Anti-Crime Activist Shot Dead Following Thanksgiving Dinner

[Wallet]

People and establishments are sued regularly for letting intoxicated people leave their home or establishment who then get into an accident.

You want to come up with a better analogy next time. Or, perhaps there’s some “data” I missed.

Manufacturers, specifically the ones in context, whosale their goods, retailers are the point of sale to the public.

Unless the manufacturer had direct knowledge of the sale to the individual purchasing it, they are protected from this type of claim. This is the exact case (Sandy Hook) being considered by SCOTUS.

 

[MoneyMatthew]

these criminals were able to get a gun in the first place. I mean isn’t that really what’s wrong here?

This implies that the person doing the killing is themselves a victim for having such easy access to guns. If this same person had easy access to a baseball bat and went around hitting people with it them we must blame whoever sold the baseball bat. Making the criminal a victim for having easy access to tools of death is why SJWs are flawed.

If the criminal is a person of color then they must be giving a free pass because their criminality stems from white privilege and they will always be victims. A white person is inherently racist due to being born white.

SJWs have simply taking the logic that the KKK uses and flipped it.

 

[UsualName]

So the person in this article is not wrong for wanting to steal a car and kill someone? It is the fault of whoever sold the gun to this person?

Let's start with that data point.

First of all, this is a Breitbart article intended to promote a political agenda, expanded conceal carry. This “news” story is only there to misguide people.

Second, there is no limit to the amount of things wrong in this situation. And, yes, among the things wrong is that someone got a gun that should not have gotten one. And since the article is written in a way that pushes concealed carry irresponsibly, it begs the question of why aren’t they asking how the criminal got the gun in the first place.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Manufacturers, specifically the ones in context, whosale their goods, retailers are the point of sale to the public.

Unless the manufacturer had direct knowledge of the sale to the individual purchasing it, they are protected from this type of claim. This is the exact case (Sandy Hook) being considered by SCOTUS.

Even the retailer is not liable as long as their conduct was not a contributing factor. It is unlawful and negligent to serve alcohol to a person who is intoxicated or could reasonably be expected to be intoxicated based on what you have served them. So the seller/server in those cases becomes liable based on their violation of the law, rather than just by being a retailer.

Similar situation with gun retailers. They are not liable just by virtue of being the front line retailer. But they can do unlawful, negligent things such as selling to someone without doing the required background check. However, being a retailer alone is not enough.

 

[UsualName]

This implies that the person doing the killing is themselves a victim for having such easy access to guns. If this same person had easy access to a baseball bat and went around hitting people with it them we must blame whoever sold the baseball bat. Making the criminal a victim for having easy access to tools of death is why SJWs are flawed.

If the criminal is a person of color then they must be giving a free pass because their criminality stems from white privilege and they will always be victims. A white person is inherently racist due to being born white.

SJWs have simply taking the logic that the KKK uses and flipped it.

The problem with your logic is it doesn’t take into account the victims. They have rights too and your rights stop when they endanger someone’s safety.

Bats and guns are not equally deadly. One is designed to kill the other is designed to hit a baseball. You’re making a false analogy. You will be way less successful in killing people with a bat than a gun, same for knives.

Another thing is it’s obvious you have a lot of resentment because you keep bringing up race and social justice when they have nothing to do with criminals having easy access to guns. Unless you got some “data” on that?

 

[UsualName]

Even the retailer is not liable as long as their conduct was not a contributing factor. It is unlawful and negligent to serve alcohol to a person who is intoxicated or could reasonably be expected to be intoxicated based on what you have served them. So the seller/server in those cases becomes liable based on their violation of the law, rather than just by being a retailer.

Similar situation with gun retailers. They are not liable just by virtue of being the front line retailer. But they can do unlawful, negligent things such as selling to someone without doing the required background check. However, being a retailer alone is not enough.

Th negligence ultimately lies with the owner/lawful purchaser. We have a situation where I live where guns are run up from South Carolina and no one is responsible for the guns that get on the street. This is why guns need to be registered yearly. This would significantly cut down on the guns that make it to criminals illegally.

 

[MoneyMatthew]

The problem with your logic is it doesn’t take into account the victims. They have rights too and your rights stop when they endanger someone’s safety.

Bats and guns are not equally deadly. One is designed to kill the other is designed to hit a baseball. You’re making a false analogy. You will be way less successful in killing people with a bat than a gun, same for knives.

Another thing is it’s obvious you have a lot of resentment because you keep bringing up race and social justice when they have nothing to do with criminals having easy access to guns. Unless you got some “data” on that?

Why are you only concerned with the tools of destruction and not those who are willing to use those tools? Why do you ignore that part? You clearly believe that the Right ignores the gun violence in America but those on the Left ignore who, how and where those guns are being used.

What you are saying is that because someone has access to a gun they suddenly become more violent? This is an issue of access in your opinion, correct?

 

[Optionpro007]

It’s always pathetic when I see right wing tabloids run stories just to push their gun agenda.

It would be nice if the right wing tabloids focused on how these criminals were able to get a gun in the first place. I mean isn’t that really what’s wrong here?

I believe that what the 'right wing' tabloid is trying to convey is that it doesn't make sense to prevent lawful citizens from acquiring weapons for self-defense if criminals can and do get weapons to commit crimes. Of course, we could write a law that would prevent criminals from getting guns, but that would be too obvious...

 

[Tsing Tao]

Th negligence ultimately lies with the owner/lawful purchaser. We have a situation where I live where guns are run up from South Carolina and no one is responsible for the guns that get on the street. This is why guns need to be registered yearly. This would significantly cut down on the guns that make it to criminals illegally.

?

How would requiring guns to be registered yearly cut down on the guns that make it to criminals when only law abiding citizens would register guns?

 

[UsualName]

Why are you only concerned with the tools of destruction and not those who are willing to use those tools? Why do you ignore that part. You clearly believe that the Right ignores the gun violence in America but those on the Left ignore who, how and where those guns are being used.

What you are saying is that because someone has access to a gun they suddenly become more violent? This is an issue of access in your opinion, correct?

You are not very good at this and a poor advocate for gun rights people.

My original beef is with the article and it’s political agenda to promote concealed carry. I asked the question of why are they jumping to concealed carry without asking how the criminal got the gun in the first place.

There have always been and will always be violent people, regardless of the law. Limiting their access to guns will save lives, lots of them. We should focus on stopping criminals from getting guns instead of accepting it as a fact of life so smith and Wesson can manufacturer an extra amount every year. Or, let me guess you don’t have any “data” on that?