Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
from the it's-a-win...-but-what-is-it-worth? dept
Two years ago, the Wisconsin Supreme Court handed down a pretty important decision, only somewhat tempered by its limited jurisdiction. It decided Section 230 immunity applied to the buying and selling of guns via a third-party platform, Armslist.
Survivors of a mass shooting in Wisconsin tried to hold Armslist directly responsible for the criminal act, arguing that the site's facilitation of sales that bypassed local regulations on gun sales (mainly background checks) allowed the shooter to arm himself illegally. The shooting may have been on the mass shooter, but Armslist was apparently an accomplice because its marketplace allowed someone who shouldn't have had access to guns to acquire one.
The plaintiffs hoped to bypass Section 230 immunity with arguments that centered on negligence. The Copia Institute (a Mike Masnick joint) filed an amicus brief on behalf of Armslist, asking the court to reject arguments that would carve some very damaging holes in Section 230 protections.
The court found in favor of Armslist, specifically citing Section 230.
The court of appeals held that 47 U.S.C. § 230 (2018), the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996, did not bar Daniel's claims against Armslist for facilitating Radcliffe's illegal purchase. We disagree, and conclude that § 230(c)(1) requires us to dismiss Daniel's complaint against Armslist. Section 230(c)(1) prohibits claims that treat Armslist, an interactive computer service provider, as the publisher or speaker of information posted by a third party on its website. Because all of Daniel's claims for relief require Armslist to be treated as the publisher or speaker of information posted by third parties on armslist.com, her claims are barred by § 230(c)(1). Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals, and affirm the circuit court's dismissal of Daniel's complaint.
Another court has found in favor of Armslist. And again, the case involves a tragedy: the killing of someone using a weapon purchased through Armslist. Unfortunately, the federal court handling this case says Section 230 has nothing to do with Armslist securing a dismissal. While it doesn't weaken any Section 230 protections, it certainly doesn't add anything either, ensuring lawsuits brought against third-party platforms will still have to pay to defend themselves from accusations that they're culpable for the criminal actions of their users. (h/t Volokh Conspiracy)
The plaintiff, Richard Webber, sued Armslist after a gun purchased on the site was used to murder his daughter. The underlying incident is horrific. This is from the Wisconsin federal court decision [PDF]:
As a result of Armslist’s design decisions and business practices, Plaintiff alleges, Schmidt’s estranged husband, who was prohibited from owning a firearm under Wis. Stat. §§ 941.29(1m)(g), 813.25 and 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), was able to purchase a firearm from a private seller who listed a firearm for purchase on Armslist.com. Shortly thereafter, Schmidt’s estranged husband used the firearm he purchased from the private seller to fatally shoot Schmidt after Schmidt had arrived at her mother’s house to drop off her three children. Schmidt’s estranged husband then committed suicide in the backyard of the house. Plaintiff alleges that, but for Armslist’s failure to enact adequate safeguards, and but for Armslist’s conscious decision to design Armslist.com in an irresponsible, unreasonable, and unlawful manner, Sara Schmidt’s estranged husband would not have been able to purchase the firearm that he used to kill her.
From that tragedy arose a list of alleged violations and harms, including common law negligence, civil conspiracy, and wrongful death -- all pursued under Wisconsin state law but handled by a federal court.
After deciding it has jurisdiction to preside over state law claims, the court details why it thinks Section 230 does not apply to this case -- one that involves a buyer and a seller utilizing the marketplace created by Armslist, but does not involve any direct action by Armslist.
In dismissing Armslist's Section 230 immunity defense, the court cites not only Justice Clarence Thomas (who holds some… questionable… views on Section 230) but also quotes the Seventh Circuit's misreading on how the "Good Samaritan" clause of the law has been applied by platforms.
But even setting aside the tricky task of discerning legislative intent, it is the text of the statute from which a court should draw its true meaning. Subsection (c) is entitled “protection for ‘good samaritan’ blocking and screening of offensive material.” As the Seventh Circuit has noted, this title is “hardly an apt description if its principal effect is to induce ISPs to do nothing about the distribution of indecent and offensive materials via their services.” Doe, 347 F.3d at 660. Furthermore, nothing in the text of § 230(c)(1) indicates an intent to provide sweeping immunity for providers or users of interactive computer services who face claims based on their own misconduct.
The "Good Samaritan" clause does not encourage a hands-off approach. It actually encourages vigorous moderation efforts by ensuring platforms cannot be sued for removing content platform owners find objectionable, rather than limiting themselves to clearly illegal content.
From these, it gets worse. The court decides this lawsuit isn't about the action of two third parties who utilized a platform to perform an illegal gun sale. It says this is about Armslist being less than cautious about who it allows to utilize the service, shifting the culpability from the murderer and the party closest to the act of murder (the person who sold him the gun) one more step up the chain to the platform that merely allowed people to sell and buy guns.
Even if § 230 applies to this type of case, Plaintiff’s claims do not seek to treat Defendants as the “publisher or speaker” of the post in question. Here, Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants liable for their “role in developing or co-developing [their] own content.” Specifically, Plaintiff faults Defendants for failing to prohibit criminals from accessing or buying firearms through Armslist.com; actively encouraging, assisting, and facilitating illegal firearms transactions through their various design decisions; failing to require greater details from users, such as providing credit-card verified evidence of users’ identities; failing to require that sellers certify under oath that they are legal purchasers; and failing to provide regularly updated information regarding applicable firearms laws to its users, among many other things. In essence, the complaint “focuses primarily on Armslist’s own conduct in creating the high-risk gun market and its dangerous features,” not on the post in question. This type of claim, then, does not seek to treat Defendants as the “publisher or speaker” of the post that led to Schmidt’s killer obtaining a firearm; rather, it seeks to hold Defendants liable for their own misconduct in negligently and recklessly creating a service that facilitates the illegal sale of firearms. 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). For these reasons, the Court concludes that § 230 does not immunize Defendants from liability in this case.
But having successfully dodged Section 230 immunity isn't enough to find Armslist culpable for the actions of a person who purchased a gun through the site. There's nothing that connects the violent act to Armslist other than the weapon used to commit it. And, as the court points out, if it wasn't a gun purchased on Armslist, it might have been a gun purchased elsewhere… or any weapon at all, given the facts of this case.
It is clear from the complaint that Schmidt was shot and killed by her estranged husband, not Defendants, with a handgun he purchased from another party, again not Defendants. Based on the facts alleged, there is no reason to believe that even if Schmidt’s estranged husband had not purchased a gun from a person who posted an advertisement on the Armslist website, Schmidt would still be alive. Armslist is hardly the only source of guns in this country, and one does not even need a gun to take another person’s life. Schmidt was killed by a person so determined to take her life, so consumed by hatred, that he was even willing to take his own. The likelihood that such a person would have found another source from which to obtain a firearm or another way to take Schmidt’s life is more plausible than Plaintiff’s claim that she would still be alive. Absent cause, Plaintiff’s negligence claim against Defendants fails.
Armslist escapes. But not by much. And the decision doesn't bolster Section 230 protections. Instead, it encourages litigants to pursue esoteric claims in hopes of bypassing immunity, rather than be forced to confront the fact they're seeking to hold a platform responsible for the violent acts of its users. That fact alone should have given Section 230 immunity better consideration than it received here. And it's pretty disheartening to hear federal courts quoting Justice Clarence Thomas' unhinged (but published) dissenting rants about a law he clearly doesn't respect, much less understand.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: guns, liability, secondary liability, section 230, wisconsin
Companies: armslist
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If the plaintiff had won the case, can you imagine how long it would take before Parler, Gab, et al were to be sued for "being the direct and proximate cause of the insurrection"? I'd make it minutes, not even an hour...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
... assuming you don't look at things like the Cox and Wyden speeches on the floor, both in passing 230 and since....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Armslist works within the law.
These demands that they do more than required should be directed at lawmakers not at a court to create new laws fueled by a tragedy.
You could insert the car maker, gas station, clothing store, etc. into these claims & its obvious that none of them are responsible. Armslist followed the law & demanding they should have met a higher burden and should be at fault is grief lashing out supported by a lawyer looking for a payday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Totally without merit
The only person responsible for breaking the law is the person who breaks the law. Period.
Armslist Supplied a classified advert system. Stop
Seller posted for sale. Stop
Buyer replied and ultimately purchased. Stop
Buyer broke the law by killing someone. Full stop!
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.
Doesn’t matter what tool is misused. An suv. A car. A handgun. A Spork.
You can’t accurately blame anyone else but the individual.
Why this ding dong judge thinks 230 doesn’t apply? That’s a separate issue.
Personally I think Armslist should request a review and submit for reclamation of coats from the filer.
Lashing out following tragedy is not a valid response when it hurts others.
You file against the shooter or his/her estate. Not some intermediary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Totally without merit
Armslist supported Kyle Rittenhouse. Armslist loves murder. They’re not some innocent site run by innocent people. An intermediary with radical right-wing gun nut stances like theirs isn’t really that much of an “intermediary”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Totally without merit
All true. Yet not relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Totally without merit
Also, “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” is NRA gun-nut propaganda bullshit. You know what else kills people? The kind of musketfucker culture that folks like Armslist love to spread online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Totally without merit
Tell you what: you find video evidence of a gun… feel free.
… that gets up one morning, says out loud how it hates people.
Grabs a bunch of shiny pointy objects. Pushes them slowly down a shaft. And shoves the whole thing in its hole.
Then chases you down the street or heads into a quick shoppe.
Pills it’s own trigger. Pumps 9 rounds into you.
The moment you show me a firearm, a car, or the previously mentioned spork, get up and kill a human all by itself. Or kill anything all by itself.
