• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT4| Tyler New Chief Exit Pollster at CNN

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Maledict

Member
CCS said:
Reaching 40% is a win for Sanders. Clinton should just concede now tbh.
Click to expand...

3 months ago he was at 3%. They said it wasn't possible to gain 37% in three months - we have the momentum! Donate 3 dollars now to support our victory in California!
 
C

CCS

Banned
Maledict said:
3 months ago he was at 3%. They said it wasn't possible to gain 37% in three months - we have the momentum! Donate 3 dollars now to support our victory in California!
Click to expand...

The fastest growing this this election isn't Sanders' poll numbers, it's Devine and Weaver's bank accounts.
 
E

eBay Huckster

Member
I should take a short nap considering I just had a marathon day (starting at 6!) of two detailed presentations + Q&A sessions, plus learning basic transportation planning models from a professor whose voice literally makes me doze off while I'm still on a caffeine high, plus resubmitting a job app for a civil engineering internship with COTA in Columbus, but I'mma be watching movies with friends in a couple hours and I don't wanna oversleep it.

Might have the debate on in the background. Or I can just refresh the mess that will be the thread to try and keep up.
 
J

j_k_redtail

Member
ivysaur12 said:
This is kind of where I am

http://www.atlredline.com/i-m-with-her-i-guess-1769742021
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton is not a secret Republican. She’s not a witch. She’s not going to jail. She’s a hawkish left-of-center policy wonk. She believes in incremental change and compromise. She’d rather pass a crappy law that has some positive outcomes than watch a great law die in committee. She believes in government, she thinks it does work and can work.

...

And that uninspiring, incremental, realist “plan” is why I’ll be voting for her. I guess. Until something practically better comes along.
Click to expand...
Nailed it for me.
 
<+)O Robido O(+>

<+)O Robido O(+>

Member
shinra-bansho said:
Why are you arguing over national polling?

The PLCAA is a law pushed through by "money in politics!!!!!" by Republicans as a result of lobbyists, special interests and Big Gun.
To give Big Gun a shield from litigation that nearly no other industry has.
The type of litigation that has resulted in the standardisation of safety features in industries like the automobile sector.

So, let me ask you a question back. Why are you in favour of it?
Click to expand...

If the wiki on the law is to be believed then it seems like a nonsense law to have anyway:
Wikipedia said:
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products.
Click to expand...
I would assume that any case brought against a manufacturer because someone killed someone else using their product would be tossed out.

The wiki also says that they are still liable for defective products.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
<+)O Robido O(+> said:
If the wiki on the law is to be believed then it seems like a nonsense law to have anyway:

I would assume that any case brought against a manufacturer because someone killed someone else using their product would be tossed out.

The wiki also says that they are still liable for defective products.
Click to expand...

But see...here's the thing, right? Because of this shitty law, a lot of times cases don't even get to go to trial!

For example, a gun dealer escaped accountability when he enabled a drug-abusing, mentally unstable individual to simply take a gun without a Brady background check (he used it two days later to murder an innocent young man). Although he was so grossly negligent that hundreds of guns left his store without background checks, and he had his license revoked for willful violations of gun laws, the dealer was allowed to use his own negligence as a defense to a lawsuit—arguing that PLCAA prohibited ordinary
negligence claims.

It also protected an online ammunition retailer from liability who sold thousands of rounds of ammunition to a deranged individual without verifying his identity—the same individual used that ammunition to kill twelve people in a movie theatre, including Jessica Ghawi, the daughter of Lonnie and Sandy Phillips
Click to expand...
 
T

Tranqueris

Banned
<+)O Robido O(+> said:
Suing the manufacturer for selling a legal product solves what exactly?
Click to expand...

