|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Yahoo! News The Christian Science Monitor - The Monitor's View A Half-Cocked Gun BillThu Jul 28, 4:00 AM ET One might think that senators heading home for a month-long summer holiday would first want to pass the defense bill, a gesture that would show support for America's troops risking their lives around the world.
Instead, Senate majority leader Bill Frist (R) has decided they should spend these last hours sending a box of candy and a bouquet to the gun lobby.
Earlier this week Senator Frist abruptly cut off debate on the defense bill - effectively pushing it back to the fall - to turn attention to a measure that's a darling of the National Rifle Association. It would shield firearms manufacturers and dealers from individuals or local governments trying to hold them responsible in court for damages caused by the unlawful use of guns. Lawsuits already under way would have to be dismissed. And no local laws could be passed in the future to supercede this special protection.
That the Senate would turn away from important national security legislation to deal with a special plea from a powerful lobbying group is unsavory enough. But, just as important, the bill itself is both unnecessary and harmful.
Proponents, including the White House, have implied that gun manufacturers could be driven out of business by a deluge of frivolous lawsuits and thus need special protection. But there's no evidence to show that US arms manufacturers are facing any financial difficulties or any grievous onslaught of suits.
Statistics from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence show that just 57 suits were filed against the gun industry from 1993 to 2003. That's out of an estimated 10 million tort suits filed in that period.
What the gun bill would do is prevent citizens or local governments from suing the tiny number of unscrupulous gun dealers, only about 1 percent of the industry. These operators have nothing to do with supplying arms to US forces, the reason the administration gives for supporting the bill.
Last year, families of the six victims of snipers who terrorized the Washington D.C. area in 2002 won a modest settlement of just over $2 million from Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Washington State. The gun dealer could not account for how more than 200 weapons mysteriously left his shop, including the assault rifle used by convicted snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo. These families can only be grateful that this ill-advised measure had not yet passed.
What this gun bill does show is how much the gun lobby's grip on Congress appears to have strengthened since the 2004 election.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
I agree with the intent of the bill 100%, even if I do not agree with the procedure being used to pass it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
I agree with the intent of the bill 100%, even if I do not agree with the procedure being used to pass it.
What are your thoughts on the tobacco industry? Do you believe that the states were correct in seeking to recoup the costs to taxpayers in medical expenses paid by the staes that were attributed to tobacco consumption?
The G-man says: You are GOOD
r3x29yz4a is my hero!
rex says I'm a commie, asshole, fag!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
magicjay said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
I agree with the intent of the bill 100%, even if I do not agree with the procedure being used to pass it.
What are your thoughts on the tobacco industry? Do you believe that the states were correct in seeking to recoup the costs to taxpayers in medical expenses paid by the staes that were attributed to tobacco consumption?
there's such a witch hunt on smoking. as many people die/get sick from fast food and alcohol as smoking.
Just different choices of poisons.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
I agree with the intent of the bill 100%, even if I do not agree with the procedure being used to pass it.
Quote:
magicjay said:
What are your thoughts on the tobacco industry? Do you believe that the states were correct in seeking to recoup the costs to taxpayers in medical expenses paid by the staes that were attributed to tobacco consumption?
No. People who smoke are responsible for their own safety. What the hell did they THINK that "Surgeon General Warning" on the side of the package meant?
As soon as you create the concept that the state can start suing companies for self-inflicted illnesses in the populace, you start down a road that says no one is responsible for their own behavior.
People get sick from smoking? Sue the tobacco companies.
People get sick from drinking? Sue the beer companies.
People get sick eating fatty foods? Sue the food companies.
It's nothing but a "mommy state" mentality that looks for a deep pocket to point the finger at, instead of solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
And...in regard to guns.
The person responsible for a gun death is the asshole who pulled the trigger, not the manufacturer or distributor of the gun. You might as well sue GM every time some asshole drives drunk and kills somebody, simply because GM doesn't put an interlock device in every car they make.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
No. People who smoke are responsible for their own safety. What the hell did they THINK that "Surgeon General Warning" on the side of the package meant?
Totally agree with you G-zus. I smoke. I choose to do so, and quitting is up to me. If I get sick then its my own damn fault.
Quote:
As soon as you create the concept that the state can start suing companies for self-inflicted illnesses in the populace, you start down a road that says no one is responsible for their own behavior.
guns are different. a cigarette takes years to kill. A gun takes a few seconds.
Quote:
People get sick from smoking? Sue the tobacco companies.
