Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by DrewDaHilp1, Sep 13, 2016.
I hope they win and leave her destitute.
SURE hope they win
Without point-of-purchase background checks, how can a firearms retailer know if the person buying a firearm has been convicted of a felony, adjudged insane, or is otherwise ineligible to purchase a gun? Ms. Couric asked the question, and the people answering that question failed to answer it. They said there were laws in place prohibiting such people from buying guns. Which is true. But they simply didn't answer the question on the table.
The second issue is this: The (oft-repeated) canard that no firearms law ever prevented a crime. This is more patent nonsense. As I've pointed out previously, for decades Federal firearms law has severely restricted the possession of fully-automatic weapons. And (not coincidentally) there have been all but zero crimes committed using fully-automatic weapons. You may very well get shot by a 9mm Glock pistol. You may very well get killed by a guy with an AR-15 sporting rifle. But you simply aren't going to get killed by someone who set up an M2 or M-60 machine gun.
There are laws against speeding and against drunk driving. But if you make it impossible for police to use radar guns and breathalyzers, it's going to make it much more difficult to enforce those laws. If you have laws that make it illegal to sell guns to felons and the insane, but you prevent retailers from finding out if their customer is a convicted felon or has been adjudged insane, then the law itself isn't going to work very well.
Their manipulation is as much a slap in the face as going to a news site to read an article and 4 seconds into reading a big-ass ad appears covering the whole page (what happened to ads on the side or in a section in the middle as opposed to a huge delayed WHAP after x seconds in?)
The respondents' rationalizations are interesting, not always convincing, but the way the edited video was formed - that's misadvertising.
Still, we allow unregulated "caveat emptor" for every other industry and people who support that because regulations keep such unethical behavior more minimal than what would otherwise be allowed, so why is the same type of activity now oh-so-wrong? How odd...
maybe you should learn why they are suing instead of jumping to conclusions
Eeeh! Sorry Hans, wrong guess. Would you like to go for Double Jeopardy where the scores can really change?
The number of such crimes can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Cite evidence to the contrary or retract.
nice goal shift, from "all but zero" to a handful , wait, are you going to retract your flawed post/straw man?
Awe man you chose double jeopardy. How much are you putting down Hans? Stay tuned after this commercial break.
For what is she being sued, not agreeing with them?
I'm not saying it's right. What I'll say is that if Michael Moore and other "documentarians" can selective edit, do dramatic pauses, etc and not lose any lawsuits, I'm pretty sure that Katie will be ok.
And why would you want her to wind up destitute. You think editing a documentary should equate to losing everything she has? WOW. That's quite harsh.
try reading the link posted. from there
she agreed it was misleading. hope that cost her
On September 15th, 1988, Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman.
And then John Boyle killed his wife on NYE 1982.
Want to take a guess at what professions these individuals had?
--- Post Merged, Sep 13, 2016 ---
I'm an 80's kid so forgive me if I allow Conan to explain why I wish for her to lose everything.
--- Post Merged, Sep 13, 2016 ---
Lmao. Frivolous lawsuit that should be tossed as soon as it hits a judge's desk.
not that easy, she admitted it was misleading.
Agendas how do they work?
Almost every video clip produced now misleads on things.
So both sides agree that truth and non-bias in journalism should return?
If selective editing and poor journalistic integrity results in consequences, would it not push for truthful and honest journalism?
I watched the video and if they had answers they should of been included. If agree that deceptive editing undermines the message of any documentary. But what damages did this gun rights group suffer? 12 million sounds like a good ole money grab.
Being misleading in itself is not illegal, nor is it what Katie is being sued for. However, you can start a civil suit if someone was committing libel, slander, or defamation and as a result harmed you in some way, causing damages. I have read a couple of articles about this case and the group is saying they were defamed and that they experienced damages.
The gist of the case is that they are a group that actively promotes gun rights, and the video was edited to make it look as if they have no clue as to what they are doing. The group is asserting that the video falsely makes them look incompetent or ineffective at their core purpose (the defamation), and therefore it hurts their prestige resulting in a negative affect to their influence and to their ability to attract members (the damages).
I have no idea of their level of stature, budget, or how much they were affected, but $12 million sounds really high to me. Nevertheless, it is routine in a lawsuit to ask for the maximum you can justify in any possible way, no matter how slim the justification. This is because of the assumption that the amount will get knocked down no matter what, either through a negotiated settlement or through a court's judgement, so you don't want to start with a fair amount and risk ending up with less than a fair amount.
Hey geniuses, the phrase "all but zero" (a twist on the more common phrase, all but none) means almost none. Not zero.
So, vrDrew didn't move the goal posts, you just don't know where the end zone is.
And, coming up with a single crime from 1988 proves his point.
There are strikingly few crimes that included the use of a fully-automatic weapon, which means that the law works in this regard by making weapons like the BAR and Thompson machine gun—the weapons that existed when the NFA was enacted—very difficult to purchase.
As the BJS noted, although there was 242,394 homicides committed between 1993 and 2010, only a tiny percentage of those crimes were committed with fully-automatic weapons.
In 2004, around 18 percent of prisoners were in possession of a weapon, about 15 percent had handguns, only 1.5 percent had rifles, 2 percent had shotguns, and the remainder 0.1 percent had weapons that were not among the other categories.
The category of other includes semi-automatic "military-style" weapons, as well as fully-automatic weapons. And, this includes weapons that were illegally modified, as well as weapons that are by design fully-automatic.
is that percentage more than a hand full?
Well, keep in mind that a person could have possessed a firearm, but not have commit a homicide. That second statistic is just included to show additional context, but they're not linked and that was just the prison population for one year, where I added up the total number of crimes committed over a larger period of time.
Most sources indicate only two murders have been committed with machine guns since the NFA was enacted and that there have only been 10 crimes committed with fully-automatic weapons. For instance, the North Hollywood Shootout was violent and scary, but only the perpetrators were killed. (Twenty people were wounded in the exchange, 12 of them police officers.) And, that crime was conducted with illegally modified weapons.
The 1988 shooting of a police informant is basically a unicorn among gun crimes in the U.S., so a handful appears exceedingly generous.
In "Targeting Guns" by gun-rights hero Gary Kleck, he notes that while a BATF director said that in Miami crimes involved machine guns were "commonplace" in 1980, statistics show that of the 569 homicides committed in the city that year, only "five or six involved machine guns."