealers by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.[22] The Connecticut Supreme Court is considering the case.

   69. Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 12:53 PM (#5643123)
Now THIS is how you cockholster!


A Florida radio show host defended President Trump in an unusual way, as the highly anticipated Stormy Daniels interview about Trump’s alleged sexual history aired on CBS’ “60 Minutes.”

Daniels, an adult film star who claims she and Trump had sex in 2006, revealed several salacious details about her sexual encounter with the president, including that she spanked him with a magazine whose cover contained Trump’s face.

The porn star also said the president told her she reminded him of his daughter.

The interview came just days after a separate interview aired on CNN in which another woman, Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal alleged she had an extramarital affair with Trump more than a decade ago, just months after Melania Trump had given birth to the couple’s son, Barron Trump.

Despite these…disturbing…allegations, which highlight Trump’s alleged personal pitfalls, one radio show host in Florida used the porn star’s appearance to defend Trump.

“President Trump is exactly the kind of man God has used throughout the Bible to save the world. It’s the pious ones that are usually the bad guys,” Bill Mitchell, hosts of “Your Voice” tweeted.

President Trump is exactly the kind of man God has used throughout the Bible to save the world. It's the pious ones that are usually the bad guys.https://t.co/wW2Jryvkvl

— Bill Mitchell (@mitchellvii) March 25, 2018




RedState
   70. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: March 26, 2018 at 12:53 PM (#5643124)
I can only assume Fox or talk radio or some other similar sources were making a big deal out of it, but I've noticed a decided uptick in some people (only obliquely referenced her - i.e., kids being 'used') complaining about 'shadowy liberal organizations' footing the bills for logistics, etc of the weekend's marches.


It's the standard rhetorical response to seeing hundreds of thousands of people in the streets being activists for a particular policy or issue, all while their Super President Amazeballs can't even fill the Mall for inauguration. If a lot of liberals are active on an issue, it must be because George Soros is spending his Evil Jew Money on it.
   71. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: March 26, 2018 at 12:55 PM (#5643126)
Well, using a bomb on a plane isn't a particularly effective form of self-defense, one might argue.


It's no less effective than an AR-15 against an Apache.
   72. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 12:59 PM (#5643127)
As far as I'm aware, gun manufacturers can be sued for product liability, just as any other product manufacturer can be.

No, they can't be.

Link

In October 2016, a Connecticut Superior Court judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the families of some victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting against the manufacturer, the wholesale distributor, and the retailer of the semi-automatic rifle used in the shooting. Judge Barbara Bellis ruled that the suit "falls squarely within the broad immunity" provided to gun manufacturers and dealers by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.[22] The Connecticut Supreme Court is considering the case.


SBB, your own link supports my point and not yours:

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.


I don't know what cause of action the Sandy Hook victims could possibly be successful on against the gun manufacturer.

And IIRC Adam Lanza didn't buy the guns himself nor were they bought so that Lanza could shoot up a school so I don't know why any negligent entrustment suit would succeed either.
   73. PreservedFish Posted: March 26, 2018 at 12:59 PM (#5643128)
Well, using a bomb on a plane isn't a particularly effective form of self-defense, one might argue.


Unless you can convince your assailant that you might just be crazy enough to use it.

If the 2A is broadly interpreted to include a right of self-defense, then banning bombs on plans wouldn't encroach upon that right.


The militia clause makes it clear that 2A is more concerned with national defense, in which case bombs on planes seem entirely appropriate, nay, even necessary. Or were the flight 93 passengers wrong to cause their flight to crash out in the middle of nowhere instead of allowing it to reach its target?
   74. bunyon Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:01 PM (#5643129)
Well, using a bomb on a plane isn't a particularly effective form of self-defense, one might argue.

How fat is the guy to my right?
   75. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:02 PM (#5643130)
SBB, your own link supports my point and not yours:


No -- it isn't a blanket carveout, but no liability for intended use is still a massive carve out. You can't sue a gun maker for the damages caused by the intended use of the product, as you can sue, e.g., a tobacco company.(*) That's what I meant by the immunity. The product is inherently dangerous to the community, routinely causes great danger to the community -- yet the manufacturers can't be called to account for that danger.

(*) Or McDonald's for its coffee (LOL).
   76. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:04 PM (#5643131)
I don't know what cause of action the Sandy Hook victims could possibly be successful on against the gun manufacturer.


