Trigger locks are for guns that you are not going to defend yourself with. Because they take too long to deactivate. The United States has a constitutional basic civil right of the people's right to bear arms. That right is not given to guarantee target shooting and hunting privileges. It is there to guarantee self defense.

A great many justly renown documents down through history granting of civil rights against the overlords governing them, (such as Magna Carta) grant the people rights such as to own and use longbows, firearms, the right to hunt in the forests, and so forth. The elite class ruling the people did not want to grant such rights. Only royalty they said should be allowed to hunt deer in the forest reservations. Longbows were actually prohibited by royal decree.

But the passing of time brought forward progressive ages of enlightenment. The basic civil right, God given, of self defense by bearing arms is what good morally minded people have fought and died for. Against governments and rulers that wanted to oppress them by taking away such rights, for reasons including to more easily keep underlings in subjugation.

Wealthy  people can afford to subscribe to security companies that provide private armed guards to patrol residential neighborhoods. Or to live in secure gated communities. Most people cannot afford such, and so they certainly should try to protect their families themselves, in some manner. Government police cannot provide such basic protection, because they cannot arrive in a timely manner.

 

 

 

Fellow members....A very good discussion, so far!  Please keep it at that level as a well-rounded discussion of the facts or opinions.  Any sign of arguing, name-calling, or shoe on the table pounding will result is another locked topic.  Thank you!😀

 

          NYET!

People getting caught up in the emotion are calling it a tragic accident. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Somebody' has to pay its just a matter of who 

You're right Charlie.  We have to keep this civil and non-political.

I would suggest if someone says something here you really have to take issue with and that could turn this into a political debate the person you want to address be contacted in a PM so you could discuss the political points privately.

Noel

1 hour ago, Fielder said:

The United States has a constitutional basic civil right of the people's right to bear arms. That right is not given to guarantee target shooting and hunting privileges. It is there to guarantee self defense.

Indeed, the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution does say we have a right to bear arms. But it has nothing to do with self defense. The second amendment was designed to allow the people to prevent the establishment of a tyrannical government. Self defense is not "guaranteed".

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

As Ive said previously, my father was a marksman in the army during WW2.

Lucky you. I never knew my father, But he was probably a hell of a marksman also. He died on Guadalcanal a month before I was born. What I don't understand is what do our fathers have anything to do with what we're talking about here?

36 minutes ago, W2DR said:

The second amendment was designed to allow the people to prevent the establishment of a tyrannical government.

Possibly quite wise, in the early days of the country, especially when the baddest a** weapon available was a musket.  Without attempting to answer the question, I am left to wonder as an outsider, is it still appropriate given where the US is now, as a military and economic superpower, and particularly bearing mind the Posse Comitatus Act signed on June 18, 1878, by President Rutherford B. Hayes, which I don't think has ever been breached in its 143 years?

There are many U.S. citizens who believe the Second Amendment has no place in modern society. I won't go any further as I'd hate to see this thread locked.....Doug

Good analysis here of potential legal outcomes for anyone interested:

Legal Analysis: Does Alec Baldwin Have Criminal Exposure After Shooting Woman Dead In Apparent Mistake? (legalinsurrection.com)

I think in any case a wrongful death suit will be filed against Baldwin's production company and the three primary principals involved, Baldwin himself, the AD and the armorer.  Maybe others since the weapon was one of several on a table outside the building, unattended, for some period of time, as has been reported.

Probably out of court settlements will be reached.

Baldwin is now probably, on the advise of his lawyers and accountants, transferring and hiding as many of his assets as he can.

Noel 

Edited October 26, 20214 yr by birdguy

I always would hold individuals responsible instead of companies whenever an individual screws up. (If I was on the jury). No company can make all it's employees act properly, there is no way to do that. I don't like when airline companies get sued after a crash either. Individuals, yes. But companies have the most money, so they get sued. I think most of those companies would love to have me on the jury.

The price is sky high insurance premiums for all these companies. Which they pass on to their future customers, namely including me. Individuals aren't going to be passing onto me higher prices to me for anything. And it usually they who are far more at fault.

Luckily i  live  in oz  and  don't  need  to have  a loaded  gun under  my pillow, since  we are not  allowed  to own  guns unless if  we  are  farmers  and  or  are  in a shooting  range  club  and  there is  a very strict  conditions  to those  people  who  apply  for  them,  they  got to have  police  checks  to see  if  got  any  health or  personal  issues  to  have  a gun.  Than  the  gun  and  rounds  have  to be  stored in a safe   separate  from each other. Also  its  a yearly  renewal as well  for  licenses.

1 hour ago, Fielder said:

I always would hold individuals responsible instead of companies whenever an individual screws up.

I must say I agree.  But lawyers being lawyers go for the big bucks.  The individuals don't have the wealth to tap that the companies and corporations they work for do.

Noel

This case turns on so many details we just don't know. But I would not expect criminal charges. There is going to be a lot of finger-pointing. A high-profile case like this is worth a lot.. But there until we know everything, there is no way to make any legal analysis because cases can turn on the smallest evidentiary pivot. I suspected from the beginning that someone had taken those guns out for some shooting fun. The girl who supposed to be in charge of them seems oddly absent from the picture. When you're young and inexperienced it can be hard to stand up to a director or assistant director on a set. More than all the analysis  and guess, though, this is just very sad for so many involved and in different ways. In the end, I think everyone is thinking this whole production was a mess, and that's not going to be just one person's fault. This is going to be like an episode of Mayday: Air Disaster Investigation.