People get sick from drinking? Sue the beer companies.
People get sick eating fatty foods? Sue the food companies.
and those lawsuits are bullshit. You watch those movies from the 1950's that supposedly glamorize smoking and cigarettes are called "coffin nails." Those old commercials with Lucy and Rickie boast "less cancer causing agents."
And if you're 300 pounds from McDonalds then you shouldn't have super sized your greasy fries.
Quote:
It's nothing but a "mommy state" mentality that looks for a deep pocket to point the finger at, instead of solutions.
But guns, again, are a different situation. We're talking about businesses that make a product that can kill with a point and click.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
I agree with the intent of the bill 100%, even if I do not agree with the procedure being used to pass it.
Quote:
magicjay said:
What are your thoughts on the tobacco industry? Do you believe that the states were correct in seeking to recoup the costs to taxpayers in medical expenses paid by the staes that were attributed to tobacco consumption?
No. People who smoke are responsible for their own safety. What the hell did they THINK that "Surgeon General Warning" on the side of the package meant?
As soon as you create the concept that the state can start suing companies for self-inflicted illnesses in the populace, you start down a road that says no one is responsible for their own behavior.
People get sick from smoking? Sue the tobacco companies.
People get sick from drinking? Sue the beer companies.
People get sick eating fatty foods? Sue the food companies.
It's nothing but a "mommy state" mentality that looks for a deep pocket to point the finger at, instead of solutions.
Perhaps you could tell me which of the elements of strict liability it fails to meet?
Let me refresh your memory:
Quote:
PRODUCTS LIABILITY--STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT-- DEFECT IN MANUFACTURE
The plaintiff's injury must have been caused by a "defect" in the product. Thus the manufacturer is not deemed responsible when injury results from an unforeseeable use of its product. The essential elements of a claim based upon an alleged manufacturing defect are:
1. The defendant was the manufacturer or supplier of a product;
2. The product possessed a defect in its manufacture;
3. The defect in manufacture existed when the product left the defendant's possession;
4. The defect in manufacture was a cause of injury to the plaintiff; and
5. Plaintiff's injury resulted from a use of the product that was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant.
A defect in the manufacture of a product exists if the product differs from the manufacturer's intended result or if the product differs from apparently identical products from the same manufacturer.
DESIGN DEFECT - ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
The essential elements of a claim based upon an alleged design defect are:
1. The defendant was the manufacturer or supplier of a product;
2. The product possessed a defect in its design;
3. The defect in design existed at the time it left the defendant's possession;
4. The defect in design was a cause of injury to the plaintiff; and
5. Plaintiff's injury resulted from a use of the product that was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant.
A product is defective in design if it fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner or if there is a risk of danger inherent in the design which outweighs the benefits of that design.
In determining whether the benefits of the design outweigh such risks the trier of fact may consider, among other things, the gravity of the danger posed by the design, the likelihood that such danger would cause damage, the mechanical feasibility of a safer alternate design at the time of manufacture, the financial cost of an improved design, and the adverse consequences to the product and the consumer that would result from an alternate design.
The G-man says: You are GOOD
r3x29yz4a is my hero!
rex says I'm a commie, asshole, fag!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
The problem with the strict liability theory with guns is that ignores the longstanding rule of "the intervening act."
Under that rule, the person liable is the one who committed the final, intervening, act that proximately causes the victim's death.
In the case at hand, the killer commits the intervening act.
This is a longstanding rule precisely because the law wants the actual perpetrator, the one who proximately caused the injury, to be the one responsible.
Using your strict liability rule on its own, one could just as easily claim that, for example, Ginsu knives fall into the strict liability catagory if someone gets stabbed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
The problem with the strict liability theory with guns is that ignores the longstanding rule of "the intervening act."
Under that rule, the person liable is the one who committed the final, intervening, act that proximately causes the victim's death.
In the case at hand, the killer commits the intervening act.
This is a longstanding rule precisely because the law wants the actual perpetrator, the one who proximately caused the injury, to be the one responsible.
Using your strict liability rule on its own, one could just as easily claim that, for example, Ginsu knives fall into the strict liability catagory if someone gets stabbed.
What about injury to a third party? The state, for example winds up paying the costs of medical care for gunshot victims. Doesn't the theory of negligence enter into the issue?
Last edited by magicjay; 2005-07-29 4:13 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Using your strict liability rule on its own, one could just as easily claim that, for example, Ginsu knives fall into the strict liability catagory if someone gets stabbed.
but knives have a function that isn't killing.