Sale of an inherently dangerous product. Negligence. Etc.

But those suits can't be brought because of the immunity.
   77. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:05 PM (#5643132)
And IIRC Adam Lanza didn't buy the guns himself nor were they bought so that Lanza could shoot up a school so I don't know why any negligent entrustment suit would succeed either.


It was negligent to sell that weaponry to Adam Lanza with no questions asked and so few internal safeguards. The product sold was also inherently dangerous, at least as in typical manufacture. I suppose it could be manufactured to not be -- with like some kind of crazy-ass internal safety mechanism that would be virtually impossible to undo without massively strict safeguards -- but probably not.

Etc., etc. I'm sure there are other typical products liability theories out there, but that isn't my specialty area. Guns like the AR-15 are like tobacco, only even more inherently dangerous.

Are there even any warning labels? Of course, those don't do anything for the people who fall victim to the "secondhand smoke."
   78. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:06 PM (#5643133)
No -- it isn't a blanket carveout, but no liability for intended use is still a massive carve out. You can't sue a gun maker for the damages caused by the intended use of the product, as you can sue, e.g., a tobacco company.


You can sue a gun manufacturer for a defect under products liability (among other causes of action) which is exactly what I argued and exactly what your link says.

And there are plenty of "intended uses" of a gun that are legal, which is why you can no more successfully sue under that theory for a school shooting than you can if a person kills someone with a knife, or a car, or an axe, or a shovel.

But wait: your link says that there is indeed an intended use theory against manufacturers and dealers: "They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime."

And IIUC a gun dealer can also be in trouble if he or she sells to a person who didn't clear the background check.

I don't understand what legal point you're arguing here.
   79. SteveF Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:07 PM (#5643136)
The militia clause makes it clear that 2A is more concerned with national defense, in which case bombs on planes seem entirely appropriate, nay, even necessary. Or were the flight 93 passengers wrong to cause their flight to crash out in the middle of nowhere instead of allowing it to reach its target?

If a bomb on a plane was necessary how did the passengers get the plane to crash without one?

Either way, I'm just going by the Supremes current broad interpretation of the 2A as suggested by current case law. I'm not that interested in going down the rabbit hole of what the 2A really means/meant.
   80. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:07 PM (#5643139)
Gun purchase and use is already heavily regulated.


It needs to get heavier.
   81. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:08 PM (#5643142)
Sale of an inherently dangerous product. Negligence. Etc.

But those suits can't be brought because of the immunity.


Just like with chainsaws and the rope used to strangle someone.
   82. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:09 PM (#5643144)
Gun purchase and use is already heavily regulated.


Not as heavily regulated as lawn darts.
   83. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:11 PM (#5643145)
You can sue a gun manufacturer for a defect under products liability (among other causes of action) which is exactly what I argued and exactly what your link says.


But Lanza's gun wasn't defective.

And, it doesn't matter, but the right to sue for a defective product would likely not run to people who didn't purchase it. If Lanza was cleaning it, and it somehow misfired and killed or injured him, he could sue, but that's not what we're talking about.
   84. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:11 PM (#5643146)
Just like with chainsaws and the rope used to strangle someone.


Those products aren't inherently dangerous and have legitimate uses that makes selling them less negligent or reckless.
   85. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:12 PM (#5643148)
Literally no one on "the left" has proposed "ban guns!" This is, of course, where Ray and David, et al, join the gaping maw of stupidity that is the Fox & Friends demographic.
Literally oodles of people on the left have done that, unless you're going for FLTB level of nitpicking because I didn't explicitly say, "for private citizens." My Facebook feed has been virtually unreadable for the last couple of weeks with people specifically calling for that.

And the ones who don't want to ban guns want "common sense gun restrictions" that involve banning guns (yes, yes, for private citizens).

EDIT: Let's not forget all the Shredderesqe sneering about how they'll magnanimously allow you to have muskets and flintlocks.
   86. Greg K Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:12 PM (#5643149)
I don't understand what legal point you're arguing here.

I think there may have been an edit that is responsible.

Ray's #66:
? As far as I'm aware, gun manufacturers can be sued for product liability if there's a manufacturing defect, just as any other product manufacturer can be.


SBB's quoting of that in #68:
As far as I'm aware, gun manufacturers can be sued for product liability, just as any other product manufacturer can be.


