You're killing me with your lack of understanding of the word, "deterrent" An alarm/security system won't stop a burglar from robbing your house but that little sign in your yard is a deterrent. Speaking of signs, the one that says "gun free zone" at schools doesn't actually stop school shooters but one that says, "protected by armed security" may in fact deter would be school shooters.
You're right, it would take a sizeable security force to practically disable a threat that possesses a high capacity rifle, but the deterrent factor of armed security could perhaps save lives. The truth is the root of what is motivating these youths to mass murder needs to be addressed.
I agree with you. Certainly a sign that says, "An AR-15 rifle will give you a 40 to 1 kill ratio if enter our school" will not be a deterrent. What about making assault rifle manufacturers partially liable for monetary damages unless the weapon is a Canadian style hunting rifle. My rationale is that when funding is cut the issue is usually dead.
You want to make gun manufacturers liable if their tools are used in a crime? When an individual chooses to shoot a person that individual becomes an attempted murderer. If someone runs someone down with their car you should be able to sue the auto manufacturer? Stab with a chef knife, hack with a machete, club with a baseball bat, etc. Suicides using pharmaceuticals, ropes whatever. Surviving family members could sue those companies.
Such a precident would create so much litigation it would destroy many, many industries. The cost of litigation if your product were used in a homicide would
essentially "nerf" the whole country.
The idea of using civil courts to create change like this is absolute madness. If you wan't "Canadian style" guns it needs to be mandated through law, enforced through the criminal justice system.
It's not only bad precedent, it's TERRIBLE precedent. I agree that law enforced by the criminal justice system the only reasonable approach. That legislation nor the "bait" idea I proposed will EVER happen in the U.S. because of the NRA. The NRA is an intractable problem that an articulate person like you would never be able to solve despite your high verbal verbal aptitude, and remedial ability with mathematical concepts.
Does everyone REALLY think arming teachers will stop gun violence?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
You're killing me with your lack of understanding of the word, "deterrent" An alarm/security system won't stop a burglar from robbing your house but that little sign in your yard is a deterrent. Speaking of signs, the one that says "gun free zone" at schools doesn't actually stop school shooters but one that says, "protected by armed security" may in fact deter would be school shooters.
You're right, it would take a sizeable security force to practically disable a threat that possesses a high capacity rifle, but the deterrent factor of armed security could perhaps save lives. The truth is the root of what is motivating these youths to mass murder needs to be addressed.
--
McBean
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I agree with you. Certainly a sign that says, "An AR-15 rifle will give you a 40 to 1 kill ratio if enter our school" will not be a deterrent. What about making assault rifle manufacturers partially liable for monetary damages unless the weapon is a Canadian style hunting rifle. My rationale is that when funding is cut the issue is usually dead.
Your go.
--
Ummitsme
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
You want to make gun manufacturers liable if their tools are used in a crime? When an individual chooses to shoot a person that individual becomes an attempted murderer. If someone runs someone down with their car you should be able to sue the auto manufacturer? Stab with a chef knife, hack with a machete, club with a baseball bat, etc. Suicides using pharmaceuticals, ropes whatever. Surviving family members could sue those companies.
Such a precident would create so much litigation it would destroy many, many industries. The cost of litigation if your product were used in a homicide would
essentially "nerf" the whole country.
The idea of using civil courts to create change like this is absolute madness. If you wan't "Canadian style" guns it needs to be mandated through law, enforced through the criminal justice system.
--
McBean
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It's not only bad precedent, it's TERRIBLE precedent. I agree that law enforced by the criminal justice system the only reasonable approach. That legislation nor the "bait" idea I proposed will EVER happen in the U.S. because of the NRA. The NRA is an intractable problem that an articulate person like you would never be able to solve despite your high verbal verbal aptitude, and remedial ability with mathematical concepts.