At that point show me the evidence and I’ll be happy to listen.
Until then explain to me why I should be forced to eat only what is in the store. Not what the land provides.
Why should my family face off against a 1000+ pound carnivore looking to eat us with no defence while we sleep next to the lake.
Why must I resort to sticks and stones?
And why am I not hiding under the bead shaking over the rifle? It kills people, some anonymous person on the interwebs told me so!
Must be true!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
Notice how I didn’t say “Guns kill people”. Notice how I didn’t say anything about guns for hunting or defending against bears and the like.
The culture surrounding guns in the U.S. that fetishizes them and makes people think they need a gun on them at all times, makes people think that the world is out to get them, makes it hard for real gun control laws with actual teeth to get passed, is what kills people.
The NRA folks who came up with the “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” are the same ones that don’t want the CDC doing research into gun violence where people kill people. They don’t want mental health problems to stop people from getting a hold of guns. They’re the same ones who think that bigoted assholes like Kyle Rittenhouse are heroes. They’re the same kind of folks that run Armslist.
So yeah, no shit, guns don’t kill people.
But the fucks who came up with the phrase and those that hold it near and dear to their cold dead hearts with their cold dead bloodstained hands sure as hell want to make it as easy as possible for people to kill people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
And yet the ones who wish to strengthen and tighten such gun laws are completely arse up on it.
They talk of m4s and AR15s. Both descendants of the 1919. A dear rifle.
Both regularly used for hunting. Sport shooting.
The problem isn’t rifles. It’s hand guns.
Again, the hand gun was developed to kill people.
Aside from the largest cartridge sizes you aren’t going to stop a non-human predator with a hand gun.
The mass shootings are a problem. But the culprit is the society that leads to such an event.
I strongly support verification and training.
And I’d support eliminating small cartridge hand guns.
They don’t even work well for personal defence! Hence less-than-properly-trained-cops pumping 9 rounds into a man with a knife!
A single 40 will stop anyone no matter how much body shielding they have on.
You lipstick should is going to do nothing even if you can get it out and use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
Lol, and the M4 Carbine and AR15 weren’t designed for killing people?
The same stuff you can accomplish with your usual Remington bolt-action, or a Remington Model 870 Shotgun, or a Winchester… Basically, you don’t need a 20+ mag semi-auto rifle for sport shooting. That’s the “30-50 Feral Hogs” bullshit.
The gun companies market semi-auto versions of originally-select-fire (Auto, Semi-Auto, 3-Shot Burst) assault rifles that were specifically designed for killing other humans as “Modern Sport Rifles” because they know what they’re selling and they know that their actual original moniker “Assault Rifle” wouldn’t go down well.
A society where gun makers and NGOs that get money from gun makers go to lobby hard to ensure that verification and training, mental health screening and more are painted as some sort of tyranny.
A society where sites like Armslist spew racist gun-nut bullshit on Twitter and are fine with their site being used to sell murder weapons and flout laws.
We aren’t gonna make any progress to improve society and greatly decrease gun violence if we have sites like Armslist where people who aren’t legally allowed to buy firearms can just fucking go online and skirt past that. I think that Armslist and other sites like it should not be allowed to exist, and that Section 230 shouldn’t protect them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
You’re a bit backwards there. You don’t need such a large storage of trade ammunition for hunting. It’s useful for sports use though.
And I’d agree to regulations on use to licensed range locations.
And while I won’t argue about “30 feral hogs” (which if you lived in such over-run areas isn’t as far fetched as it sounds) but I will say a 12 round magazine is extremely reassuring in the central and northern central states where wolves and bears are quite common.
As for select fire sourcing? They’re not automatics. Not by the original classification of single trigger depression self feeding self firing.
The 3-round burst mode is achieved by increasing the trigger sensitivity (resistance) to the point where an average shooter registers 3 depressions in one pull.
As evidenced by the shot shot jam order that happens for more experienced users.
The military has only produced a one fielded single user automatic rifle. The XR-15, fielded as the AR15 PAR, Produced for roughly 6 years.
It was in use for about 16 years. It’s primary usage, however, was not killing people. Rather indirect deterrent fire in Korea and foliage clearing/penetration in Vietnam where the 118 and 240 were better at the latter use.
The “spray and pray” usage in VN quickly had the trigger mechanism of the original x-15 replaced with the original “burst” mechanism based on trial use where the best trained users had 33-50% accuracy with full auto. Where burst fire had much higher control and accuracy rates.
But you also fail to recall, or are unaware, the premise of burst fire. When originally fielded in combat a few soldiers using burst fire sounds like a crew or squad weapon. It reduces the likelihood of small offensive enemy charges. Thus saving lives. Though that use has long since been lost. It’s rarely used in actual combat today. And never by hunters or sports shooters.
But you can’t generally buy a weapon with burst action.
So the whole discussion is moot.
And the idea that you should just burn armslist doesn’t solve anything.
The logical path is to require buyers to post foid licensing with the company. To record serial numbers. To ban hand made ghost weapons from unlicensed sale.
As for Rittenhouse? Well, be nice if the media could back up its race claim. Given a man who shot three white men in self defence has never shown any racist tendencies…?
But if that’s what you have to go on your rant is a little less stable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
If you get yourself in a situation where you need that many rounds, you have put yourself on the menu. Also do you do enough practice every day to be able to aim and fire accurately in under 1/2 a second, and hit a moving target?
The American love of guns is based on Hollywood and fantasy, rather than real use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
It doesn’t have to be daily. Or even weekly.
And yes, I’m still practiced on range enough that as long as the iron sight is preset to my eye I can raise, fire, and 4-shot group single hole to the target. It’s about 4-5 seconds though.
That’s two or three trips to the range per year.
That’s not exactly special either. Less common but not unique.
1/2 second? That is Hollywood myth.
As for being on the menu? Do recall those cities the Dems love started off by murdering as much wildlife as they could.
I don’t intend to kill anything unless it’s food or a threat. I don’t even kill insects if I can move them out without risk to myself.
America’s love of firearms has nothing to do with Hollywood. We’ve had them since day one. There’s less ownership today than ever in history.
We came to this land with our muskets.
We survived by our rifles as much as anything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
Here are several fully automatic rifles, some of which have been used by the US military:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_rifle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
The only one fielded that was fully auto was the BAR 1918 and that was still a fireteam weapon.
The rest were only fielded as semi-automatic.
Mind the difference in equipped (it’s available) vs fielding (the default).
The AR15 remains the only fielded single user automatic.
You don’t hunt with a 1918 and there’s no reason for civilian use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
What 1919 are you talking about? I only see reference to a machine gun. The M-4 is based on the M-16, which is the military version of the original Armalite AR-15, which is descended from the AR-10. Wikipedia seems to indicate this was a clean sheet design, so I'm not sure where the "1919" (whatever that is) comes in. Finally, the M-4 and AR15 are not deer rifles (though they may be dear rifles). They are military rifles whose purpose is to kill people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
Dear->deer
You are absolutely correct, typo.
The 1909 based on the 1903 with a lengthened stock.
Itself based on the long barrel “long rifle”.
The m16 was a body variation of the AR15.
The AR15 was a military rifle from the outset. With the shorter barrel for close quarters combat.
The m4 is nothing other than a stock redesign in functional use.
I wasn’t attempting to do an actual ancestry tree. DK has a great series in weapons. But most new designs are based on old designs and the genetics, for lack of better word, are there.
But the military method of weapons armament is much like Microsoft in the 90s.
Embrace the civilian design. Extend it to military use.
But, in usage, how is an m16 any different in hunting from a k305, or the m14? or an M1 Garand From the 1909 from the 1903 from…
Except the smaller round… does less impact damage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
This?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Mauser_Model_1909
This?
https://en.wikipedia.o rg/wiki/M1903_Springfield
Both bolt action rifles, totally unrelated to the AR15.
Right. It's poorly suited for hunting deer or anything larger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
And before bolt lock we had muzzle load. What’s your point on that?
I prefer the smaller round. As as I stated use a smaller one still.
Less penetration. Less damage to surrounding tissue.
You just aim smaller and target better.
The 5.56 is ideal for medium sized hunting. From large birds like wild turkeys to smaller deer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
That those could not be the ancestors of the AR15. I was just trying to figure out what weapons you were referring to and it's difficult when all you use is years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
That’s just it though. They are. Every change, every advance, it’s still a single barrel single round weapon.
The system used advances. The rate of fire increases. But it’s still a rifled barrel single round long gun.
Much the way a Tesla is a descendant of the hand crank auto-wagon.
Both the modern rifle and the shotgun are descendants of the long gun rifle. A descendent of the smooth bore long gun. Itself a long age descendant of the shoulder-braced bamboo cannon.
Much like the handgun today descends from the coach gun which is derived from the short barrel musket which comes from the southern Asian arrow charge. Which was a hand held short spear gun.
I wasn’t implying they were next of kin. As much as new variations on an existing design. All modern US fielded long barrel rifles descend from hunting designs. Modified to hunt people in close quarters combat.
But those changes do nothing to lessen the ability of use for hunting.
I’m not, and don’t support, sport and trophy hunting. A smaller round to the brain will end most animals quickly. Like in the military, in hunting a skilled rifleman abides by one shot one kill.
Though with the 500s range for larger game it’s usually 2. One to “drop” an animal from a distance and a second to quickly kill it humanly.
But even the smallest game can be taken with a 5.56.
Large rabbit. Duck. Etc. And still have valuable meat undamaged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without meri
But that isn't what "based on" means. It means the designers started with something else and modified it. The M4 is based on the M16 because they started with the M16 design and made changes to it to improve it. It is not based on the Colt 1911 because that isn't what they started from when creating the M4. Your definition would make the term useless.