Presumably Ray edited in "if there's a manufacturing defect" after SBB read the post. Technically the first statement can be true, but the second one false.
   87. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:13 PM (#5643150)
I don't understand what legal point you're arguing here.


That gun manufacturers can't be sued on the same legal theories tobacco manufacturers could -- that the product itself is dangerous even when used as intended. There's an explicit legal carveout for that. "Defective product" is an entirely different legal theory. A "defective" gun is one that misfires when it shouldn't, e.g.

Negligent entrustment isn't even really a product liability case.
   88. BrianBrianson Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:13 PM (#5643151)
If you want to argue that schools aren't much more dangerous now than they were in selected previous years, that's one thing. Obviously in any given year there'll be blips in both directions. But the idea that "schools are much safer now than they used to be" is simply an assertion.


This kind of shitty fling-spaghetti-at-the-wall-and-hope-some-sticks "counterargument" makes it pretty clear you're only interested in ideology and not facts, and why you're avoiding trying to find facts that would support your position, because it's clear if you find any facts, they'll crush the nonsense you're peddling.

Of course any data is going to be at least slightly out of date. But "Sure, students have experienced continuously less violence for the last two decades, but maybe that's changed radically in the last two years!" is nonsense. Of course, it's possible, but absent any evidence, it shouldn't be taken seriously.

And goalpost moving - the original claim was schools were safer than they've ever been, but you responded to data showing they're safer that it didn't specifically concern katana attacks (or whatever the bugbear was). Well, the claim is that students at school are safer than they've ever been, and that's what every piece of data shows. And, of course, for students who do get killed, I doubt they much care whether it's with a katana or a woodchipper.
   89. PreservedFish Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:13 PM (#5643152)
And the ones who don't want to ban guns want "common sense gun restrictions" that involve banning guns


That involve banning certain guns, yes.
   90. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:14 PM (#5643153)
64

'shadowy liberal organizations'


We've been hearing this for ages. The kids who protested at Kent State University in 1970 -- leading to the deaths of 4 of them at the hands of the Ohio National Guard -- were "outside subversive, Communist agitators," joined by students who were "dupes of far left ideology."
   91. Lassus Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:15 PM (#5643156)
I am kind of sorry the "definition of breakfast" discussion didn't continue.
   92. SteveF Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:17 PM (#5643158)
Presumably Ray edited in "if there's a manufacturing defect" after SBB read the post. Technically the first statement can be true, but the second one false.

I'd say Ray is much closer to right. The law Congress passed wasn't to prevent gun manufacturers being sued under a product liability claim but rather a nuisance claim or some other form of liability a judge might think up under common law.

There might be an argument in terms of design defects. For instance, you might argue that a lack of fingerprint recognition on guns that would unlock the safety is a design defect. But at that point you essentially have judges creating laws for the manufacturing of guns, which is extremely undesirable.
   93. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:17 PM (#5643159)
It was negligent to sell that weaponry to Adam Lanza with no questions asked and so few internal safeguards.


Come on. You need to have some basic familiarity with the facts before you argue the law. The Times says his mother bought the guns, which comports with my recollection:

Before the shooting

His mother, Nancy Lanza, a gun enthusiast, legally obtained and registered a large collection of weapons and would often take her sons to shooting ranges.

Mr. Lanza used his mother’s guns to kill her and 26 others


The product sold was also inherently dangerous, at least as in typical manufacture. I suppose it could be manufactured to not be -- with like some kind of crazy-ass internal safety mechanism that would be virtually impossible to undo without massively strict safeguards -- but probably not.


No, that's not how products liability has typically worked, although in some states it's getting more difficult to defend an inherently dangerous product. (Typically "the product is what it is" has been enough of a defense for manufacturers.)

Etc., etc. I'm sure there are other typical products liability theories out there, but that isn't my specialty area. Guns like the AR-15 are like tobacco, only even more inherently dangerous.


Not sure I can parse this.
   94. Zonk is a Doppleclapper Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:17 PM (#5643160)
Just like with chainsaws and the rope used to strangle someone.


I think that what PLCAA does is largely immunize gun manufacturers against suits for 'negligent marketing' -- i.e., if a rope manufacturer markets its product - slyly - as great for lynching people, they could be sued by lynching victims if it was shown that the rope manufacturer negligently marketed its product for such uses...

