Shut up, B**ch, I ain't gonna shoot you,
I'm gonna pull you to this bullet and put it through you.

-Eminem

Guess it is the bullets to blame, then, huh. :D :D

But without the gun the bullets couldn't have been fired...</font>[/QUOTE]And without the bullets the gun is only useful for beating a dead horse [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Because the snipers are what's called "judgment-proof" (i.e. poor). Can't get blood from a stone. And, the families have sought lawyers asking something any one of us would - "I know these guys will go to jail, but can I sue somebody for money for my lost loved one?"

I wonder what their motive is.
Respect for the dead.. or money?

The motive for this is simple greed, and as far as I'm concerned the courts should slap this down before it even gets through the preliminaries.

Now this doesn't exactly apply to this situation, but there's a saying I remember from growing up: "A thief is shot in the night; who's finger is on the trigger?"

Everyone (except the canadian anti-gun politicians, of course) knows the answer to this riddle is "The thiefs". The thief entered into the situation with both eyes open and has noone but himself to blame for getting shot at while doing a b&e. Likewise, these families have noone to blame but the snipers...

So, Sir Krustin, the answer is simply "too bad?" "Look, we know your husband and the father of your children is dead, and you have lost your only means of income, but it's no one's fault but these criminals - so just suck it up like a good American, okay." :(

Perhaps that *is* the answer. Perhaps these families have no recourse. I sure wish they did though. Why can't rich f-ers be the ones to commit crimes? Like OJ - he won his criminal trial and then had EVERYTHING taken from him in the civil trial.

Lmao never would of thought Timber of all people would be a Eminem fan (well if hes not even to know the lyrics is suprising). Anyway its not the guns fault or the makers of the guns fault. For somereason *money seems to heal all wounds* [img]graemlins/headshake.gif[/img]

Basically correct - like you said, the gun company has money so that makes them a target.

The wage-earner could just as easily died in a landslide or a freak accident at work, and the result would be just as devastating to the family.

Looking for a scapegoat doesn't solve *any* of the problems, and allowing the lawsuit to succeed out of sympathy for the family's predicament just sets a precedent for other greedy people to do the same.

Lawsuits are for legitimate beefs, and what I call fivolous lawsuits are ruining the states, and rapidly becoming a problem up here as well.

Look at civil aviation, it died a quiet death in the seventies because people died in aircraft accidents, and the victims families sued the aircraft manufacturers for the deaths - even when the crash was plainly the result of pilot incompetence or lack of maintenance. You know what? The lawsuits succeeded! Simply put, there was no way to prove a negative - the aircraft manufacturers couldn't prove that there wasn't a hidden manufacturing defect responsible for the crash - after all the aircraft is now a mangled piece of wreckage.

This is why you can only really buy private aircraft in kits that you build yourself (with the exception of very expensive Lears and Gulfstreams, of course)
so the kit manufacturer can decline responsibility for the airworthiness of the airframe.

Lmao never would of thought Timber of all people would be a Eminem fan (well if hes not even to know the lyrics is suprising). Anyway its not the guns fault or the makers of the guns fault. For somereason *money seems to heal all wounds* [img]graemlins/headshake.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]You'd be surprised how much I find in common with a whiteboy scrawny foulmouthed trailer park trash punk who cut his teeth on rap music in high school and still occassionally succumbs to wilding out and being violent, catching a good old fashioned passionate ass whoopin and getting your shoes coat and your hat tooken. :D

Sir Krustin, my firm has a rather decent aviation law practice, so I know what you mean.

One nit-picky point: had he (our hypothetical sniper victim) died in a landslide at work, worker's comp would give the widow income.

What about the $$$$ given to victims of 9/11. Do you folks support that? If so, would something similar be appropriate for the sniper victims? In case you didn't know, in most cities/states if you are a victim of violent crime and can't afford medical care a state fund covers it for you.