Snipers, yes. Otherwise not so much. In Iraq and Afghanistan it's more like 250,000 shots, one kill. Thus the desire for smaller, lighter ammunition.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/us-forced-to-import-bullets-from-isra el-as-troops-use-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-28580666.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without
🤦♂️
There’s something to be said for our military’s training failures.
Clearly.
While I say such a picture is missing much of the generic facts. Cover fire. Indirect fire. Intentionally not killing people.
It misses the point of running 1500 round chains at a narrow mountain pass before driving through. But it’s still not a number to be proud of.
But yes, there is a sad, maybe pathetic, lack of aim from our combat soldiers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally with
I doubt very much of that is due to just missing, I think it's mostly suppressing fire and the like. But I don't know if the military is explaining this in more detail, I haven't really looked into it. They probably wouldn't be forthcoming if the real answer is that our soldiers can't hit their targets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally
I think that’s what I was getting at. This is more of an issue of throwing belts through a squad chain gun than missing.
I didn’t read the article and don’t really have to. A claim that bombastic is very much headline fluff.
I also won’t deny targeting is less a focus these days. But that’s two separate things.
250k isn’t that much in warfare.
You run 20k in suppressing fire through a 240 and swap the barrel.
50 thousands rounds from mounted saws is average for clearing passes.
250k could be as minimal as one chopper firing 2 cannons. If the target is an enemy motor pool or munitions etc that would make sense on a single operation alone with few or no casualties.
A predator strafing a mountain side? There’s 20k rounds in one tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
Happened to come across this video, demonstrating more penetration from a faster smaller round, not less, though it's a rifle compared to pistols. Thought you might be interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T2XZHmdRFI
Skip to 10:30 if you just want to see the .50 compared to the AR-15.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
Was anyone genuinely surprised that Lostinlodos promptly dove into the thread to declare his undying love for his weaponry with the ferocity of a thousand dying suns?
Should've threatened to sue his school, that'd make him clam up for fear of causing disruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
Well, there’s a reason you post so regularly but refuse to attach a name to it.
I welcome you to add to any discussion. But comments like that are nothing more than trolling.
We all get it. You believe in the liberal elite plan to force everyone off their own land and into cities where a consistently rising tax rate will forever pull down anyone who breaks loose. Until we’re all literally 100% dependent on the federal government hand outs and are enslaved to a collective commune of forced labour for all but the very elites who a pushing to make that reality.
It’s not about protecting anyone. If it was there would be a focus on the tool designed for killing people.
It immediately disadvantages the people who reside on 90% of our land.
It eliminates principal access to food. It eliminates protection of food. And it eliminates the ability to not become food.
Feel free to com back with actual evidence on comparison tables because I actually know the statistics.
So come on back now: how many firearms assaults are conducted with a rifle vs a hand gun.
And while your at it you should probably look at firearms vs knife assaults.
Both of which hardly chart against physical assaults with the body alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
"You believe in the liberal elite plan to force everyone off their own land and into cities where a consistently rising tax rate will forever pull down anyone who breaks loose. Until we’re all literally 100% dependent on the federal government hand outs and are enslaved to a collective commune of forced labour for all but the very elites who a pushing to make that reality. "
I think it's shit like that which makes people stop taking you seriously. 90% of what you describe is just "corporate america" and the people working to help expand indentured serfdom are found equally in both parties.
Secondly...take it from someone who lives in a thoroughly socialized nation with a 33% tax rate. I get a lot more out of my money than you do. Our systems work. Can you really, hand on heart, say the same? Especially so given that in your country corporations become the primary beneficiaries of what socialism your tax money obtains.
How come the rest of the world seems to be mainly happy about living in nations heavily into socialism and the doom predictions of US conservatives have - in all cases - failed to manifest?
At some point there, the debate of genuine left (socialism) vs genuine right (libertarianism) just turned into a debate where the talking points of US republicans started boiling down to, in reality, "No, we are so hopeless as a nation we can't do ANY of that shit the rest of the world succeeded in".
Because I, for one, am sick and tired of seeing a bunch of US politicians discuss any of a hundred watered-down versions of things which have been reality where I live for about half a century or more, and find some misbegotten moron quacking out that "If we implement ANY of these things the sky will fall, we'll all be impoverished, the nation will fall into anarchy, communist dictators will arise and enslave all our children. And Killary will eat your sons brain and sell your daughter off to Kazakhstan brothels!!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
True. But I’m just as disenchanted with the pro corporate breaks the Dems look for in corporate giveaways in any plan that is is intended for “socialism”.
Because I truly believe rich individuals are simply the result of an out of control corporate policy.
Neither party wants to tax the people who fund their campaigns. The boards of big multinational corps.
Republicans rarely come up with anything helpful to the bottom half. And every dem plan that involves taxes ultimately raises the cost of living.
They may not directly tax the poor but where Republicans use top to bottom trickle down wealth (bull) the dems use trickle down taxing. And that DOES happen.
And fees and taxes hurt the poor for more than the rich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
"But I’m just as disenchanted with the pro corporate breaks the Dems look for in corporate giveaways in any plan that is is intended for “socialism”. "
That I can understand. The only socialism you people have in the body politic is Bernie. And he had to join the democrat big tent just to make sure the vote among sane people wasn't split between the dems and him.
The irony here is that the golden years of the US the republicans all keep harping about and the MAGA movement was - ostensibly - around...was founded on nothing more than FDR's New Deal and a whole lot of socialism pushing resources and opportunities into the bottom layers of society.
Then came Reagan and his invention of the "Welfare Queen" - and it's gone downhill ever since because that's where the foundation was laid for the corporate giveaways growing ever larger to this day. Trickle-down "economics" in action.
"They may not directly tax the poor but where Republicans use top to bottom trickle down wealth (bull) the dems use trickle down taxing. And that DOES happen. And fees and taxes hurt the poor for more than the rich."
I got nothing but "Only In America" to tell you. Politically you people painted yourself into a corner where one party will always have the vote of the fascists, Klansmen, neo-nazis, bigots, and the badly educated looking for a strong no-nonsense voice offering solutions simple enough they can wrap their heads around it. And the other party doesn't really have to meet a higher standard than "Not stark raving mad".
You guys need three things desperately;
1) Money out of politics. Seriously. Put hard limits on the total amount of campaign funding any candidate is allowed to receive, from any source. Make like europeans and build a state fund which subsidizes any party polling sufficiently high with a base amount sufficient to get the message out.
2) Abolish the first-past-the-post bullshit vote count and implement ranked choice voting as the standard for every election.
3) Make the vote about the party and their platform rather than the individual - which gets rid of the cult of personality I'd call a disease in the US by now.
That'll end up with you getting more than two parties, for a start, and that means some actual competition in politics. Sure, the lobby will still be able to act but at least the politicians coming in don't come with investors A, B and C holding purchase receipts for them.
Even so.
The dems may indeed carry more water for wall street.
But the republicans are right now trying to make sure no one who dislikes them gets to vote at all or get that vote properly counted. One of these things is not like the other.
You don't have a bad option and a worse option here. You've got a bad option and the option to never again get to make the choice.
Where I'm from...we've seen this shit before. The weimar is crumbling and the Beer Hall Coup went down on jan 6. Try not to repeat history, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
What did you call it the last time? Ah, yes, it was a "joking reference" that you had no right to take seriously. Apparently in your view only Trumpsucking pissants like you should have the right to clutch pearls. Geniuses like you make shooting fish in a barrel look like manually unraveling the Gordian Knot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
"Why should my family face off against a 1000+ pound carnivore looking to eat us with no defence while we sleep next to the lake. Why must I resort to sticks and stones?"
Whoa there, Kemo Sabe.
Hunting rifles is one thing. And I'm for damn sure you aren't going to be pissing a big ol bear off with a few rounds from a 5.56mm armalite whatever.
And in Sweden, Germany...most of Europe save for perhaps switzerland...talking about a "firearm" will in nine case out of ten refer to a 30-06/7,62 mm hunting rifle.
In the US the debate will be about an AR-15 nine times out of ten and the topic be yet another senseless string of murders.
"And why am I not hiding under the bead shaking over the rifle?"
Well, if I lived anywhere in the US I'd be afraid of any rifle except possibly the aforementioned 30-06. Because that one, at least, has a good chance of not being in the hands of some nitwit.
The issue is context. And the context is that in the US guns will kill. Because there is no dual use for nine out of ten firearms sold. Nor in nine cases out of ten a viable utility for self-defense. What you've got in the US is that a gun lands in the wrong hands and the sad sack of neuroses it's ended up with listens to the mythology and shoots up a school rather than lives out the rest of their life refining the latest conspiracy theory.
I'd argue that in the US the gun kills. Because only there is the mythology that using one is the solution to all your problems. It's become like the samurai sword of Japan, where a type of weapon is surrounded by so much malicious mythology everyone who got possession of one had a preunderstanding that it should naturally be used to kill with. And for a long time after the last civil war they had, katanas were banned. Only way they could rid themselves of the death cult aspects infesting their society.
Sure, a gun can't fire itself. Except in a few horror novels. But it can certainly convert the weak-minded and unpleasant yet generally inoffensive into menaces. Begging some nuance to that debate.
For what it's worth I'm solidly on the idea that for the most part both sides of the firearm debate are barking up the wrong tree. The way the US currently looks even if you could take away all the guns - which you can't - it won't help. Until the societal pressure which turns normal people into madmen goes away. Better social services. Health care readily available and mental health care especially. Cutting down the malicious myth - making the gun not cool, a professional tool or a regrettable necessity rather than the solution to every problem.
There are plenty of topics in the US where there aren't "two sides" to the debate - most of them being politics - but the gun debate actually does have viable arguments on both sides, and a probable compromise to be found in the middle. Just that the solution seems to be to break a mythology intrinsically tied to the more savage parts of a national identity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
Lol.
Well the average large predators here tend to be in the 500-700 lb range.
And my preference is sheathed 5.50 for an m16. Though 5.56 heavy works as intended when hiking/camping.
Any anyone who knows anything about rifles will recognise my preference requires hand loading single rounds. Not feeding a mag.
A well aimed 5.56 will deter a wondering bear.
And again outside of hunting my preference for deterrence is rock salt. Hurts like hell, stops a generic attack. And has more consistent results than tasers.
I agree with you on the ‘wrong tree’ aspect and long have.
As taking away every legal recorded rifle does nothing for the supply of non-legal purchase supplies.
It also does nothing for societal gun crime. Mass (loosely) shootings get the attention, but they a only a tiny fraction of firearms victims.
We need to address the problems that lead to gun violence.
As I said my first thought and action is never going to be ‘die’.
Too many believe killing is a solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
"A well aimed 5.56 will deter a wondering bear. "
OK, can't let that pass. If you have to shoot an animal you either kill it or see it hale - because just wounding an animal isn't just a cruel way to kill, it means you end up with that predator in a psychotic state of rage until it dies. I kinda doubt a .22LR salt shotshell round is going to do more than piss of that bear.
...Well, it might, bears are unpredictable. A few years back in these parts the papers had a case where an old granny in Romania had been mauled by a bear after going out and beating it with a broom to get it out of her garden. When the journalist, flabbergasted, asked her WHY she'd try to beat a bear with a broom her answer was It always worked before".
Even so if you're in Bear country and in the risk of having to kill one, 7,62mm/.30-06 is the way to go.
"And again outside of hunting my preference for deterrence is rock salt. Hurts like hell, stops a generic attack. And has more consistent results than tasers. "
I maintain once more...probably not. Salt hurts like hell. And does nothing to someone who is high or just angry enough. Electric current, otoh, doesn't rely on someones mental state, it just locks the muscles up. I'd argue that if they are unarmed the sight of the actual firearm causes greater deterrence than whatever its loaded with.
"It also does nothing for societal gun crime. Mass (loosely) shootings get the attention, but they a only a tiny fraction of firearms victims."
There's a lot of statistics to unpack there. The sparse facts of 40k dead a year and 24k of those being suicides, combined with the comparison graph of US gun homicide visavi that of other countries already provides a lot of flavors of fscked up to discuss.
The real tragedy of rampage killing would be the way they strike, I think. The long-time abusive husband comes off as no surprise when he finally shoots his s.o. or child. The child playing with dads or moms unsecured firearm is an expected tragedy of poor parenting. But "go to school, came home dead" is just not what you should expect, even in a place where gun safety is held in casual contempt by many.
"We need to address the problems that lead to gun violence. "
The likely answer being a lot more socialism. Roll back reaganism until politically you're back in the 50's when it comes to how taxes are allocated. Hopefully without the concomitant unionization of the US workforce producing another Hoffa.
But that's going to be a tough sell in a nation which has enshrined "Fuck You, Got Mine!" as part of their cultural identity by now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
Looks like I confused you there. Sorry on that.
We carry a Cimarron 45 (the Calvary) for large predator protection in bear country.
But rock salt will, and has, drive off wolves. With what would generally be non lethal shot.
Family and friends have multiple variations of the m16. And my personal preference is 5.50 in a sheath with a custom two shot manual pull load magazine. Which fits most of the variants.
I have no problem with going back to manual bolt action either. As I’m obviously already doing that in a modern semi-auto.
Must I’m not quite ready to force that. I’d rather drastically tighten ownership and purchase laws. And mandatory training.
I also thing schools need to go back to shock and awe gonzo videos for education. Not just for firearms but all aspects of education.
I’m just old enough to have still gotten some of those video lessons.
Jack’s gun. (Exploitive) gun accidents
Little Suzy has a bump (child porn) sex ed, pregnancy and birthing
Midnight run (exploitative) drag racing
The streets (exploitive) car accidents
Many such films are still on the internet archive.
There was a time we actually showed kids what the results of choices were.
And I partly attribute gun violence today to the lack of such education when combined with Hollywood and Batman and other bang bang bad guy gets up tv.
I agree Hollywood has made it near impossible to impress upon kids that a person with a gun can be deadly.
And now we have those same KIDS walking around with a 9 or a 20 in their waist band thinking they’re all kool for it.
And then we have News making it out that guns jump up and chase you down the street and kill you.
And we have so little factual education and training in between!
And that more than anything should be the most deeply saddening aspect of this country.
How in 40 years we went from education to failure.
But the goal should be getting the hand guns from the 12yr old kids.
The semi-autos out of the hands of abused teens.
And all weapons from people who are too unstable to use them.
Train how to use it AND train on the end results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
"But rock salt will, and has, drive off wolves. With what would generally be non lethal shot. "
Wolves tend to be smart and skittish. I can't say the same for desperate, high or berserking humans, which is why you need something which doesn't rely on a warning or mere pain to take them down. The taser or a net gun is basically it.
"I also thing schools need to go back to shock and awe gonzo videos for education. Not just for firearms but all aspects of education. "
In this, I agree. I'm all for parents standing by their spawn come hell or high water...but not when it comes to teaching said spawn convenient lies rather than the stark, unvarnished truth.
"And I partly attribute gun violence today to the lack of such education when combined with Hollywood and Batman and other bang bang bad guy gets up tv. "
Partly. Hollywood, comics, any form of entertainment where the hero downs a dozen bullets in one sitting and still goes strong or can Rambo their way through a firefight calmly bursting down the poor well-armed scrubs just graduated from the Imperial Stormtrooper Marksmanship Academy.
It surely doesn't help that the NRA and right-wing militias and NGO's then swamp them with the myth of the gun tied to the myth of the american heartland, heroism, truth, justice and mom's apple pie.
Rittenhouse is one textbook example there. I think the guy's an asshole and murderer or not his actions needlessly cost lives. But he was made into what he is. And now his future is cast as the living mascot of a pretty damn deplorable crowd.
Still, he's alive which is more than can be said for every needless death caused by those 12 year old kids you mention playing cops and robbers with dad's unsecured guns or the 13 year old who got handed a firearm by the "cool kids" and told here's his chance to start being a real man.
"And that more than anything should be the most deeply saddening aspect of this country. How in 40 years we went from education to failure. "
Bit longer than that, really. The systemic rot may have started with Nixon and Goldwater's southern strategy and the republican party embracing anti-science rhetoric...but magical thinking has been a part of the US cultural identity since the pioneer days when snake oil salesmen were grifting their way into the hearts and minds of pioneers and P.T. Barnum charmed the socks out of his victims.
"But the goal should be getting the hand guns from the 12yr old kids. The semi-autos out of the hands of abused teens. And all weapons from people who are too unstable to use them. Train how to use it AND train on the end results."
I like to quote Beau of the fifth column at points like this. To change society you don't change laws. You change thought.
Like it or not, contemporary US is in love with the idea that even the loosest cannon should have a cannon. Before trying to take the guns away from people who so desperately feel they need them you need to remove the perception of that need.
Fix the education system. Fix law enforcement. Fix social security. Stop making society an ultracompetitive pressure cooker producing hard-nosed psychos and broken paranoid people.
And to do that you need to go back to FDR. And that's going to be a very tough sell by now, because the US of today is the nation of "No we can't" where people will talk a lot of bullshit on how public healthcare and sensible welfare mechanics will condemn the nation without even looking at the parts of the world where all of that works out just fine.
Once you have people who aren't constantly under social and fiscal pressure you can start dealing with the tendency to view violence as a problem solver. After that you'll have the political leverage to regulate firearms.
You can't do it the other way around, same as you can't build a house from the roof down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Totally without merit
I take it you're entirely unaware of the case law around being an accessory to a crime?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Totally without merit
Aiding in a criminal act is against the law.
Supplying a market place hub is not aiding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
It is if you're bypassing the laws around gun transfer as part of your marketplace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Totally without merit
BS.
Pure and simple BS.
Granted, guns don't kill people by themselves, but the near omnipresence of guns in the US with little to no culture of responsible use of firearms does escalate situations. What can be a simple brawl turns into a deadly shooting.
I still remember an interesting coincidence a few years ago. It's anecdotal, but very illustrative.
On the same week, there were two violent incidents in two schools located in different countries. One in the US with guns, one in China with a knife. One of them had several deaths and several more people injured; the other ended with a few minor injuries. Can you guess which incident ended with each conclusion?
Guns kill people. They are designed to do so, even in the hands of someone weak and untrained. (Though it does so more efficiently with training.) They don't have their own will and the power to act by themselves (mostly), but they are not excluded from the chain of causality leading to death.
Denying that is just diversion from the simple fact that you have way more criminal and accidental deaths by firearms in the US than any other countries. Including some countries at war, and others that also have a pretty open gun culture. The US is the only country that actively defend the right to bear arms without the conscience that guns kill. Because of stupid rhetoric like yours.
Guns are considered by a large population in the US, and only in the US, as a right that must not have any restrictions. Funny enough, the same people accept restrictions on any other right, because that's what the law is: restrictions on your rights. You have a right to free speech, unless you threaten or libel someone. You have a right to drive a car, but you need a license. You have a right to sell food, but you must conform to regulations related to its storage and disposal... Nearly every single aspect of our lives has some law or regulation to make sure you don't harm others in some way. But strangely enough, the one thing that is designed to harm shouldn't be restricted in any way? Allow me to consider this the most stupid political view ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Totally without merit
Mostly??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
We're advancing towards it.