Guns are strictly meant to kill. Call it protection, hunting, or whatever, guns are meant to be used as lethal weapons.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
OR a gun could be meant to wound. Like a guy who brings a knife with him to investigate a disturbance in his house late at night. It's all about intent here. Cops are informed to aim to wound before they have to aim for a kill shot.
Like any corporeal object, guns are multi-purpose tools. Their initial creation may be for deadly use, but the same could said of Hunting knives. Simply because those are meant to slice up flesh, should they be outlawed because its the intent of the maker for it to be able to kill?
Last edited by the G-man; 2005-07-29 4:58 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
OR a gun could be meant to wound. Like a guy who brings a knife with him to investigate a disturbance in his house late at night. It's all about intent here. Cops are informed to aim to wound before they have to aim for a kill shot.
Like any corporeal object, guns are multi-purpose tools. Their initial creation may be for deadly use, but the same could said of Hunting knives. Simply because those are meant to slice up flesh, should they be outlawed because its the intent of the maker for it to be able to kill?
No one's talking about making guns illegal. The question is are gun manufacturers liable to any degree for the injuries there products cause? Using the states' tobacco settlement as a precedent, I believe they may. Bone up on strict liability, negligence and joint and several liability to join the discussion.
Last edited by the G-man; 2005-07-29 4:58 PM.
The G-man says: You are GOOD
r3x29yz4a is my hero!
rex says I'm a commie, asshole, fag!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
I was responding specifically to the context of r3x's post.
Last edited by the G-man; 2005-07-29 4:59 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
OR a gun could be meant to wound. Like a guy who brings a knife with him to investigate a disturbance in his house late at night. It's all about intent here. Cops are informed to aim to wound before they have to aim for a kill shot.
Like any corporeal object, guns are multi-purpose tools. Their initial creation may be for deadly use, but the same could said of Hunting knives. Simply because those are meant to slice up flesh, should they be outlawed because its the intent of the maker for it to be able to kill?
knives are meant to cut in cooking and housework. that is their intended function as set forth by the sellers.
baseball bats are meant to hit baseballs in the game.
guns are designs and intended to fire high-velocity projectiles at a living target.
Last edited by the G-man; 2005-07-29 4:59 PM.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Again, hunting knives are designed to ginsu flesh. And because they're a form of sharp object, they go in the category as a knife. Period.
Last edited by the G-man; 2005-07-29 4:59 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Again, hunting knives are designed to ginsu flesh. And because they're a form of sharp object, they go in the category as a knife. Period.
fine. hunting knives are meant to slice up meat, but not meant to be the tool of death.
However, " Ginsu" is a brand name for knives that are meant for around the house use.
And, still. A gun can kill within seconds and can be used by anyone to kill. To kill with a knife requires either surprise or physical superiority.
Last edited by the G-man; 2005-07-29 4:59 PM.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
fine. hunting knives are meant to slice up meat, but not meant to be the tool of death.
That depends on what the "meat" is dudn't it?
Quote:
However, " Ginsu" is a brand name for knives that are meant for around the house use.
Ever heard of something called "slang"?
Quote:
And, still. A gun can kill within seconds and can be used by anyone to kill. To kill with a knife requires either surprise or physical superiority.
Heh. If you actually own and have fired a gun, you'd know its not that easy to kill someone with it. Marksmenship always plays a rather sizeable factor.
Last edited by the G-man; 2005-07-29 4:59 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
fine. hunting knives are meant to slice up meat, but not meant to be the tool of death.
That depends on what the "meat" is dudn't it?
Quote:
However, " Ginsu" is a brand name for knives that are meant for around the house use.
Ever heard of something called "slang"?
Quote:
And, still. A gun can kill within seconds and can be used by anyone to kill. To kill with a knife requires either surprise or physical superiority.
Heh. If you actually own and have fired a gun, you'd know its not that easy to kill someone with it. Marksmenship always plays a rather sizeable factor.
tell that to the 7 year old who kills his best friend while playing around with dad's gun. Or the woman who shoots her husband in his sleep and then shoots herself in the head.
At close range you don't have to be a marksman.
Last edited by the G-man; 2005-07-29 5:00 PM.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
And the same could be said with a knife. Those kids who run around with scissors.
Last edited by the G-man; 2005-07-29 5:00 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
magicjay said:
What about injury to a third party? The state, for example winds up paying the costs of medical care for gunshot victims. Doesn't the theory of negligence enter into the issue?
