Is it the guns fault?

[homer]

Originally posted by Ar-Cunin: Apperently tha lawsuit is against both the store that sold the gun and the manefacturer that sold it to the store. The argument is that the store should not have sold the rifle, becauce the sniper (can't remember the name) was prohibited from buying due to a prior conviction - and that the manefacturer shouldn't have sold it to the store, because the store was known for selling firearms to people who wasn't allowed to buy them (it was fined by the Federal Government). So I won't say that the families don't have a chance of winning - they are just using 'The American Way'

I was not aware of these facts. I agree that the store should be help accountable if it turns out that they knew the man was not supposed to purchase firearms.

I still do not believe that the manufacturer is responsible. If the store was known for selling firearms to felons than the state should have closed it down. It is not the responsibility of the manufacturer to regulate their customers, is it?

If Ar-Cunan has the facts correct (not much mentioned about it here in the DC area yet..amazingly enough, just some quick blurbs between commercials) then the store should be sued and the manufacturer ...IF... they knew or had some way of knowing about the convictions (which I never heard that either of the defendants had prior records).

This will cause a problem however, any car dealer who sells a car to someone who ever had a DUI in his life is gonna get sued. Any electrical appliance company will be sued the minuted someone bashes their spouse over the head with one, because currently there is no label stating "Danger, high speed impacts to a cranium can be fatal"......

I still think the two or three families are only in it for greed and not for the merits of the case. They want $$$$ just like the family of the DC postal worker who died of Anthrax, My company settled that case just to limit the legal expenses.

[Timber Loftis]

MagiK, I think your analogy to car dealers and electrical appliances is faulty. The law requires background checks for gun purchases and prohibits the sale of firearms to convicted felons - a very different circumstance indeed.

[edit:] I know what you're doing here. You're agree that in this situation the store could be at fault, but you don't want to set a general rule and "open the floodgates" to other circumstances unimagined at the current moment. I agree with that approach - and I'm just telling you why this won't open those floodgates.

[ 01-17-2003, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Sir Kenyth]

One problem we have with laws is that eveyone want's laws that protect their interests. Few want to actually spend the money it takes to develop the infrastucture to enforce said laws. The background check database system is faulty. For one thing, the people in charge of checking the buyers out have a conflict of interest right from the start. A fake ID will get you a gun just as quick as a real one. I think we all know that it's not that hard to get fake ID using someone elses name.

To make the laws low cost to enforce, they put the primary responsibility for them on the people. They also make laws generalized and zero tolerance so no one has to make a judgement call. These kind of laws can be quite dangerous to personal rights. Do you want to know how easy it is to ruin someones chances to own a firearm? To take away someones legal right? Just go request a restraining order on them. Restraining orders are issued without a lot of thought. It's not a conviction of anything and doesn't implicate you in any sort of crime. Nor does anything have to be proven to get one against you. In divorce cases, they can almost be standard procedure! It can be used to take away your right to own a firearm and that's not right!

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: MagiK, I think your analogy to car dealers and electrical appliances is faulty. The law requires background checks for gun purchases and prohibits the sale of firearms to convicted felons - a very different circumstance indeed. [edit:] I know what you're doing here. You're agree that in this situation the store could be at fault, but you don't want to set a general rule and "open the floodgates" to other circumstances unimagined at the current moment. I agree with that approach - and I'm just telling you why this won't open those floodgates.

Exactly why should a car dealer not be responsible for ensureing he is selling his product to a responsible person? Can he not be made to look up a persons driving record? .....

It isn't that big a leap is what I am getting at

[quietman1920]

Hmmm...lets see. Where they shot with a shotgun? A shotgun is a reasonable instrument on rural farms and has some hunting applictions. Ummm...no. Were they shot with a deer-rifle? This is a reasonable instrument to be found in a hunter's possessions and it has reasonable hunting applications. Ummm...no again. Were they shot with a handgun? Some people in high-risk professions and law enforcement can be found with these, as they are a reasonable response to criminals and would-be robbers. Ummm...no again.

Actually, what killed these people was a military weapon (or styled weapon) that has no reasonable purpose being disseminated in any 20th or 21st century population. It looks something like this:

www.bushmaster.com/images/a3cover_small.jpg

It has ZERO hunting applications, is too big to wield for personal self-defense, and has No Purpose other than as a sniper rifle that kills people.

[Don't even bring up target shooting; if you 'have' to use one of these to compete, you must be legally blind and arthritic. There are no rifle ranges built long enough to make these a challenge]

The only place these weapons should have are in the locked gun racks of law enforcement and military armories. They are, however, routinely marketed as 'macho guns', implying you aren't a man if you don't own one. This is how people get suckered into buying these things. Basically this suit goes to the point that these were manufactured and marketed for a purpose that is illegal by its very nature.

Am I going to tell you you can't have any gun? Please re-read what I wrote. Get a shotgun or a deer-rifle if you hunt. Get a revolver if you're a bonded courier. Carry a Glock if you are a cop. But lets keep these AR-15 Killing Machines off the street, shall we?

[Timber Loftis]

Good Points, Sir K. That restraining order bit, now that you mention it, is pretty sucky. A restraining order requires an affidavit though, IIRC. So, if you did get one for malicious reasons without a basis in fact, you'd be on the hook for perjury.

But, the real point is once you'd used the lie to get the restraining order, the restrainee ( ) would have to hire a lawyer and go to court to fix it. That's often the real problem with the law. Folks come my way all the time who've been wronged for $500 or $5,000. I often explain as well as I can what kind of costs they are looking at and I really discourage anyone from pursuing any claim of less than 8-10K, depending on complexity of course.

Now, it's funny that the one client we will pursue small claims for is a huge national corp. We do 3-4K matters for them free of charge as a "thank you" for the $1-2 mil. matters they send to us. It's really true that you have to have money to make/keep money.

[Timber Loftis]

[quote]Originally posted by MagiK:

Exactly why should a car dealer not be responsible for ensureing he is selling his product to a responsible person? Can he not be made to look up a persons driving record? ..... It isn't that big a leap is what I am getting at

Very true, MagiK. But, that law is currently NOT on the books - so take in up with the legislature. Hey, I'm sure those draconian freaks at MAAD would support you. Imagine- MagiK the lobbyist.

I'm just saying that the *is* a law regarding the sale of guns. And, in a lawsuit, one quick route to prove fault/negligence is to show that the person you are suing broke a relevant law.

But, if your "open the floodgates" argument ties the courts to the legislature, please excuse me while I [img]graemlins/1puke.gif[/img]
- Because even a lawyer like me won't try to answer for goofy politicians.

[homer]

The only place these weapons should have are in the locked gun racks of law enforcement and military armories. They are, however, routinely marketed as 'macho guns', implying you aren't a man if you don't own one. This is how people get suckered into buying these things.

I believe in America most companies will produce only those products that will make them a profit. If there were no one who was willing to buy this gun, then maybe the company would not produce it.

I believe it is also free to advertise in this country. If someone buys your product because of an advertisement then someone in your company has done their job.

Basically this suit goes to the point that these were manufactured and marketed for a purpose that is illegal by its very nature.

Are you saying there is already a state or federal regulation against selling this gun? If that is so then maybe there is a basis for the suit on the manufacturer.

In my opinion, this is still not the issue at hand. I can be confident enough other human beings to believe the company did not want someone to buy this weapon and go on a killing spree with it. They are, most likely, like most companies, only interested in making a profit.

Originally posted by homer: quote: The only place these weapons should have are in the locked gun racks of law enforcement and military armories. They are, however, routinely marketed as 'macho guns', implying you aren't a man if you don't own one. This is how people get suckered into buying these things.

I believe in America most companies will produce only those products that will make them a profit. If there were no one who was willing to buy this gun, then maybe the company would not produce it.

Homey I realize you don't know anything about guns..but the Bushmaster series is not some "Macho" military gimick, the series is used by farmers, ranchers and other people who have the need of a sturdy reliable firearm. The .223 calibur is a rather common varmit calibur used in killing small game that can be damaging to cattle, homes and land. (didn't we have this discussion once?)

Basically this suit goes to the point that these were manufactured and marketed for a purpose that is illegal by its very nature.

Are you saying there is already a state or federal regulation against selling this gun? If that is so then maybe there is a basis for the suit on the manufacturer.

Your ignorance of firearms is showing again. The Bushmaster and its uses are completely legal.

In my opinion, this is still not the issue at hand. I can be confident enough other human beings to believe the company did not want someone to buy this weapon and go on a killing spree with it. They are, most likely, like most companies, only interested in making a profit.

Can't fault your logic there.[/QUOTE]