We have unmanned drones doing the shooting and exploding abroad. They are still remote-controlled rather than fully automated, but there is a lot of automation involved already, and they are always pushing for more.
Also, a gun-based trap doesn't have a will, but it is setup to fire on its own. (That's illegal though. I remember a case on the subject.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
OK, but that's a robot killing someone.
Legally that's the person who set up the trap killing someone. Philosophically, did the trap kill, or did the person setting it up? Or both? Was it the gun that killed, or the entire trap-gun mechanism? Anyway...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Totally without merit
So do swords and knives.
And planes, and cars, golf clubs, chain saws. Any my favourite, the spork.
Nor are my examples. Which one are you against?
Where in all my postings about the need for restrictions and tighter laws did I ever say anything remotely close to that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
Bad faith arguments. None of these items are as designed and efficient for the purpose of killing as guns. Read my anecdote about the school shooting vs school... "knifing".
And some of the items you mentioned have very strict regulations regarding their uses. Which leads to...
Not sure about you personally. I mentioned that's the view of a large enough population in the US. And since they use the same rhetoric you do, I consider that they are worth mentioning in my response to you.
If you don't have a problem with gun regulations, don't pretend that "guns don't kill people" because they absolutely do. And that's the reason they should be way more regulated. And also the reason people need to stop feeling entitled to guns without the responsibilities that go with them.\
All that to say that we should definitely blame and sue the actual murderer. Judicially, that's the prime responsible. If there were laws broken in the sale of the gun, then this should also be investigated and prosecuted. (nb: I don't think the website is responsible, unless it willfully circumvented any gun sale regulation.)
Overall though, legislative action needs to be taken to address the problem of guns in general. "Guns don't kill people" is just an excuse used by certain gun advocacy groups to prevent this necessary national discussion. To keep the US among the top nations in terms of gun-related death, accidental and/or criminal. And when you repeat their propaganda, you are part of the problem.
(You're free to do it, just don't complain about being criticized.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
However: my “guns don’t kill people” premise fits well within my well documented (here and elsewhere) beliefs in strengthening personal responsibility law.
A gun doesn’t wake up at 2PM after a drug and vodka fuelled bender, hop into a car, and shoot a rival.
What we need is much stricter regulations going into ownership and much stricter laws for misuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
I still disagree with the statement that "guns don't kill people", but I understand your position better. I went through the debate above, but kind of lost track of your position in the regulation debate. Sorry about this one.
You don't use the expression to oppose regulation, but more to point to legal responsibility (judging the murderer, not the manufacturer), where I would agree with you.
My problem with this sentence is how it tends to be used to erase the gun itself from the chain of causality in the death of people. As if gun-related accidents or crimes have an equal chance of happening in the absence of guns. That's what I disagree with. And that's something that you seem to acknowledge since you do support better regulation. We just don't use the quote itself in the same way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
I’m with you on regulation.
where I break from other liberal gun rights supporters is I want massive control up front. They want stricter tracking. I want outright monitoring.
Most republicans, in polls, want easier access and more criminal penalties.
I think that totally misses the boat. The boat, the skies, the lake… !!!
And the dems as a whole are running around chasing rifles and ignoring small arms that are responsible for a landslide majority of illegal weapons crimes.
Everyone in politics has a bad plan.
Sure, I use some right wing statements. But ones that in rational conversation actually are factually true.
Because the claim of the left that “guns kill people” is asinine without context.
Guns “kill” lots of things when used for that reason. People, animals, car engines, computers, aim small miss small dead.
We have a record number of intentional automotive assaults this year. Nobody calls for a ban on cars.
For all the stabbings nobody wants to ban cutlery.
I use it because it’s that stupid, but in reality when someone decides to stand up and say “ban guns, and sporks” is the day you actually have my attention.
You’re still an idiot but at least you put some thought into it.
Prohibition doesn’t work.
We need strong laws on access.
Strong laws on distribution.
And strong laws on personal responsibility.
Guess how many other topics such a logical approach would work for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
"And since they use the same rhetoric you do, I consider that they are worth mentioning in my response to you."
There's a bit of a difference. No, guns do not, in fact, kill people.
In the US the issue with that assertion is that usually it's tossed out by a 2nd amendment fanatic as the irrelevant response to proposals of gun restrictions.
Do note that Lostinlodos has repeatedly asserted to be in favor of regulation and restriction.
No, guns do not kill people. People kill people. Thus people likely to kill people should not have guns. THIS is the proper response to a 2nd amendment fanatic trying to use a correct but irrelevant assertion to answer to a call for gun control.
"Overall though, legislative action needs to be taken to address the problem of guns in general."
This runs into the prohibition scenario; As long as a large portion of americans have the craving for firearms no law will be effective. In order to get to, say, where Switzerland is you first need to get the citizenry into the same mental state as the population of Switzerland.
If you want the guns gone you'll first need to fix the state of affairs which has so very many people believing the gun is absolutely necessary for them. In the US the lower-income classes are utterly bereft of hope with crime and violence being the one way for many to survive. The middle class fears the lower-income class because they've got just enough money to be interesting to a burglar and just too little to afford living in a gated community guarded by rent-a-cops.
The answer to that is to turn the USA into a social democratic welfare state - like Germany, France or Sweden. With upwards mobility, opportunity and hope offered the lower income classes violence will become less prevalent a solution - and that in turn removes a lot of fear from the middle income classes. At THAT point and not before, will you have ANY shot at implementing effective gun regulation.
This will be a tough sell in the country of Fuck You, Got Mine.
As impossible as that may seem though, it's not anywhere near as hard as even the most minor gun restriction will be to impose on the US of today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
You make many great points: as you always do.
And mind again that though I say, and mean, I don’t want European style socialism; I Vern much do want a social safety. One far higher and more pre-funded than most (if not all) socialist nations.
I firmly believe in a socialised capitalism. A complete and fair social base for all. And the ability to grow to whatever height you can reach.
Such a system is proven in history to work on a small scale and I see no reason it won’t work at the National level.
Look at the tech history. Apple, Atari, etc.
Consider them micro nations. A completely solid base to ‘do what thy wilt’!
And what they accomplished in that framework. A good example of it IS Apple.
Look what happened when the free-base changed to a top down system with the ouster of Jobs.
To the point where they literally faced death and dragged themselves to bow before him and beg for his help.
A secure base and unlimited ability for growth encourages exploration and trial. It pushes people to follow their ideas without fear of failure.
An employment of will is far more productive than employment of mandate.
And before some righty says what about…!
There isn’t a job out there someone doesn’t want to do.
Plenty of people work in retail by choice. Garbage haulers who enjoy their jobs. Etc.
And that social base guarantees the person who wants to do something can go and do it.
To get there we must first kill off the misinform and stereotypes.
Republicans fight socialism by looking at South America, Africa, Far Eastern Europe. Broken countries who say they are socialist and practice communism!
And communism will never work because humans are hardwired to exceed the base.
In American politics though the Reps have a point. The Dem elite are not looking for socialism: they (or most) seek communism.
A small tightly-controlled control of all monitory policy managed via committee that can’t be dissolved.
And that’s a separate discussion from firearms.
Because I use the phrase to do just what SDM suggests. Not only to argue against it he ban everything people but to also counter the idiots who want no restrictions at all!
You start with education. This is a gun. How it works…what it does.
With image and video of consequences. The man who blows his jaw off with a loaded 9mm.
The kid who breaks two fingers off firing a 40cal revolver. The child who kills his mother playing with a short barrel shotgun. Crushing their ribs as well.
Real, uncensored, fact.
We do mental checks and background checks.
We require serial numbers and record them nationally.
We track and trace every single one!
“Illegal” weapons need to be destroyed, not sold to unreliable dealers.
And though I fully support the inheritance of a weapon it should come with all the same requirements.
And the rules must be enforced at all levels. Be it a store, a trade show in person, or a trade site online!
The problem isn’t that you can ‘make a phone call and buy a gun’!!! The problem is we don’t track the buyer and the seller.
And we enforce that aspect by making possession of a firearm that is not ours and not in the immediate realm of the legal owner a class 1 felony. A federal felony.
And again, any new local restrictions must have a grace period for owners.
If you decide to build a school next to a gun owner you don’t march into their house the day you break ground and take their weapons.
When a city bans handguns the owners need time to move if they wish.
We need logical laws but also require logical enforcement!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
Up until someone threatens to sue a school, at which point preserving a rich asshole's kid's right to uninterrupted, undisrupted schooling experience trumps everything else.
You don't get to wax lyrical about logical enforcement, broski. Anyone who reads your comment history can smell that bullshit from the other coastline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
I actually do feel sorry for you. Somewhere buried in the dick-joke-insecurity and the off-your-rocker limited focus on a single statement of ‘I can understand…” is a very sad individual in dire need of help with whatever it is they are going through.
I hope you find the help you need. But I won’t continue to battle with someone who’s only interest is the fight itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
It's quite clear from that particular thread that you don't understand. What readers saw was an impotent pseudo-Republican jerk himself off for the one time he stood up to one bully for an adrenalin high, then wet his diaper worrying about what a bullied victim would do if she wasn't punished and handcuffed. You chose to double down on defending the school's irrational fear of the bully despite a lack of evidence based solely on your own assumptions, even after the fallacy was pointed out by multiple posters.