You mean besides bringing about actual change that won't be blocked by all the politicians who are in the pocket of the NRA?
In late 1999, the Clinton administration announced it would join the efforts: The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) vowed to pursue a lawsuit against the firearms industry, on behalf of public housing authorities who spent billions annually trying to protect residents from gun violence.
Click to expand...
The approach showed early dividends. In March 2000, Smith & Wesson agreed to a settlement that included a promise that the company would provide safety locking devices, invest in smart gun technology to limit use to the proper owner, limit magazine capacity for its new firearms, cut off dealers and distributors with a history of selling to criminals, and prevent authorized dealers from selling at gun shows where any arm sales are permitted without background checks.
Click to expand...

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/12/01/3715552/gun-lobby-tobacco-industry/
 
S

shinra-bansho

Member
Your assumptions not withstanding, I noticed you didn't answer the question about why exactly you support this law that provided special exemptions from common law at the behest of monied interests.

Comparison of Federal Law Governing Litigation for 3 Products Affecting the Public&#8217;s Health
Code: 
							Firearms	Vaccines	Motor Vehicles
Governing federal liability law				PLCAA		NCVIA		Common Law Liability
Lawsuits freely permitted by federal law		No		No		Yes
Compensation mechanism for injuries			No		Yes(a)		Yes(b)
Plaintiff can pursue claim in court			No(c)		Yes		Yes
Punitive damages available				No		No		Yes
Pending lawsuits preserved when federal law enacted	No		Yes		NA
Federal law governs safety of the product		No		Yes(d)		Yes(e)

Note. NA = not applicable.

a) National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 USC §§300aa-1, aa-5, aa-25, aa-10 (2006).
b) Common law liability in court.
c) Subject to limited exceptions contained in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
d) Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 USC §301 et seq. (2006).
e) National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, codified as amended at 49 USC §30101 et seq. (2006).

Modified from Vernick et al. Availability of Litigation as a Public Health Tool for Firearm Injury Prevention: Comparison of Guns, Vaccines, and Motor Vehicles.
Am J Public Health. 2007 November; 97(11): 1991&#8211;1997.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2040374/
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Also, no one is saying we should be able to sue a gun manufacturer willy nilly. HOWEVER, they should not be the only industry in the entire country that gets special protection. If you believe that big money and big business is bad, how you can support the PLCAA is something I don't understand.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
B-Dubs said:
Also if this plays out like the lawsuits of the past, they'll be able to force better safety features onto the guns that might save lives. Like that fingerprint lock thing, had those guns had that Sandy Hook would never have happened.
Click to expand...

Which lawsuits? The PLCAA doesn't bar lawsuits alleging design defects that result in death, injury, or property damage "when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner" (excluding criminal misuse of the firearm). With respect to what other good are lawsuits permitted against the manufacturer when the good is misused for criminal purposes? The other safety features that have been mentioned so far (seat belts, e.g.) were required because the good in question (there, cars) were found to be unreasonably dangerous when used for the purpose for which they were designed and in the intended manner.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
So, if Hilary were to win say 60-40, how would this compare to Bernie's wins, delegate wise, the last month?

Wipe it out completely? Too lazy to check!
 
N

Nazgul_Hunter

Member
adam387 said:
Also, no one is saying we should be able to sue a gun manufacturer willy nilly. HOWEVER, they should not be the only industry in the entire country that gets special protection. If you believe that big money and big business is bad, how you can support the PLCAA is something I don't understand.
Click to expand...

The people advocating for this to be repealed need to start explaining that it's not about suing because guns can kill people... This protection from lawsuits takes pressure off gun makers from making their guns safer. Think Touch ID for guns instead of making magazines larger. That's what's at stake. The gun manufacturers aren't gonna make guns harder to sell on the black market until they feel pressure to do so.
 
B

Brawndo Addict

Banned
I don't think guns merit special immunity, but I also don't think that suits against gun-makers would be particularly successful under existing legal regimes. Would it result in legal pressures and changes to designs? Maybe, it's hard to say. Dealers and sales to dealers is a whole other story however. That is where I could see a lot of movement and action taking place with respect to actually getting big changes.
 
E

eBay Huckster

Member
Black Mamba said:
So, if Hilary were to win say 60-40, how would this compare to Bernie's wins, delegate wise, the last month?