Again, using your logic.
Drunk drivers kill or maim thousands each year. Including themselves. The state often winds up paying the costs for those victims.
It is reasonably forseeable that a car will be used to main or kill people in that manner.
The car manufacturers could, but do not, install interlock devices on each and every car sold in America. Those devices require the operator to blow into a tube in order to confirm there is no alcohol on his or her breath prior to activating the ignition.
So why don't the states sue the car manufacturers for not installing interlocks on all cars?
Answer: to date, we recognize, rightly so, that the person at fault is the drunk driver, not the car manufacturer. We do not, to date, attempt to shift the blame to the manufacturer.
Suing the gun manufacturer is nothing more than searching for the proverbial "deep pocket," the company that has a lot of money, regardless of who was actually at fault. It is greed, pure and simple, on behalf of the trial lawyers and politicians who are trying to balance their budgets.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
OR a gun could be meant to wound. Like a guy who brings a knife with him to investigate a disturbance in his house late at night. It's all about intent here. Cops are informed to aim to wound before they have to aim for a kill shot.
There may be situations where a cop, not in immediate danger, with no one else in immediate danger to protect, will actually aim to wound. But that takes time, and we don't live in Hollywood. Cops, like people who purchase guns to protect their homes, are trained to double tap the trigger. First shot goes to the belly. The arm jerks up. The arm is forced back down and immediately the finger taps the trigger again. If the person is good, that's the head shot. When there is immediate danger, there is no such thing as shoot to wound. If a cop has to pull his gun, and he has to shoot, he's shooting to kill. Kill or be killed. That's how it works in the real world.
Last edited by the G-man; 2005-07-29 5:00 PM.
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
And the same could be said with a knife. Those kids who run around with scissors.
You stupid piece of shit! Pull your head out of your mother's cunt. Why must you ruin every discussion you touch with your inane chattering ?
Fuck you, asshole!
Last edited by the G-man; 2005-07-29 5:00 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
What's wrong with Pariah's point, insofar as it points out that many objects can be dangerous in the wrong hands?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
That comparing the purpose of knives/scissors and guns is pointless. The former have a wide range of uses, while a gun has a specific purpose that isn't domestic in any way. Additionally, that killing someone with a knife/scissors is simply more difficult than using a gun.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 998
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 998 |
I dunno about all that shooting to wound stuff.
Any gun class I've been in (the Air Force training and the Concealed Weapons License Class) says explicitly, "Do not point a gun at anything that you do not want to be dead."
So, cops rarely pull the trigger in hopes of putting a bullet in someone's leg. They're shooting because they're afraid their lives are at risk.
Bob Burden said:
Pie for the pirates,
wine for the dogs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
What's wrong with Pariah's point, insofar as it points out that many objects can be dangerous in the wrong hands?
I want to know what your legal logic is. Pariah's post is off tangent with respect to the gun bill. There is nothing about knives in the legislation.
You've expressed a problem with strict liability as a theory. What do you think about negligence in comination with strict liability? Is this legislation nothing more than a dodge to relieve a powerful special interest from liability for their actions? Are you saying that injured third parties such as states and ultimately their taxpayers should have no relief from the damage they suffer daily?
The G-man says: You are GOOD
r3x29yz4a is my hero!
rex says I'm a commie, asshole, fag!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 998
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 998 |
Ya know, I'm pretty sure that I hate you.
Bob Burden said:
Pie for the pirates,
wine for the dogs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
magicjay said:
I want to know what your legal logic is. Pariah's post is off tangent with respect to the gun bill. There is nothing about knives in the legislation.
Even if that were true, it did not warrant you reacting the way you did.
However, Pariah's post is far from off tangent. The basis for gun manufacturer liability is the idea that guns are dangerous. Pariah was pointing out that knives are also dangerous, in order to illustrate the shaking legal foundation of singling out one particular dangerous item for strict liability. A completely legitimate point.
Quote:
Are you saying that injured third parties such as states and ultimately their taxpayers should have no relief from the damage they suffer daily?
They have a relief. It is called the Penal law. The people at fault--THE CRIMINALS--are supposed to be punished under it. It provides relief in the form of sending the criminals to jail.
Punish the guilty. Not the deep pocket.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
magicjay said:
I want to know what your legal logic is. Pariah's post is off tangent with respect to the gun bill. There is nothing about knives in the legislation.
Even if that were true, it did not warrant you reacting the way you did.
However, Pariah's post is far from off tangent. The basis for gun manufacturer liability is the idea that guns are dangerous. Pariah was pointing out that knives are also dangerous, in order to illustrate the shaking legal foundation of singling out one particular dangerous item for strict liability. A completely legitimate point.
Quote:
Are you saying that injured third parties such as states and ultimately their taxpayers should have no relief from the damage they suffer daily?
They have a relief. It is called the Penal law. The people at fault--THE CRIMINALS--are supposed to be punished under it. It provides relief in the form of sending the criminals to jail.
Punish the guilty. Not the deep pocket.
So you concede you have no legal theory for your position? Is that the cause of your appeal to emotion? Or can't you distinguish between civil and criminal liability? Where did you go to law school?
BTW, I can get Pariah to shut up with 2 sentences. I think I should be commended for that.
The G-man says: You are GOOD
r3x29yz4a is my hero!
rex says I'm a commie, asshole, fag!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
I have a problem with civil liabilty. See, when a gun shop can't account for weapons, I don't think the citizens should have to sue, nor should they have that right. I think there should be a criminal investigation, with a guarnteed closure of the business, and possible jail time for anyone proven to have illegally "missplaced" any firearms. This legal state we live in has fucked everything up from healthcare to taxes. Why? Because the more we sue, the more someone has to pay the bill. It's not the companies who are paying the bill. It's their employees, and their customers, and, oh yeah, the regular people who have nothing to do with anything. Because in order to protect themselves from lawsuits, these companies have to by politicians, and that costs money. Plus, these politicians then serve their pocket books, and not the people. I say we go after the businesses who "lose" the weapons, with criminal liability. Civil is a joke most of the time.
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
So you concede you have no legal theory for your position? Is that the cause of your appeal to emotion? Or can't you distinguish between civil and criminal liability? Where did you go to law school?
When of the things you learn in law school is the concept that not every loss or injury can, or should, result in a successful lawsuit.
For example. In order to have a succesful lawsuit you need:
An injury or loss.
A person who proximately caused that loss.
A basis for liability (such as an intentional act or negligence).
Standing to sue.
You've established a loss, to wit, money spent on gunshot wounds. You might have even alleged a basis for liability.
However, you have not extablished who was the proximate (that is, the direct, as opposed to indirect) cause of the less.
If someone is shot, isn't the loss caused by the person who pulled the trigger? Most people would think so.
Furthermore, you still have to be able to demonstrate that the state has standing to sue the gun manufacturer. While it may be true that the state pays for medical in some gunshot cases, there is no evidence they do in all gunshot cases. In addition, there is the question of whether the state can, or should, be able to recoup a loss when it only suffered an ancillary loss that it would be required to compensate for in any medical situation.
If anything, the appeal to emotion is from "your" side of the camp: the whole concept of "there's been an injury so SOMEONE must be at fault" is much more an appeal to emotion than a sober application of existing law to the facts of the case.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188 |
My plea is for the compensation of taxpayers. The States have suffered injury as a result of the forseable use of the manufacturers product. This constitutes negligence. Therefore, the manufacturer shares responsibility for damage and injury caused by its use.
I further claim that that joint and several liability applies to all defendants in the matter. All from the gun manufacturer to the end user have acted negligently whether such negligence was intended or not.
Does that sound like an emotional appeal?
The G-man says: You are GOOD
r3x29yz4a is my hero!
rex says I'm a commie, asshole, fag!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
Um...how is the manufacturer negligent? Seriously, take me through this, step by step. Talking about guns here, nothing else.
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,747
I've got more guns than you. 6000+ posts
|
|
I've got more guns than you. 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,747 |
There is, in theory, no way that a gun manufacturer/dealer would be to blame, unless you want to blame them for making guns too lethal...  I mean, how are they going to know who's going to be using the gun, and for what? They aren't psychic... I think...
"Ah good. Now I'm on the internet clearly saying I like tranny cleavage. This shouldn't get me harassed at all." -- Lothar of the Hill People
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188 |
Quote:
PenWing said:
Um...how is the manufacturer negligent? Seriously, take me through this, step by step. Talking about guns here, nothing else.