You laid your own priorities and shit in your own bed, now you're angry that that's what you get remembered for instead of your ingenuity of discovering atheism for the first time. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes, champ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
"I Vern much do want a social safety. One far higher and more pre-funded than most (if not all) socialist nations. "
There's a compromise you need to find between socialism and capitalism in order to not tip over to either side. I think where core infrastructure and essential services are considered, privatization is a bad idea. At the same time leaving it all up to the government isn't good either - because just as the market will want to obtain profit without performance the state bureaucracy is difficult to audit.
"A complete and fair social base for all."
The Level Playing Field.
Not everyone may want to become a lawyer, doctor or engineer...but the barrier to college education should be something everyone can pass. Student loans need to be at a reasonable level, not something which can and does cripple your future. Mine are fairly high but roughly 80$ a month is not unaffordable amortization for a M. Sc. And that covers expected living cost and study literature, the college itself being free.
Health care around here costs, per visit, 15-20$ in administrative fees. Prescribed medicine is subsidized; if you hit an annual ceiling in medicine costs of ~250$ the state deals with the rest.
Dental is free until you're 23. After that it's more expensive than general health care but still partially subsidized.
Social security has been somewhat cored since one of our last administrations was lamentably a Reagan-fan but it's still better by far than in the US.
At the end of the day any society which can't fully accommodate Maslov's hierarchy of needs for each of its citizenry is a failed society. And the society which does will have a citizenry where there is no urgent need for large proportions of the people to make ends meet or earn respect and self-esteem by criminal means. That is the cornerstone how-to of building a safe society. If your society instead is a dog-eat-dog world then that's a society which breeds rabid wolves.
"Plenty of people work in retail by choice. Garbage haulers who enjoy their jobs. Etc. And that social base guarantees the person who wants to do something can go and do it. "
Here's the worst job conditions for Sweden, by example;
40 hour working week.
12,50 USD per hour. (minus ~30% tax)
25 days a year paid vacation.
90 days parental leave, gender-neutral.
That doesn't get you luxury but it gets you a base from which you can better yourself, improve, etc.
"Republicans fight socialism by looking at South America, Africa, Far Eastern Europe. Broken countries who say they are socialist and practice communism! "
Let me stop you right there; No country on the globe practices communism. Those countries all practice bureaucratic oligarchies (old USSR) or dictatorships - using visions of the "worker's utopia" as window dressing.
I'll show you a good example of communism.
Look at the computer you're writing on. The motherboard allocates all resources - from the PSU to the CPU, GPU and RAM, from all according to their ability, to each according to their needs as it were. THAT is communism. A system perfect in theory which will always fail in reality because, well, people simply aren't machines.
Karl Marx was a genius no doubt - Das Kapital is still a basic book of college economics, still considered one of the best breakdowns of capitalism - but he should have left it at analysis. Because a wizard of market studies he might have been but as a student of human flaws he was a failure.
"In American politics though the Reps have a point. The Dem elite are not looking for socialism: they (or most) seek communism. "
No. That's not a thing. There are indeed democrats who try to move towards a bureaucratic oligarchy - but those are the right-wing democrats who have more in common with the current GOP than they do with the left-most members of their own party. Realize that if you want to find a leftist democrat the extreme end is Bernie Sanders - who looks like a democratic socialist on the surface but who I'd peg a social democrat once the chips are down.
The problem the US has is not communism or left-leaning extremism. Take it from someone who grew up with that problem being an actual thing both a stone's throw to the east and with Rote Armee Fraktion terrorists to the south.
What you've got in the US is simple enough. I'd advise googling "Umberto Eco 14 common features of fascism". Generally speaking the more of these you hit the closer you are to dictionary-definition fascism.
You will find a few democrats hitting a number of these with a rare few center ringing all of them.
The current GOP hits every one. Every last one.
And one key note of fascism, as a self-defined italian dictator had it, was the merger of corporation and state. It's when the right wing leaves the playing field of economics and devolves into an autocracy. Same as all the pretend communist countries.
I like to think of the model of politics, when it comes to left and right, as a circle instead of a level plane. 12 o'clock would be social democracy. to the right, 3 o'clock, would be libertarianism. To the left, 9 o'clock, would be democratic socialism. 6 o'clock would be fascism and nazism both. They meet at the extreme end.
The democratic party as a whole is stuck on 2-4 o'clock on that model (except bernie who is on 9 or 12).
The GOP is around 4 or 5.
You've got two right-wing parties with one of them being extremist and the other simply riddled with corruption. Don't mistake that for a right vs left debate - that's the first lie too many americans are stuck in.
"Real, uncensored, fact. "
Exemplified; School visits to the city morgue or trauma clinic where a doctor can explain a few cases where trivial disputes or casual contempt of safety led to death or maiming.
"We need logical laws but also require logical enforcement!"
Good ideas, all. Two stumbling blocks, in the US, as I understand it;
1) Everyone needs a citizen id. Or it stumbles on a have/have-not issue (witness the problem with voter registration).
2) Law doesn't deal with perceived need. The laws can be as sensible as you like but it's still a "prohibition" problem.
A debate around socialism may be separate topic from one about gun control but really...the one can't take place without the other already having been held.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
I agree. A we do that not with the failure of no child left behind that teaches test question answers.
We do that by bringing in teachers that want to teach. More teachers. More teaching.
Less restrictions on lesson plans. And quick, harsh, reactionary firing for bad seed teachers that go of the reservation one way or another.
No. They need to be wiped out all together with permanent, and complete, free education from cradle to grave.
My support for universal income base makes me far more socialist than most democrats.
25,000 per year untouchable and untaxable. A $1250 deposit per month to every citizen.
Textbook… no.
But by term yes. A centralised control of equal distribution. The problem with that methodology is it ignore the me-first human nature hardwired into all living things.
Distribution of everything after the controllers skim off the top.
That’s the difference between communism and socialism though. At the human level anyway. Communism is a system that defies the natural tendencies where socialism simply puts everyone on the same line at the beginning.
It’s the difference between Clinton and her central control vs AOC or Sanders.
I don’t like the methods of the latter two but the difference in the three:
Clinton would be Venezuela or Cuba vs the others moving us towards Sweden.
I have great respect for the ability of Marx to see through to the core. Unfortunately he fails in biology. Goal one of life it to live. By any means necessary.
And if everyone had one… great. Most of my thinking life, all since I was old enough to shave, i believed that a single federal issue free to get ID would be a great thing.
And yes. Guns are an issue. Because without a stable society they are a means to personal stability.
Do don’t solve that by banning firearms.
You do so by extending a hand when someone falls down. Help them dust off and hand them their gun back.
Or in more realistic terms but making sure everyone has food. Shelter. And no need for a smash and grab.
We can’t solve crime until the need for it is solved. Putting someone in jail for stealing bread and soup doesn’t help society.
And arresting then person who walks out of the riot with a cash register makes sense. But ignores the problem that allowed it to reach that point.
Neither side of our politics has any focus on the real problems.
We have Dems that want to steal from the haves to give to the have nots. And we have Reps that look at that and stop everything due to lack of trust.
The solution is to attack the system that creates limited haves and creates have nots.
Hitting JB with taxes is retaliation on an individual. It allows the cancer to continue to fester!
You need to harden the base. When nobody needs to slave in 120• warehouses then the company has no choice but to upgrade and improve to bring in and retain workers.
You can do that by pulling taxation from the business, not the individual. Ad setting a reasonable high entry point where that kicks in.
A social base will quickly eliminate much of the problems in our country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
What country does that?
Clinton is barely left of Reagan. You're delusional if you think she's a leftist, and if you think she's to the left of AOC or Sanders... I have no idea where you could have gotten that idea. Now if you're saying she's more of an authoritarian than the other two I would agree, but not in a leftist, owning the means of production way.
You misspelled "tax".
That incentivizes making the business unprofitable due to paying enormous wages to the executives, who then don't have to pay tax on that money. Instead, tax the business very little, and institute extremely high top personal income tax. This incentivizes rolling that money back into the business instead, where it might actually benefit society. This is how it was in the 50s, and it was discontinued because it didn't allow the wealthy to become obscenely wealthy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
Alright, let me cut off that route right there. I’m not debating textbook this or that. But the general terminology used world wide for governments. Eg Sweden socialist Cuba communist.
She is? I’d consider her the same or slightly right of him.
Nobody who supports corporate tax breaks is remotely left.
?
I won’t argue shooting the messenger. I know where you stand on taxation. Punish the recipient and not the board that gave it out.
…and, so what? Then the business fails.
Or… they change their system to maintain employment with people now no longer in need of the job.
One goal of a social minimum income is it makes employment an incentive for betterment. Of the self and the society.
You don’t keep a business running if you don’t have employees.
How will Amazon run a 120• warehouse when all the employees are working for $10 per hour at Burger King and getting free meals to boot?
On top of the federal deposits?
You spend a few dozen grand on HVAC and pay those people $15 to move boxes. Or you go out of business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
Well that depends what you compare her to. Compared to some of the neo-fascists getting elected to the House lately, she's pretty far left. Compared to European politics she would probably be considered hard right.
You said "steal from the haves" when the actual policy position is to tax the haves.
Perhaps I should have said "unprofitable." The executives will want the business to be monumentally profitable before taking into account executive salaries and bonuses. If it dips into or near unprofitability after taking those into account, that means little or no corporate income tax, and also little personal income tax, but the business will still be a going concern. A perfect situation to let the rich get richer off the backs of everyone else. Something I do not think you support.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without meri
Once taxes are above 50% which so many American liberals call for, it’s not tax, it’s theft.
And you miss the whole aspect of guaranteed income wiping out bad employment practices. When nobody needs your job they won’t be willing to suffer for it.
Business must change or they go out of business.
It may be a Star Trek fantasy but there’s no reason to not try to get there.