Wipe it out completely? Too lazy to check!
Click to expand...

Bern's net gain in the last month has been 110.

60-40 wipes out a little under half of that. An average of 60-40 next week finishes the job and adds another 15.
 
R

royalan

Member
adam387 said:
Also, no one is saying we should be able to sue a gun manufacturer willy nilly. HOWEVER, they should not be the only industry in the entire country that gets special protection. If you believe that big money and big business is bad, how you can support the PLCAA is something I don't understand.
Click to expand...

If I recall, at the very start of his campaign, Bernie used to say that he voted with the gun lobby because he was from a small rural state that liked their guns for hunting purposes; there wasn't a lot of gun crime. He was representing his constituency. Only problem is, throughout this campaign he's attacked Hillary so much with his ideological purity crap, that he can no longer use that reasoning without sounding like a huge hypocrite, despite it being somewhat fair, if not really understandable.
 
S

Spoiled Milk

Banned
adam387 said:
No.

The families are arguing that the guns were marketed to civilians in such a way as to entice the person to buy it because they'll be able to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

It's the same as if I ran an ad for a car saying "You can mow down 14 people and not even get a dent in the bumper"...and then someone does that.
Click to expand...

In general the precedent for being able to sue gun manufacturers is also that they don't do enough to sell to vendors that do appropriate background checks and keep it out of looney hands.
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
royalan said:
If I recall, at the very start of his campaign, Bernie used to say that he voted with the gun lobby because he was from a small rural state that liked their guns for hunting purposes; there wasn't a lot of gun crime. He was representing his constituency. Only problem is, throughout this campaign he's attacked Hillary so much with his ideological purity crap, that he can no longer use that reasoning without sounding like a huge hypocrite, despite it being somewhat fair, if not really understandable.
Click to expand...

It's the beauty of Sanders and people who set themselves up to be paragons. Hypocrisy shines bright and taints easier.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
So, in that new NY poll....

Taking a look at Demographic information....

Their last poll had it 62% female and 38% male.
This one is 58% female and 42% male....and Hillary IMPROVED her numbers.

That's....that's not good for Bernie.
 
M

Maxim726X

Member
HylianHistorian said:
Same here. Like I know many of us are us progressive as it gets without being nutty but yeah, better to have slow and steady progress than none or even regression.
Click to expand...

This is ultimately where I stand as well.

Idealism vs. Pragmatism, I guess. Although, unlike a good number of Sanders supporters, I would happily vote for either nominee.
 
S

shinra-bansho

Member
Nazgul_Hunter said:
The people advocating for this to be repealed need to start explaining that it's not about suing because guns can kill people... This protection from lawsuits takes pressure off gun makers from making their guns safer. Think Touch ID for guns instead of making magazines larger. That's what's at stake. The gun manufacturers aren't gonna make guns harder to sell on the black market until they feel pressure to do so.
Click to expand...
Basically this. It's what the journal article essentially argues.

There is no mechanism to drive improved safety in design and distribution in the interest of public health. For the former there isn't really regulatory governance, what is there for both is poor. Legislative approaches are a no go. Which would normally still leave judicial recourse. But not in the case of guns.
 
S

Slayven

Member
HylianHistorian said:
Same here. Like I know many of us are us progressive as it gets without being nutty but yeah, better to have slow and steady progress than none or even regression.
Click to expand...

That is how I feel. A lot of people think that is settling, but I think it is being a realist. You not going to burn down the system. Cause half the system thinks like Donald trump
 
U

User 463088

Banned
shinra-bansho said:
Basically this. It's what the journal article essentially argues.

There is no mechanism to drive improved safety in design and distribution in the interest of public health. For the former there isn't really regulatory governance, what is there for both is poor. Legislative approaches are a no go. Which would normally still leave judicial recourse. But not in the case of guns.
Click to expand...

The good news is Bernie also voted against public health funding for gun research. So, he's consistent, at least.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom