JohnRich 4 #1 February 13, 2005 In the news: California Cities Cases Against Firearms Industry Rejected Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc., the nation's largest firearms manufacturer, is pleased to announce that on February 10, 2005, the First Appellate District, Division One, in the Court of Appeals of the State of California, unanimously affirmed that the "unfair trade practice" and "public nuisance" lawsuits filed by San Francisco, Berkeley, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Compton, Inglewood, and West Hollywood, and the counties of San Mateo and Alameda, were properly dismissed by the trial court. This is the latest in a long string of cases at both the trial and appeals court levels holding that manufacturers of lawfully-sold, non-defective firearms are not legally at fault if these products are subsequently illegally acquired or misused by criminals. In dismissing plaintiff's claims against firearms manufacturers and distributors, the Appeals Court stated, "We conclude that endorsing the theory in this case would stretch the already expansive boundaries of the UCL (California's Unfair Competition Act) beyond any principled reading of the statute. In addition, supervision of the sweeping measures sought would be a Herculean task for court oversight." The court continued, "No evidence in this case hints that any of the manufacturer defendants provided weapons to criminals or failed to properly record sales or did any of the other acts that plaintiffs characterize as high-risk business practices. They did not control the wrongful acts or encourage others to engage in questionable acts. Neither did they change their business practices to avoid proposed regulations or advise retailers on ways to circumvent the law. The record in this case shows that the only business practice that these defendants engage in is the manufacture and sale of firearms to dealers that are licensed as such by the federal government. Plaintiffs have cited no cases finding a manufacturer has engaged in an unfair practice solely by legally selling a non-defective product based on actions taken by entities further along the chain of distribution. Even plaintiffs' experts could not present an evidentiary link between the manufacturer of a firearm and a retail gun dealer who sold guns that ended up in criminal circumstances." "Establishing public policy is primarily a legislative function and not a judicial function, especially in an area that is subject to heavy regulation. None of the evidence presented by plaintiffs support the conclusion that a manufacturer who does not undertake the kind of investigation and remedial action urged by plaintiffs and their experts has engaged in an unfair practice", continued the court. The court concluded, "The case has progressed beyond the pleading stage and the plaintiffs have been unable to produce evidence to show the existence of a triable issue of material fact on the pleaded theories...Plaintiffs' public nuisance claim fails for lack of any evidence of causation. Their complaint attempts to reach too far back in the chain of distribution where it targets the manufacturer of a legal, non-defective product that lawfully distributes its product only to those buyers licensed by the federal government." Source: http://www.shootingtimes.com/firearm021105/ Well, those judges reallly slapped down the anti-gun complainents! I wonder if the gun companies will be compensated for their legal expenses by these municipalities? I wonder if the taxpayers in these municipalities appreciate their tax money being wastefully spent on frivolous personal-agenda political lawsuits? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rmsmith 1 #2 February 13, 2005 QuoteI wonder if the taxpayers in these municipalities appreciate their tax money being wastefully spent on frivolous personal-agenda political lawsuits? Don't forget that most of these municipalities spend a king's ransom on medical expenses connected to gunshot wounds, which are the basis of these lawsuits. However, I don't agree that any manufacturer should feel responsible either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigway 4 #3 February 13, 2005 john, you are just obsessed with guns, arent ya? So how your jumping this weekend? have you got anything exciting planned this week? .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #4 February 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteI wonder if the taxpayers in these municipalities appreciate their tax money being wastefully spent on frivolous personal-agenda political lawsuits? Don't forget that most of these municipalities spend a king's ransom on medical expenses connected to gunshot wounds Then sue the shooters. Quotewhich are the basis of these lawsuits. Actually, the basis for these suits is the biggest load of legal mumbo-jumbo voodoo that I have ever seen. One day they might finally understand that the chain of responsibility is broken by a criminal act. QuoteHowever, I don't agree that any manufacturer should feel responsible either. There's one point where we are in complete agreement. They shouldn't feel anymore responsible than GM does when a Chevy is used as a getaway car.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #5 February 13, 2005 Quotejohn, you are just obsessed with guns, arent ya? You think R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnMitchell 14 #6 February 13, 2005 Hey, someone's got to download all this stuff for me to read. I'm not computer savvy enough to do it on my own. I've heard of some of these cases and I am delighted to see how a few of them ended. If we can win in California, we can win in every other state (except maybe Massachusetts.) I just wonder what percentage of the price of each new firearm I buy is legal costs from defending frivilous lawsuits. I've heard the figure of $50,000 dollars added to the cost of each new C-182 airplane because of legal costs. That would buy a lot of avgas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites randomdude 0 #7 February 13, 2005 I heard anecdotally about a city (New Orleans) that sued the company that just happened to be making their PD's service pistols at the time...and the teat went dry. I believe the company in question was Beretta. Good idea, nice middle finger back at those biting the hands that protect them. See also Ronnie Barret's middle finger to the LAPD. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites slug 1 #8 February 13, 2005 Hi John Don't know about the added cost of guns due to lawsuits but their is a added cost due to liability insurance. The insurer for the Gun Store (bull's eye) paid $1.500K and the manufactor (or insurance co) paid $500K to settle civil suits related to the D.C. sniper. So maybe the insurance premiums will be reduced but won't go away. On the bright side if the insurance companies & manufactures refuse to insure/sell to gun dealers with poor inventory control. That loophole might be closedR.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #9 February 13, 2005 Quotejohn, you are just obsessed with guns, arent ya? So how your jumping this weekend? have you got anything exciting planned this week? Definition: "obsess" to haunt or excessively preoccupy the mind No, I'm not "obsessed" with guns. No more than I am with skydiving, or camping and hiking, or sex. It is but one of many interests in my life. But amongst those interests, it is the only one in which a large number of organizations exist to try to eliminate it. Here are the threads I've started recently in Speaker's Corner: Jan. 25 - England: Worst Crime Rate in World Jan. 27 - Convicted: Eating Apple While Driving Jan. 29 - Spelling Bee Cancelled Jan. 31 - Students: Too Much Freedom of Press Feb. 12 - Anti-Gun Forces Lose Again Readers: Judge for yourself if this makes me "obsessed" with guns. Are you "obsessed" with skydiving? If so, is that a bad thing? I'm weathered out this weekend. You can't win arguments by trying to assassinate the character of the messenger. You should attack the arguments, instead. Do you think that gun manufacturers should be responsible for the actions of criminals who misuse their product in illegal ways? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #10 February 14, 2005 This is off-topic to this thread, but is gun-related. It's a good example of how the media reports gun crime with an anti-gun point of view. News story: "A lone gunman opened fire with an assault rifle Sunday inside a crowded mall in upstate New York, wounding one person before running out of ammunition and being subdued by employees..." Further down in the story is this: "Police did not identify the suspect or the type of gun he used." So, what I want to know is, if the police didn't identify the type of gun used in the shooting, then why did they go ahead and pronounce that it was a so-called "assault weapon"? Source: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050213/D887UDFG1.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ahegeman 0 #11 February 14, 2005 An article I read did not identify the gun either, but did quote a police official as calling it an "assault-type rifle". He shot off a bunch of rounds and only hit one person? Musta been an AK.--------------------------------------------------------------- There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'. --Dave Barry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bigway 4 #12 February 14, 2005 You can't win arguments by trying to assassinate the character of the messenger. You should attack the arguments, instead. Do you think that gun manufacturers should be responsible for the actions of criminals who misuse their product in illegal ways? John, i am not a gun hater. I dont mind people owning guns at all, as long as they are no legally given to people with criminal convictions, mental issues or children. However i am not a fan of people walking the streets being able to carry, but if i lived in America, i would probably feel safer carrying a gun because of the huge population and the way America is. (no offence to the US) i am glad, that i do not live in a country where people carry guns. I am from new zealand, and on the 6'oclock news, we have chickens with broken wings being released back into the wild after being healed. I feel safe in the Uk knowing that people do not carry guns, even though i got jumped in the worst part of London at a cash machine, what i was doing there? it was my second day. So i am all for The Americans to carry guns, i just like to think you dont give every person that right. Guns, will never be made illegal in the US. the reason for that is because everyone already has them and there would be no way in hell to control that law to a point where people do not carry. You need to figure out your drug problem first and the illegal imigrants. There would be no president in the US who could outlaw guns. And i also think that your country will be at a full scale war before anyone has a chance to outlaw them, this would mean that everyone would HAVE to carry a weapon, an assault rifle of some sort. I do not hate americans but from my travelling do realise more people in this world hate the US than like it. .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #13 February 14, 2005 QuoteI am from new zealand, and on the 6'oclock news, we have chickens with broken wings being released back into the wild after being healed. Dude -- I just looked at today's NZ news. Sure you want to stick with that? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bigway 4 #14 February 14, 2005 Quote Zealand News sxc.hu Prescribed Treatments Not Followed A study has shown that on average, 40 percent of New... more... Storm Heading North Clergymen Extradited To NZ Distress Beacon Saves Another Life Video & Audio Best viewed with a Broadband connection What is Broadband? | Benefits | Get Broadband now Local Man Convicted Of Rangiatea Church Fire Suicide Prevention Group Closing Down Disabled Man Refused Departure Mayors Consider Other Ways To Fund Cities Beneficiaries Concerned About WINZ Treatment not bad for a monday after a weekend. have i missed something? ohh, i see you are talking about the guy who set the church on fire, well, He should not have walked in their, i know if i was to try and walk in a church that i would burst into flames as well. .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #15 February 14, 2005 Quoteohh, i see you are talking about the guy who set the church on fire, well, He should not have walked in their, i know if i was to try and walk in a church that i would burst into flames as well. No, I was thinking of the NZ woman who was killed by bottles and knives in the US last week . . . oh wait, nevermind. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #16 February 14, 2005 Remember John, according to some people* think anyone who doesn't revile guns, anyone who holds guns other than in a press conference denouncing them, is obsessed, aka a "gun nut." * - not necessarily the person you're responding towitty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bigway 4 #17 February 14, 2005 QuoteNo, I was thinking of the NZ woman who was killed by bottles and knives in the US last week . . . oh wait, nevermind. LOL you see that was funny, now you should be banned from SC for making that joke Any chance you have a name of the person who was killed?, one of my 20 million sheep might know her .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 25 #18 February 14, 2005 QuoteI wonder if the gun companies will be compensated for their legal expenses by these municipalities? I wonder if the taxpayers in these municipalities appreciate their tax money being wastefully spent on frivolous personal-agenda political lawsuits? Hopefully, they'll just toss out the bums who decided to spend public money that way.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ahegeman 0 #19 February 14, 2005 QuoteAn article I read did not identify the gun either, but did quote a police official as calling it an "assault-type rifle". He shot off a bunch of rounds and only hit one person? Musta been an AK. I just saw another news article. Turns out it was an AK after all.--------------------------------------------------------------- There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'. --Dave Barry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #20 February 14, 2005 QuoteQuoteNo, I was thinking of the NZ woman who was killed by bottles and knives in the US last week . . . oh wait, nevermind. LOL you see that was funny, now you should be banned from SC for making that joke Not laughing at the poor woman who was killed, but there is some irony to that since this a gun thread. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MC208B 0 #21 February 14, 2005 Dude! One more time, I can easily pop a milk jug at 100 yards with my WASR-10 (AK) Anyone see on the news last week where they are going after .50 caliber rifles now? "the can shoot down an airplane". How scary! So can a .22 if the plane is hit in the right place The anti gun crowd just can't hel-p themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #22 February 14, 2005 Quote I just saw another news article. Turns out it was an AK after all. Which article is that? Some of the earlier articles said that, then they switched to "assault-type rifle," whatever the hell that is, and that seems to be the line. Hell, one article called it an "assault type rifle," then an "assault rifle," and finally an "automatic machine gun." Remember, the press knows less about guns than they do about skydiving. http://www.syracuse.com/news/poststandard/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1105091841258341.xml Quote Police did not identify the suspect and said earlier reports that the weapon was an AK- 47 were incorrect. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #23 February 14, 2005 QuoteHe shot off a bunch of rounds and only hit one person? Musta been an AK. I heard that one was shot in the leg, and another in the hand. Gosh, and I thought these fast-shootin' powerful "assault weapons" were supposed to be deadly? The guy could have done more damage with a bolt-action rifle and actually aiming instead of spraying. I'm glad he used Hollywood shooting techniques instead of the actual unglamorous effective method. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #24 February 14, 2005 Ali Afshar, owner of a mall kiosk, said he saw the shooter being tackled from behind by two men who work at Dick's Sporting Goods. Thank goodness for heros! Those guys at Dick's Sporting Goods should never have to buy their own beer again as long as they live. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ahegeman 0 #25 February 15, 2005 QuoteDude! One more time, I can easily pop a milk jug at 100 yards with my WASR-10 (AK) Anyone see on the news last week where they are going after .50 caliber rifles now? "the can shoot down an airplane". How scary! So can a .22 if the plane is hit in the right place The anti gun crowd just can't hel-p themselves. How many magazines does it take to hit that jug? You must be a better shot than me, I've only shot an AK once and I couldn't have hit a barn with the damn thing, but I'm deadly with my hunting rifle. I've got my eyes on an AR-15 at my local gun store. More accurate, but more tempermental. Yeah, this craziness over the .50 cals is lame, since as far as I know one has never been used in a crime.--------------------------------------------------------------- There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'. --Dave Barry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
JohnMitchell 14 #6 February 13, 2005 Hey, someone's got to download all this stuff for me to read. I'm not computer savvy enough to do it on my own. I've heard of some of these cases and I am delighted to see how a few of them ended. If we can win in California, we can win in every other state (except maybe Massachusetts.) I just wonder what percentage of the price of each new firearm I buy is legal costs from defending frivilous lawsuits. I've heard the figure of $50,000 dollars added to the cost of each new C-182 airplane because of legal costs. That would buy a lot of avgas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
randomdude 0 #7 February 13, 2005 I heard anecdotally about a city (New Orleans) that sued the company that just happened to be making their PD's service pistols at the time...and the teat went dry. I believe the company in question was Beretta. Good idea, nice middle finger back at those biting the hands that protect them. See also Ronnie Barret's middle finger to the LAPD. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #8 February 13, 2005 Hi John Don't know about the added cost of guns due to lawsuits but their is a added cost due to liability insurance. The insurer for the Gun Store (bull's eye) paid $1.500K and the manufactor (or insurance co) paid $500K to settle civil suits related to the D.C. sniper. So maybe the insurance premiums will be reduced but won't go away. On the bright side if the insurance companies & manufactures refuse to insure/sell to gun dealers with poor inventory control. That loophole might be closedR.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #9 February 13, 2005 Quotejohn, you are just obsessed with guns, arent ya? So how your jumping this weekend? have you got anything exciting planned this week? Definition: "obsess" to haunt or excessively preoccupy the mind No, I'm not "obsessed" with guns. No more than I am with skydiving, or camping and hiking, or sex. It is but one of many interests in my life. But amongst those interests, it is the only one in which a large number of organizations exist to try to eliminate it. Here are the threads I've started recently in Speaker's Corner: Jan. 25 - England: Worst Crime Rate in World Jan. 27 - Convicted: Eating Apple While Driving Jan. 29 - Spelling Bee Cancelled Jan. 31 - Students: Too Much Freedom of Press Feb. 12 - Anti-Gun Forces Lose Again Readers: Judge for yourself if this makes me "obsessed" with guns. Are you "obsessed" with skydiving? If so, is that a bad thing? I'm weathered out this weekend. You can't win arguments by trying to assassinate the character of the messenger. You should attack the arguments, instead. Do you think that gun manufacturers should be responsible for the actions of criminals who misuse their product in illegal ways? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #10 February 14, 2005 This is off-topic to this thread, but is gun-related. It's a good example of how the media reports gun crime with an anti-gun point of view. News story: "A lone gunman opened fire with an assault rifle Sunday inside a crowded mall in upstate New York, wounding one person before running out of ammunition and being subdued by employees..." Further down in the story is this: "Police did not identify the suspect or the type of gun he used." So, what I want to know is, if the police didn't identify the type of gun used in the shooting, then why did they go ahead and pronounce that it was a so-called "assault weapon"? Source: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050213/D887UDFG1.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ahegeman 0 #11 February 14, 2005 An article I read did not identify the gun either, but did quote a police official as calling it an "assault-type rifle". He shot off a bunch of rounds and only hit one person? Musta been an AK.--------------------------------------------------------------- There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'. --Dave Barry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigway 4 #12 February 14, 2005 You can't win arguments by trying to assassinate the character of the messenger. You should attack the arguments, instead. Do you think that gun manufacturers should be responsible for the actions of criminals who misuse their product in illegal ways? John, i am not a gun hater. I dont mind people owning guns at all, as long as they are no legally given to people with criminal convictions, mental issues or children. However i am not a fan of people walking the streets being able to carry, but if i lived in America, i would probably feel safer carrying a gun because of the huge population and the way America is. (no offence to the US) i am glad, that i do not live in a country where people carry guns. I am from new zealand, and on the 6'oclock news, we have chickens with broken wings being released back into the wild after being healed. I feel safe in the Uk knowing that people do not carry guns, even though i got jumped in the worst part of London at a cash machine, what i was doing there? it was my second day. So i am all for The Americans to carry guns, i just like to think you dont give every person that right. Guns, will never be made illegal in the US. the reason for that is because everyone already has them and there would be no way in hell to control that law to a point where people do not carry. You need to figure out your drug problem first and the illegal imigrants. There would be no president in the US who could outlaw guns. And i also think that your country will be at a full scale war before anyone has a chance to outlaw them, this would mean that everyone would HAVE to carry a weapon, an assault rifle of some sort. I do not hate americans but from my travelling do realise more people in this world hate the US than like it. .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #13 February 14, 2005 QuoteI am from new zealand, and on the 6'oclock news, we have chickens with broken wings being released back into the wild after being healed. Dude -- I just looked at today's NZ news. Sure you want to stick with that? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigway 4 #14 February 14, 2005 Quote Zealand News sxc.hu Prescribed Treatments Not Followed A study has shown that on average, 40 percent of New... more... Storm Heading North Clergymen Extradited To NZ Distress Beacon Saves Another Life Video & Audio Best viewed with a Broadband connection What is Broadband? | Benefits | Get Broadband now Local Man Convicted Of Rangiatea Church Fire Suicide Prevention Group Closing Down Disabled Man Refused Departure Mayors Consider Other Ways To Fund Cities Beneficiaries Concerned About WINZ Treatment not bad for a monday after a weekend. have i missed something? ohh, i see you are talking about the guy who set the church on fire, well, He should not have walked in their, i know if i was to try and walk in a church that i would burst into flames as well. .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #15 February 14, 2005 Quoteohh, i see you are talking about the guy who set the church on fire, well, He should not have walked in their, i know if i was to try and walk in a church that i would burst into flames as well. No, I was thinking of the NZ woman who was killed by bottles and knives in the US last week . . . oh wait, nevermind. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #16 February 14, 2005 Remember John, according to some people* think anyone who doesn't revile guns, anyone who holds guns other than in a press conference denouncing them, is obsessed, aka a "gun nut." * - not necessarily the person you're responding towitty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigway 4 #17 February 14, 2005 QuoteNo, I was thinking of the NZ woman who was killed by bottles and knives in the US last week . . . oh wait, nevermind. LOL you see that was funny, now you should be banned from SC for making that joke Any chance you have a name of the person who was killed?, one of my 20 million sheep might know her .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #18 February 14, 2005 QuoteI wonder if the gun companies will be compensated for their legal expenses by these municipalities? I wonder if the taxpayers in these municipalities appreciate their tax money being wastefully spent on frivolous personal-agenda political lawsuits? Hopefully, they'll just toss out the bums who decided to spend public money that way.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ahegeman 0 #19 February 14, 2005 QuoteAn article I read did not identify the gun either, but did quote a police official as calling it an "assault-type rifle". He shot off a bunch of rounds and only hit one person? Musta been an AK. I just saw another news article. Turns out it was an AK after all.--------------------------------------------------------------- There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'. --Dave Barry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #20 February 14, 2005 QuoteQuoteNo, I was thinking of the NZ woman who was killed by bottles and knives in the US last week . . . oh wait, nevermind. LOL you see that was funny, now you should be banned from SC for making that joke Not laughing at the poor woman who was killed, but there is some irony to that since this a gun thread. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC208B 0 #21 February 14, 2005 Dude! One more time, I can easily pop a milk jug at 100 yards with my WASR-10 (AK) Anyone see on the news last week where they are going after .50 caliber rifles now? "the can shoot down an airplane". How scary! So can a .22 if the plane is hit in the right place The anti gun crowd just can't hel-p themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #22 February 14, 2005 Quote I just saw another news article. Turns out it was an AK after all. Which article is that? Some of the earlier articles said that, then they switched to "assault-type rifle," whatever the hell that is, and that seems to be the line. Hell, one article called it an "assault type rifle," then an "assault rifle," and finally an "automatic machine gun." Remember, the press knows less about guns than they do about skydiving. http://www.syracuse.com/news/poststandard/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1105091841258341.xml Quote Police did not identify the suspect and said earlier reports that the weapon was an AK- 47 were incorrect. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #23 February 14, 2005 QuoteHe shot off a bunch of rounds and only hit one person? Musta been an AK. I heard that one was shot in the leg, and another in the hand. Gosh, and I thought these fast-shootin' powerful "assault weapons" were supposed to be deadly? The guy could have done more damage with a bolt-action rifle and actually aiming instead of spraying. I'm glad he used Hollywood shooting techniques instead of the actual unglamorous effective method. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #24 February 14, 2005 Ali Afshar, owner of a mall kiosk, said he saw the shooter being tackled from behind by two men who work at Dick's Sporting Goods. Thank goodness for heros! Those guys at Dick's Sporting Goods should never have to buy their own beer again as long as they live. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ahegeman 0 #25 February 15, 2005 QuoteDude! One more time, I can easily pop a milk jug at 100 yards with my WASR-10 (AK) Anyone see on the news last week where they are going after .50 caliber rifles now? "the can shoot down an airplane". How scary! So can a .22 if the plane is hit in the right place The anti gun crowd just can't hel-p themselves. How many magazines does it take to hit that jug? You must be a better shot than me, I've only shot an AK once and I couldn't have hit a barn with the damn thing, but I'm deadly with my hunting rifle. I've got my eyes on an AR-15 at my local gun store. More accurate, but more tempermental. Yeah, this craziness over the .50 cals is lame, since as far as I know one has never been used in a crime.--------------------------------------------------------------- There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'. --Dave Barry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