When you don’t need a job people who want to make burgers will make burgers. People who want to drive trucks will drive trucks. People who want to move boxes will move boxes.
And yes; people who want responsibility to guide other people will work their way to that spot.
A society where nobody needs to work but most will do so willingly creates a safe, productive, and happy society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without
Where do you get that idea?
I'm not sure where or why bad employment practices entered the discussion. But I don't disagree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally with
My rational brain. How I would react to the situation.
If I give you one slice, one tenth of my pie, I’m sharing. 2 tenths I’m shootings.
3 tenths I’m feeding. 4 tenths I’m growling.
At half, …I’m angry! As hell.
It’s gone for personal generosity, to for the betterment, we o down right greed.
My family will come by for the holidays. We’ll take half your ham. Half your Turkey. Half your pie. Half of everything you cooked. Half of all your furniture, and we’ll bring a chainsaw. We’ll be leaving with half your house.
There’s a point where you go from properly helping and into something dark.
We all have different opinions on where we start to fight back.
There’s that point when it becomes spite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally
Why do you think it's rational to treat sharing pie (or anything) between two people as though it's the same as society taxing its members to pay for services?
It's disingenuous to frame a top personal tax rate above 50% as taxing more than half your income. That's not how it works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tota
Why? Because that what it is.
Whilest people are looking at numbers I’ll remind them there is more to it.
You may not like the comparison but it is accurate in a certain view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I disagree, I think it's highly inaccurate and leads to harmful conclusions. But that does explain why you would have that view of taxation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally
"My family will come by for the holidays. We’ll take half your ham. Half your Turkey. Half your pie. Half of everything you cooked. Half of all your furniture, and we’ll bring a chainsaw. We’ll be leaving with half your house. "
Stop and back up a few. You just ran yourself into a ditch there.
Assume that what we have is a good wage. Enough to live on, enough to feed your family. Enough for luxuries. Assume you have that wage after, say, 33% taxes. You don't need to worry about health care or the education of your kids.
By the time you need to start paying half in a progressive tax you're far beyond any reasonable personal loss. Do you really need a ham factory for thanksgiving? Do you need your Turkeys airlifted in, covered in gold foil? Do you need a three-star chef out of guide micheline doing the cooking? Is your furniture all antiques signed personally by Benjamin Franklin and JFK? Do you need to host that shindig in a building the size of Trump towers?
If I earn above a certain amount I rapidly run out of luxuries and creature comforts I could reasonably enjoy no matter what I do. If I can grab a few vacation weeks abroad I don't need to have them on a private island and go there with a private jet. Business class and two well-planned weeks in phuket or barcelona will do me just fine.
Your example simply isn't true. What progressive taxation means is that after you earn a certain treshold of income the overshoot gets taxed higher. Neither you nor anyone else will ever run out of money or find your living standards reduced - unless you believe a private jet and infinity pool penthouse in central LA is a must.
This is how Sweden's progressive tax rate looks (one of the higher among socialist countries, mind).
Up to ~45k USD annually = 29-35%.
Between 45k and 66k USD = 49-55% on the amount over 45k.
Over 66k USD = 54-60% on the amount in excess of 66k.
Bear in mind that every cent above what you spend is money you don't have any other need for than gilding that Turkey. Above a certain level of income the money is scorekeeping and nothing else. You literally can't spend it all.
And let me head off any knee-jerk reaction by first reminding you...I live in that reality. Pretty well, in fact. Better, in fact, than most US middle class income takers would and with far fewer fears of some single costly accident or unplanned-for illness dropping me in the hole for the rest of my life when the insurance provider stops paying the medical bills.
Everything in life is a tradeoff. Having a cake and eating it is magical thinking. We may not be able to get to Star Trek any time soon, but eh, I'll settle for a life where I can live, work and grow without being persistently beholden to money first and foremost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tota
I’m with you to a degree.
I till think flat social security and 10% above a certain threshold is more fair.
But I wouldn’t fuss over 20 or 25%.
I’d go with 50% on some much higher number.
But you keep uncoupling the plans I support. Free universal healthcare and free universal education and guaranteed social security payments. From the tax plan.
10% on $1mil + and 40-some on corporate would 100% fund that with money left to spend.
My ideal is not horsing. It’s a Lamborghini in every drive for someone who wants it.
Did he problems with income and tax is we are not like you are.
Take Illinois. You can buy an orange in Chicago for $1
Or a dozen in Most of the state for $0.99!
Take Missouri. An orange in at Louis for $1.
Or Jackson for 10ç
California? $1 in la or 10x$1.00 in bluff cove.
The system in the US is totally broken. All the systems are totally broken.
We need to start over from scratch with economics. Social services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without
"And you miss the whole aspect of guaranteed income wiping out bad employment practices. When nobody needs your job they won’t be willing to suffer for it. "
That money does have to come from somewhere. Putting in a flat tax of 30% with no breaks might do it...but I think to some extent you will need, long-term, to tax high income and assets disproportionately from lower income and assets. Mainly because currency has the job to do of circulating. Any money hoarded isn't doing its job and if you sit on too big a pile of it actively impedes the economy as a result.
"It may be a Star Trek fantasy but there’s no reason to not try to get there. "
You realize that in the Star Trek paradigm - until JJ retconned the whole philosophy of it - money had been completely abandoned and within the federation billionaires and millionaires did not exist? The Ferengi are basically caricatures of western capitalism.
If we want Star Trek then we do indeed need to make sure not only to put a minimum cap on income. We need to start capping the upper level of income as well. Or we just end up with every incentive being to maintain the status quo.
"A society where nobody needs to work but most will do so willingly creates a safe, productive, and happy society."
That's a great dream. It'd be the proud top floor of a grand monument to human nobility and purpose.
But to get to that top floor you first need to lay the first brick of the foundation. And that brick is called "Remove money as the primary incentive". And to that effect you need to not just set up minimum income. You need to shrink the wage gap. Because the current system ensures the ones who get out on top won't be the happy worker aiming to do a good job. What you get in the current system is Michael Shkreli.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally with
Yes. That’s my point. When you take away the need by supplying it up front you create a society of welcome willingness. As a whole the human has little interest in doing nothing. Claims of a lazy society are fud.
We see that with covid.
People want to be active. They want to DO!
As in… I don’t need money to live but that new PS or Xbox for the kids would be nice?
As in maybe I’ll go dig a ditch today. It’s nice out. ??
Base income motivates to do what one can, wants, to do.
Not basic, base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
"We do that by bringing in teachers that want to teach. More teachers. More teaching."
...which is accomplished by making the job one people would want. A better support structure. Reasonable hours. The people entrusted to teach children shouldn't have worse conditions on the job than corporate janitors.
"My support for universal income base makes me far more socialist than most democrats. 25,000 per year untouchable and untaxable. A $1250 deposit per month to every citizen. "
Smells like Andrew Yang in here all of a sudden 😄. The "Citizen's Salary" is a bit rather than I would go - mainly because a conservative liberal like me is leery of untested changes with large ramifications. I think a base income will end up being the norm unless civilization collapses rather than progresses - but let's test it first before rolling it out at scale.
It's also not a possible. That step won't fly before the US rids itself of the "socialism bad" talking point.
"But by term yes. A centralised control of equal distribution. "
Not even then. Most current dictatorships get away with calling themselves an "intermediate phase". But even then they're about as communist as Adam Smith.
"It’s the difference between Clinton and her central control vs AOC or Sanders."
It really isn't. Communism is an extreme left ideology. Clinton would be centre-right. AOC and Bernie are centrist-left. The democrat mainstream aligns to the right.
"We can’t solve crime until the need for it is solved. Putting someone in jail for stealing bread and soup doesn’t help society. "
Lamentably the US has made jails a VERY profitable business. No better way to get 8 hours of daily labor out of people without paying them. The perfect logical replacement for the plantation. Hence yes, society benefits in the short-term and the fiscal aspect. what it loses is the foundation of a free society as factual slavery has come again as a viable option to use against its lower classes.
"You need to harden the base. When nobody needs to slave in 120• warehouses then the company has no choice but to upgrade and improve to bring in and retain workers. "
First step accomplishing all of that all on it's own - unionization. There's a reason there are, in the US, somewhere around 2000 consulting companies specializing in union busting. The individual will always lose against the boss. The worker's representative negotiating the conditions of ten million officer clerks in the state, though? He will be heard.
"You can do that by pulling taxation from the business, not the individual. Ad setting a reasonable high entry point where that kicks in. "
You do need to tax the wealthy. Everyone needs to chip in. But make it a flat rate and have it apply only on income above the minimum subsistence level. Around 25-30% would suffice to fund almost anything. And no exceptions, because a tax code like the current US one with a hundred thousand loopholes to every clause is just not going to work.
People get understandably upset when looking at the wealthiest americans - with billionaires paying 750$ in taxes on incomes of hundreds of millions annually it's no wonder "Eat the rich" has become a slogan. And then those rich wankers pay what amounts to maybe a tenth of the taxes they should have paid to a charity and come off as saints. Meh.
The knee-jerk defense in the US, against "punishing" people for being wealthy kind of misses the point that even under the US tax code those people use lobbied-for loopholes to evade the same taxes the average John/Jane Doe needs to fork over without complaint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look at Armslists’ Twitter feed. They’re anti-government gun fetishists of the most ludicrous stripe. I don’t think they deserve protections. Sites like Armslist that make it easier for people to connect and buy guns without any sort of background checks of any sort in place, they’re a huge part of gun control policy that needs to be solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem with your reasoning is that who does not get protection depends of who is in power, which means one day it will be you who is not protected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
in re "deserve", do we need to remind you of Martin Niemoller's poem from 1946?.
in re "think", you are expressing a belief, which by definition, requires that one forego rational thinking at all.