Negligence Claims :
In a negligence claim a plaintiff must show that a manufacturer, seller, wholesaler or other party involved in the distributive chain or group had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the process of manufacturing or selling a product and failed to fulfill that duty, resulting in injury to the plaintiff. Negligence consists of doing something that a person of ordinary prudence would not do under the same or similar circumstances or failing to do something that a person of ordinary prudence would do under the same or similar circumstances. This can take the form of negligence in drawing up or reviewing plans for a product, negligence in maintaining the machines that make the component parts of the product, negligence in failure to anticipate probable uses of the product, negligence in failure to inspect or test the product adequately, negligence in issuing no warnings or instructions or inadequate warnings or instructions, negligence in releasing the product into the stream of commerce, or any other aspect of the manufacturing or distribution process where due care is not used.
The G-man says: You are GOOD
r3x29yz4a is my hero!
rex says I'm a commie, asshole, fag!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
Standing to sue.
May I refer you to PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL. V. PHILIP MORRIS, INC., ET AL. The states' standing is established in the same way as it was in third-wave suits that prevailed for the States of Texas, Mississipi, et al, and resulted in the Tobacco MSA.
Quote:
You've established a loss, to wit, money spent on gunshot wounds. You might have even alleged a basis for liability.
However, you have not extablished who was the proximate (that is, the direct, as opposed to indirect) cause of the less.
If someone is shot, isn't the loss caused by the person who pulled the trigger? Most people would think so.
The proximate cause is the shooter. The manufacturer is liable because the shooter's action were a forseable consequince of introducing the firearm into the stream of commerce. The manufacturer was negligent.
Quote:
Furthermore, you still have to be able to demonstrate that the state has standing to sue the gun manufacturer. While it may be true that the state pays for medical in some gunshot cases, there is no evidence they do in all gunshot cases. In addition, there is the question of whether the state can, or should, be able to recoup a loss when it only suffered an ancillary loss that it would be required to compensate for in any medical situation.
See above.
Quote:
If anything, the appeal to emotion is from "your" side of the camp: the whole concept of "there's been an injury so SOMEONE must be at fault" is much more an appeal to emotion than a sober application of existing law to the facts of the case.
My reasoning is quite sober. The basis of my argument is that the same law that prevailed in the states' succesful suits against tobacco apply here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
magicjay said:
The proximate cause is the shooter. The manufacturer is liable because the shooter's action were a forseable consequince of introducing the firearm into the stream of commerce. The manufacturer was negligent.
You really wanna get the guy who made the bullet rather than the guy who put the bullet in you?
That's just sad.
Is this some sort of idea to scare monger gun manufacturers' into not making firearms anymore?
You need intent here. Intent that the legally licensed gun-maker wanted that gun to be used for murderous use rather than defensive use. You're never gonna get that because the gun-maker doesn't decide how the gun is inevitably used.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
Quote:
magicjay said:
Quote:
PenWing said:
Um...how is the manufacturer negligent? Seriously, take me through this, step by step. Talking about guns here, nothing else.
Negligence Claims :
In a negligence claim a plaintiff must show that a manufacturer, seller, wholesaler or other party involved in the distributive chain or group had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the process of manufacturing or selling a product and failed to fulfill that duty, resulting in injury to the plaintiff. Negligence consists of doing something that a person of ordinary prudence would not do under the same or similar circumstances or failing to do something that a person of ordinary prudence would do under the same or similar circumstances. This can take the form of negligence in drawing up or reviewing plans for a product, negligence in maintaining the machines that make the component parts of the product, negligence in failure to anticipate probable uses of the product, negligence in failure to inspect or test the product adequately, negligence in issuing no warnings or instructions or inadequate warnings or instructions, negligence in releasing the product into the stream of commerce, or any other aspect of the manufacturing or distribution process where due care is not used.
I am not going to read that. I am not a lawyer, and I don't want to be handed text book definitions from some law book. I want it spelled out in simple English.
Please, explain to me, in your own words, how the manufacturer is negligent? This definition, if I understand it correctly, means I can sue Ford Motor Company if someone injures my person by running me over while I'm walking on the sidewalk. I see slippery slope, and I know that's not what the law wants here.
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,747
I've got more guns than you. 6000+ posts
|
|
I've got more guns than you. 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,747 |
Interesting point, penwing. Let's say I go fucking insane. I drive over several people in a Hummer. I don't just hit 'em, but run them all over -repeatedly.- Now, I've had said vehicle for three years now. I decide, after my vehicular killing spree, that I want to blow up said vehicle in a crowded public place. By MagicJay's reasoning, the car dealer, as well as the manufacturer, would be liable.
"Ah good. Now I'm on the internet clearly saying I like tranny cleavage. This shouldn't get me harassed at all." -- Lothar of the Hill People
|
|
|
|
|