I don't claim to be an expert, but I believe the law - an NRA brainchild - was in response to a spate of suits brought by cities, individuals, etc claiming that gun manufacturers were specifically marketing their products towards criminals. I think there were likewise protections put in place for sellers that were accused of being 'straw buyer' hotspots - limiting their liability as well.
   95. Greg K Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:18 PM (#5643161)
We've been hearing this for ages. The kids who protested at Kent State University in 1970 -- leading to the deaths of 4 of them at the hands of the Ohio National Guard -- were "outside subversive, Communist agitators," joined by students who were "dupes of far left ideology."

It's an old game.

Until remarkably late in the day Charles I believed that the mobs in the streets of London, and the majority of the members of the House of Commons were loyal subjects who were just being duped by a small cadre of self-interested rabble-rousers, funded and backed by foreign Scottish agitators.
   96. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:19 PM (#5643162)
EDIT: Let's not forget all the Shredderesqe sneering about how they'll magnanimously allow you to have muskets and flintlocks.


I would like to see private ownership restricted to bolt action rifles, revolvers, and shotguns. If that can be done within the bounds of the 2A, fine. If that requires a repeal of the 2A, then fine as well.
   97. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:20 PM (#5643163)
You can sue a gun manufacturer for a defect under products liability (among other causes of action) which is exactly what I argued and exactly what your link says.

But Lanza's gun wasn't defective.


Er, that's why he can't (successfully) sue under a products liability theory.

You're all over the map here.
   98. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:20 PM (#5643164)
Not sure I can parse this.


Guns are like tobacco, only even more dangerous when used as intended. How is that difficult to parse? Cigarettes are used precisely as intended by the manufacturer, they aren't defective, yet they're still highly dangerous and the tobacco companies wound up paying a shitload of money to compensate for that danger. That case can't be brought against gun manufacturers, even though guns used as intended are even more dangerous than tobacco.

Go to the tobacco lawsuits and find the legal theories used. You'll find for certain that several of them have been taken away from people injured by guns, by that legislation I linked to. That was the very purpose of the legislation.
   99. -- Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:21 PM (#5643165)
Er, that's why he can't (successfully) sue under a products liability theory.


??

The product is dangerous when used as intended. Defective product isn't the theory being discussed. I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. It's not relevant to the issue at hand.
   100. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: March 26, 2018 at 01:22 PM (#5643166)
Flippity-doo-dah...
Page 1 of 18 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Piehole of David Wells
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 2018 September 17: How Brett Kavanaugh explains his baseball ticket debt
(2041 - 5:26pm, Sep 22)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogWeekend OMNICHATTER for September 22-23, 2018
(45 - 5:00pm, Sep 22)
Last: Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB)

NewsblogDetroit Tigers' Victor Martinez: Saturday will be final game of career
(10 - 4:52pm, Sep 22)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogAddison Russell’s Ex-Wife Releases Detailed Allegations Of Abuse
(62 - 4:19pm, Sep 22)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogWillians Astudillo Should Be Your New Favorite Player
(31 - 4:05pm, Sep 22)
Last: Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle

NewsblogOT - August/September 2018 College Football thread
(258 - 3:09pm, Sep 22)
Last: Cowboy Popup

NewsblogHall of Famer John Smoltz says MLB needs an overhaul and proposes drastic changes
(75 - 3:04pm, Sep 22)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogWainwright impresses Giants' Bochy
(5 - 2:21pm, Sep 22)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogIt's not the full moon that excites OMNICHATTER! for Sept. 21, 2018
(97 - 2:13pm, Sep 22)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (2018-19 season begins!)
(823 - 1:14pm, Sep 22)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogRed Sox Fan Dies Climbing On Top of Train Leaving Yankee Stadium
(21 - 1:03pm, Sep 22)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Thread (Pre-Season Edition)
(512 - 12:29pm, Sep 22)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogHearing WFAN’s John Sterling home run call on WEEI was a weird juxtaposition
(14 - 11:17am, Sep 22)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature

NewsblogYuli Gurriel has 7-RBI night as Astros clinch playoff berth
(4 - 11:03am, Sep 22)
Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant

Sox Therapy11 Days Later
(89 - 10:40am, Sep 22)
Last: Nasty Nate

Page rendered in 0.7183 seconds
48 querie(s) executed