Just trying to help, that's all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"They’re anti-government gun fetishists of the most ludicrous stripe. I don’t think they deserve protections."
Ahem.
They deserve the same protections everyone else gets. The real issue is elsewhere. Sure, they do their part to feed the appetite for their products...but the problem is that in the US it isn't the ready access to guns which is the problem.
Look at switzerland. More guns than in the NRA's wet dreams. Fewest gun-related murders on the globe, or at least among the bottom five.
Look at Mexico City - among the most draconian gun laws around. So high a gun murder rate it's comparable to civil war zones in the third world.
The problem in the US is the culture. Violence and killing is normalized. Part of the national identity. The solution to every problem. The cure for all ills. The drug of choice against feeling small, frustrated or angry.
And in a nation so bereft of social safety nets there's a large pool of frustrated, angry and deprived people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I understand this. I also understand that better economic opportunity, upward mobility, and safety nets are a huge crux too. My issue is that I don’t see how we solve the gun culture issue without removing the ease at which people who are legally barred from owning guns are able to set up a purchase on sites like Armslist, and the ease at which people can buy guns in general. I said this farther up in response to one of LostIn’s comments about how we need to improve society and that’s the real issue:
I don’t think that gun control laws are a panacea, but in the long run, remaking our gun culture to be more like Switzerland’s is something that can only help as we make our way toward implementing better social programs. And I think part of that means making sure it isn’t as easy as it is now for people who aren’t allowed to own guns, like the murderer here in this case, to be able to get them. And Armslist helps contribute to that problem, and they know that they contribute to that problem. Therefore I think that sites like Armslist (and more who allow people to set up gun sales online with little-to-no verification) don’t deserve protections.
It’s like… the kind of super-American bullshit that Grand Theft Auto lambasts, where you can buy guns online through a simple process, is something that exists. That needs to change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"My issue is that I don’t see how we solve the gun culture issue without removing the ease at which people who are legally barred from owning guns are able to set up a purchase on sites like Armslist, and the ease at which people can buy guns in general."
I'm not usually the guy to take Lostinlodos in defense, but it seems you're both on board with this. He's stated outright multiple times he's in favor of regulations and restrictions. The US is in a bad state in many ways and one of them exemplifying this topic is the ease to circumvent a state ban on gun purchases. I'm not sure what to tell you. Where I'm from a "gun" is understood to be a professional tool you obtain only as needed for which you need to put in the work and evaluation before a license is granted. Not a toy, a cultural icon of toxic masculinity or a mythological "item of power".
"...in the long run, remaking our gun culture to be more like Switzerland’s is something that can only help as we make our way toward implementing better social programs."
Unfortunately that's the cart before the horse. You'll never get meaningful restrictions in place before the mindset is already in place. To quote a youtuber I love hearing talk about this stuff (Beau of the fifth column), to change society you don't change laws. You change thought.
Until you've got the social problems licked and the majority of americans start believing they don't need a gun - because that's no longer the answer to every problem - you've got exactly zero odds of getting effective regulations in place. Give or take a Tinker's Damn.
"It’s like… the kind of super-American bullshit that Grand Theft Auto lambasts, where you can buy guns online through a simple process, is something that exists. That needs to change."
Oh, I agree. It just isn't happening until you've already managed to break the back of the mythology. Social change first, then you can start thinking about effective gun legislation.
For the logic behind this, see the prohibition era. You'll never make the people give up on what they think they need. You have to make them stop thinking they need that thing first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I may side with the Republicans on the right to keep … arms.
But I make most pro-gun-Dems look absolutely far right Q in what I would call for in restrictions.
Mandatory training BEFORE ownership.
Annual training.
An outright ban on small calibre hand guns.
A total and complete ban on any “long barrel” weapon, rifle or not, shorter than 14”.
And using the same free, federally issued photo of I suggest for driving and voting and vax status to tie gun ownership to a federal database.
Ownership needs to be tied to access to federal records. You buy a gun you waive an aspect of HIPPA.
you need to totally change the approach to how you can get a weapon and how you track them.
You need to make sure what is available actually requires more training than Point and shoot.
You’re not going to get a 15yro doing a drive by with a 40cal handgun. Hand out the window spray and pay.
But that same person could safely train under a parent or guardian to properly use and respect that device for use in actual defence.
We need to stop the revolving door of confiscated weapons being resold.
Fully autos end ip with licensed dealers who use the laws loopholes to dump those same weapons back out into shows and they eventually wind up back on the street.
You don’t hunt, or protect, with an uzi. Confiscation should end with recycling. Tracked and traced distraction.
Because the same cops that get the guns off the streets are the ones that wind up putting them back out there.
We have too many loop holes. Sites like ArmsList provide a valuable service. One that needs more regulation. Sellers and buyers both should be required to provide licenses and photo ID. And store that shite for 7 years.
Same thing with shows. Keep records. Show records.
I shouldn’t be able to buy a revolver at a garage sale!
You don’t reach that by making threats at a podium: you do it by making ownership responsible. Something to be trained for and when you achieve the requirements to reach your right, something to be proud of.
Something easily forfeited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You don’t reach that by making threats at a podium: you do it by making ownership responsible. Something to be trained for and when you achieve the requirements to reach your right, something to be proud of. Something easily forfeited."
If only there was a party of personal responsibility these days. But what you've got is the choice between a right-wing party with corruption issues and an extreme right-wing party with fascism issues.
That needs to be addressed first. It may indeed be important to inventory the perishables, inspect the kitchen, and rearrange those deck chairs...but the long gaping hole beneath the waterline is probably what you need to fix first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not trolling
I'm curious, when an online service enables illegal activity, at what point do they become liable? If they were selling alcohol to minors, would they just say they weren't the ones breaking the law? Again, not trolling, just wondering what the law is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not trolling
Gun sales are legal, as are car sales. Is a car sales person responsible for the death caused by a banned driver who buys a car from them?.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not trolling
Alcohol sales are legal and, I'm pretty sure, a store would be held liable for selling to a minor. Also, I'm pretty sure they would they would be held liable if the minor got drunk and killed someone. IANAL, but would be surprised if there were no repercussions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not trolling
It would not be liable if someone else bought the liquor and then sold it to a minor. That’s the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not trolling
They are liable for knowingly selling to a minor, but in general minors can be recognised by looking at the person. Also, the person who sold them the alcohol are not held liable for the damage or deaths caused by a drunk driver.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not trolling
Well, thanks to Stephen and Scary, etc…
I’ve read 230 and the case law on it since.
As far as I can tell this case is a fluke.
The premise is to allow moderation without host fault for missed content.
It does NOT protect from known content. So the protection ends when someone reports the content to the host company. At that point the host must make their decision on the content to the best of their ability.
This judge is a bit of a nutter. There is zero federal level ruling that holds a legal seller liable for selling a legal product to a legal buyer. Let alone an intermediary who hosted the sale.
The reality here is the site is a form of digital flea market. You don’t sue the market for the legal transactions of sellers and buyers.
This is literally the equivalence of holding auto trader responsible for the legal sale of a legal car from a sober seller to a licensed sober driver who’s kid drove drunk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not trolling
"Schmidt’s estranged husband, who was prohibited from owning a firearm under Wis. Stat. §§ 941.29(1m)(g), 813.25 and 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8),..."
In this case though, it looks like he was not a legal buyer, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not trolling
True. However the seller is not the same entity/person/company as the platform that allowed them to come together.
Here the liability can only be forwarded to the platform if the platform had received prior knowledge that the buyer was legally restricted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not trolling
So, it sounds like a platform could be willfully ignorant and be protected?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not trolling
That depends.
From my understanding prior to 230 and back to the compuserve era a platform had to pay to fight liability concerns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not trolling
…
Where after 230 such cases are just not perused.
Be mindful that 230, though intense to cater to those who wanted to moderate, didn’t come out of thins air.
Sites were afraid of taking down stuff because they may be heals liable for what they missed, yes,
But other sites didn’t give two sheets to the wind of what was posted unless someone said a specific post was illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not trolling
"From my understanding prior to 230 and back to the compuserve era a platform had to pay to fight liability concerns."
Which shouldn't even have been a thing given that basic telecommunications laws in almost every other nation already covers mere conduit and intermediary liability. The US is notably lacking here which is why 230 is that one good thing to come out of the shit-show which was the Communications Decency Act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not trolling
"So, it sounds like a platform could be willfully ignorant and be protected?"
To be fair, that's how every conscientious messenger service works. The mailman doesn't get to read your mail and so has no idea what is exchanged. This saves their hide if what is carried turns out to be an envelope full of drugs or plans for the assassination of the next president.
You could argue that this platform had expectations that a lot of trades were illicit. You certainly could. You could argue a moral dimension. But legally you don't have a leg to stand on if good jurisprudence is observed.
Mere conduit is as dual use as dual use gets. And one of its uses is a vital necessity for democracy and a free society to exist in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not trolling
Third party liability means that if a friend drives away from your house after a few drinks, you can be held jointly liable for any accident they have, up to and including manslaughter charges. Do you think that would be a good law. Hint you want some people exposed to third party liability on less knowledge than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not trolling
"The reality here is the site is a form of digital flea market. You don’t sue the market for the legal transactions of sellers and buyers. "
I'm not exactly sympathetic to armslist but..."Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!", as it were.
Assigning intermediate liability is dangerous. Sure, if someone knowingly assists in crime there's reasonably a law against that. But nine times out of ten when people discuss intermediate liability it turns out to be about shooting the messenger who keeps carrying unpalatable messages. Or trying to make the power company pay for "enabling" hackers by providing electricity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]