prepheckt 0 #1 January 17, 2003 Check this out...I know AggieDave is gonna be all over this like white on rice...Come on Aggie...let it out.. http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030116_2410.html IMHO, suing the gun manufactuer and the store that sold/lost the weapon will not do any good. What will the lawsuit accomplish... *** If Bull's Eye and Bushmaster and the other gun industry defendants had acted responsibly in the sale of their guns, Muhammad and Malvo would not have been able to obtain the assault rifle they needed to carry out their shootings***. I guarantee that they would have gotten a gun one way or another... This lawsuit sounds frivolous to me.."Dancing Argentine Tango is like doing calculus with your feet." -9 toes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #2 January 17, 2003 IMHO, suing the gun manufactuer and the store that sold/lost the weapon will not do any good. What will the lawsuit accomplish... ______________________ It'll further the liberal agenda. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skeletor 0 #3 January 17, 2003 what a bunch of crap. These nutters would have just got a gun somewhere else. rich. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
f1freak 0 #4 January 17, 2003 Quote IMHO, suing the gun manufactuer and the store that sold/lost the weapon will not do any good. What will the lawsuit accomplish... UMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM..... not hard to see..... it's gonna make someone rich..... any jury they find will be more than happy to award them.... It's the sick system that we have at it's best......HAVE FUN... ...JUST DONT DIE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hagar 0 #5 January 17, 2003 This might be a good thing. Every stupid and unreasonable case like this will make it more obvious that the system needs to be changed in some way.--- PCSS #10 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveMonkey 0 #6 January 17, 2003 So someone slips on a bar of soap, and someone sues the company. Now soap is banned? Someone drowns, we sue and get water banned? where does it stop?____________________ Say no to subliminal messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallRate 0 #7 January 17, 2003 This lawsuit seems entirely reasonable. Obviously the manufacturer and store can be held responsible because without them this couldn't have happened as it did...it could have happened in a somewhat similar manner if the snipers had used a different gun from a different store, but that doesn't deal with the "reality" of the situation. In reality, a specific gun made by a specific manufacturer was acquired from a specific store to commit specific murders. So the manufacturer of the gun and proprietor of the store can be credited, albeit in a small way, to giving rise to these murders. But that's not all. The manufacturer, distributor and dealer of the vehicle that was used for cover during the actual shootings should probably also be held equally responsible as they, albeit in a small part, contributed to the success of each shooting. There's more. Unless the sniper collected water from a natural source to satisfy his biological need for hydration, someone is definitely at fault for making sure the sniper had a ready supply of water. Had the sniper not had such an easy time of remaining hydrated he certainly wouldn't have been capable of carrying out the murders. (Not knowing by what means or methods the sniper quenched his thirst, we should probably focus our attention on all persons and organizations that promote the collection, filtering and transportation of this obviously deadly compound known as water.) And some people just assume lawsuits are frivolous before hearing any of the facts. FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ernokaikkonen 0 #8 January 17, 2003 Quote we should probably focus our attention on all persons and organizations that promote the collection, filtering and transportation of this obviously deadly compound known as water. Quote Someone drowns, we sue and get water banned? where does it stop? Yes, stop the poison! Take action now! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveMonkey 0 #9 January 17, 2003 Erno, click on the link on my sig ____________________ Say no to subliminal messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ernokaikkonen 0 #10 January 17, 2003 Well duh, where do you think I got the link... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n2skdvn 0 #11 January 17, 2003 next we will be suing mc donalds over hamburgers for making us fat if my calculations are correct SLINKY + ESCULATOR = EVERLASTING FUN my site Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dumpster 0 #12 January 17, 2003 Quote This lawsuit seems entirely reasonable. Obviously the manufacturer and store can be held responsible because without them this couldn't have happened as it did...it could have happened in a somewhat similar manner if the snipers had used a different gun from a different store, but that doesn't deal with the "reality" of the situation. In reality, a specific gun made by a specific manufacturer was acquired from a specific store to commit specific murders. So the manufacturer of the gun and proprietor of the store can be credited, albeit in a small way, to giving rise to these murders. But that's not all. The manufacturer, distributor and dealer of the vehicle that was used for cover during the actual shootings should probably also be held equally responsible as they, albeit in a small part, contributed to the success of each shooting. There's more. Unless the sniper collected water from a natural source to satisfy his biological need for hydration, someone is definitely at fault for making sure the sniper had a ready supply of water. Had the sniper not had such an easy time of remaining hydrated he certainly wouldn't have been capable of carrying out the murders. (Not knowing by what means or methods the sniper quenched his thirst, we should probably focus our attention on all persons and organizations that promote the collection, filtering and transportation of this obviously deadly compound known as water.) And some people just assume lawsuits are frivolous before hearing any of the facts. FallRate Well, tell ya what- Next time some one gets stabbed to death, why not go after the K-mart store that sold the butcher knife, and the cutlery manufacturer? How about we go after the automakers (And the dealer-) next time some one runs over a kid in a drunken driving accident? And don't forget the bar that sold the booze and the company that made it. And next time you see that some one beaten to death with a baseball bat, better sue all the companies that make those evel things, too. And the sporting goods store that sold the bat, also! Or, if the bat was stolen from a kid, sue the kid and his parents for not locking up the bat when not used for batting practice! It all makes good sense to me! And we can all thank the media for giving this guy his fifteen minutes of twisted fame. Easy Does It Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sharpfive 0 #13 January 17, 2003 Five of those murders happened within 10 miles of my house. The whole time all that was going on NOBODY I know ever thought to blame the gun manufacturer. But this is the American way, allowing lawyers to fleece the innocent in time of tragedy. BTW, you know that after the scumbags were apprehended, the lawyer for the little bastard that fired the weapon complained that his jail cell was too small???? Is this a great country, or what? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #14 January 17, 2003 From all the gun debates, you won't be surprised to know that I disagree with part of this. I think suing the gun manufacturer is a load of crap. They did nothing wrong. (That isn't the part where I disagree.) The dealer on the other hand, did violate a lot of laws and contribute to the death of the victims. Not that they couldn't have gotten guns elsewhere, but there negligence seemed to contribute, which is liability enough. The analogies to suing people that sell water, kitchen knives and stuff are juvenile. Those items aren't subject to the same federal regulation as firearms. This isn't a debate about that, but since the laws do exist, they should be obeyed and enforced. Like any other lawbreaker whose actions contribute to further crimes, they should get nailed. This particular debate isn't about gun control, it is about responsible retailing in accordance with the law. Had the store done everything by the book, they wouldn't have any real liability. The people might still sue them, but in that case, I'd agree it was frivolous. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveMonkey 0 #15 January 17, 2003 Quote he analogies to suing people that sell water, kitchen knives and stuff are juvenile But it amounts to the same thing.____________________ Say no to subliminal messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sharpfive 0 #16 January 17, 2003 Yeah, according to the news (and we know they ALWAYS get it right) the dealer can't account for a couple hundred weapons that passed through his store. He should be in big trouble regardless of the sniper incident. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dumpster 0 #17 January 17, 2003 Quote The dealer on the other hand, did violate a lot of laws and contribute to the death of the victims. Not that they couldn't have gotten guns elsewhere, but there negligence seemed to contribute, which is liability enough. Then the dealer should be punished under these laws he violated. It should not be part of the lawsuit. The lawsuit, as I see it, is frivolous and bullshit. If the snipers couldn't get a Bushmaster, there are probably 100 other rifles at least that would have done the job, and they would have gotten ahold of one, either legally or illegally. The gun dealer can't be held responsible for a customers' actions, any more than K-mart can be held liable for the actions of some one who buys a butcher knife. Do we know that this dealer in fact violated laws when this gun was sold to the sniper? Or what? Easy Does It Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumpy 0 #18 January 17, 2003 Alright I'm sorry for these families loss' but I think that what they are doing is wrong. If the pair that killed there loved ones had money they would undoutbly be looking for there money there. They are entitled to retrobution which is what the trial should provide but they are not entitled to destroy a company that has done nothing directly to them. I do not understand how they can think "well i don't care if these people had nothing to do with the crime, i can get there money so i don't see why i shouldn't" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyIvan 0 #19 January 17, 2003 Another proof that people don't give a damn about anything except FATTENING their pockets, Greed, that's what's all about.__________________________________________ Blue Skies and May the Force be with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #20 January 17, 2003 In a bank robbery, does the driver of the getaway car just get a ticket for speeding? IF the gun shop was negligent and contributed to do the deaths of the people, then they share part of the blame. If they did wrong, I'm fine with them being sued. You are completely correct that the snipers could have bought the guns from some other sloppy gun store. That is exactly the point. The fact that a gun they sold was used in a crime is not the fault of the gun shop. Their sloppiness and disregard for the law is what is getting them in trouble, not their choice in merchandise. If the mismanaged and careless gun shops get sued out of business, what have we lost? You haven't lost the ability to buy a gun. Your selection of weapons isn't diminished. We have just closed some of the cracks where people buy weapons improperly, without harming the responsible, legal gun purchasers at all. What is objectionable about that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dumpster 0 #21 January 17, 2003 You got that right, bro! Some lawer probably went to the famlies, and encouraged them to push the suit- All for the almighty dollar. Easy Does It Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TequilaGirl 0 #22 January 17, 2003 Don't you guys find it kind of strange the gun store reported the gun stolen after the snipers were arrested....do you think gun stores should sell guns to 17 year olds????? They did not run proper background checks b/c if they had the one sniper could not have purchased the weapon b/c his ex-wife had a restraining order against him........ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #23 January 17, 2003 All this shit makes me so sick. Yes the gun store man broke some laws in selling the gun... the money hungry ATF will take of him. But jeez people, when are people going to learn that human beings are free agents, autonomous beings who CHOOSE their actions. Now, some could legitimately argue that Malvo, being young and perhaps impressionable may not have completely chosen his behavior, but the real issue is that THESE PEOPLE DID THIS! Bushmaster didn't, the gun dealer didn't. They chose it, they were caught, and they are, without a doubt, going to fry for it. It's nice to hear that most skydivers on this thread agree that this lawsuit is a load of shit and that people should be held accountable for their ACTIONS, not sued for things they weren't responsible for. -a proud and legal gun toting law abiding skydiver -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Genie 0 #24 January 17, 2003 QuoteIt's nice to hear that most skydivers on this thread agree that this lawsuit is a load of shit and that people should be held accountable for their ACTIONS, not sued for things they weren't responsible for. Most skydivers are probably still remembering the effect a load of frivolous and mistargeted law suits had on the Cessna and light aircraft industry in the states - and how it put jump prices up! I think skydivers in general are more anti-frivolous lawsuits than the average american, and i think that is due to this sport and the way it teaches people to take personal responsibility - if i dont pull that handle, thats my fault and mine alone! Genie -a proud and legal gun toting law abiding skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #25 January 17, 2003 Surprising that the knife manufacturers and sales stores weren't sued after the Nicole Simpson killing. Same theory, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites