P95Carry
April 23, 2003, 06:39 PM
I offer this as nothing very special or original. I think we are all pretty much on the same page.... but, having yet again given it thought, decided to write something down. It follows I guess from the latest case we have seen, where a company is being ''blamed'' for some 35% of the ''incident''.:mad:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The absurdity of action against the Gun Manufacturers.
I think I can say, without exception, that cases brought against gun makers all follow on from a failure on the part of an individual or individuals, to follow the four most basic rules to do with firearms (applies to other weapons also) ..... these failures then representing the ''excuse'' for making a case.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY
RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And yet, the manufacturers get blame thrown at them, because litigious and vindictive ''anti's'' think they have yet another way to control the ''scourge of guns''. They would do much better to find ways of better implementing EXISTING laws, in order to get directly to those guns in criminal hands ...... guns that will however ALWAYS be obtainable by the lawless. Unstoppable in fact.
Let's draw some comparisons (faceciously perhaps). Why not direct law suits also at .............
Bow and cross-bow manufacturers ......... damn, these things can be lethal.!
Knife makers ......... people both cut themselves accidentally and also get killed by them.
Handyman tool makers ...... improper use of a screwdriver or chisel may lead to injury or death. Oh and, don't let's forget the ubiquitous ''blunt instrument'', the hammer.
Car manufacturers ......... I hardly need to mention this one.!
Alcoholic beverage manufacturers ........ drunk people can (and do) kill others.
Hot tub manufacturers ..... people may drown in them.
Parachute maker ..... do you sue because the packer does it wrong?
The list is endless .... in as much as, about anything you can think of can be misused or abused.
The point is, the firearms manufacturer is no more culpable than if he were producing underwear. His product is sold ''as seen'' by the buyer (aquirer) ....... who is, in the final analysis, the only one on whom any culpability should rest. As I always state .... ''guns do NOT kill people (per se) - people kill people'' ......... they just might happen to use a gun to achieve this.
The whole litigious mechanism when directed this way is for one purpose only ..... which is the ''at any cost'' approach to ridding the country of guns ........ legal guns that is ........ which naturally then leaves the law abiding individual effectively defenceless, and ever more open to attack my armed felons ...... in effect the ''undisarmable''.
I would argue that the only possibly acceptable case that might be brought against a gun manufacturer, would be a civil case brought by an individual, who had one blow up in his face for example .... even when used ''as directed'' ... with proper ammo and conditions. How often though do we hear of this? Hardly at all, because guns are well engineered for the most part and when used responsibly represent no blatant threat.
It is up to the user to ''use as directed'' and apply general safety rules and common sense. Quite how the gun manufacturer is supposed to have ANY control over this, I cannot see. No doubt this nonsense will continue to flourish.
P95
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The absurdity of action against the Gun Manufacturers.
I think I can say, without exception, that cases brought against gun makers all follow on from a failure on the part of an individual or individuals, to follow the four most basic rules to do with firearms (applies to other weapons also) ..... these failures then representing the ''excuse'' for making a case.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY
RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And yet, the manufacturers get blame thrown at them, because litigious and vindictive ''anti's'' think they have yet another way to control the ''scourge of guns''. They would do much better to find ways of better implementing EXISTING laws, in order to get directly to those guns in criminal hands ...... guns that will however ALWAYS be obtainable by the lawless. Unstoppable in fact.
Let's draw some comparisons (faceciously perhaps). Why not direct law suits also at .............
Bow and cross-bow manufacturers ......... damn, these things can be lethal.!
Knife makers ......... people both cut themselves accidentally and also get killed by them.
Handyman tool makers ...... improper use of a screwdriver or chisel may lead to injury or death. Oh and, don't let's forget the ubiquitous ''blunt instrument'', the hammer.
Car manufacturers ......... I hardly need to mention this one.!
Alcoholic beverage manufacturers ........ drunk people can (and do) kill others.
Hot tub manufacturers ..... people may drown in them.
Parachute maker ..... do you sue because the packer does it wrong?
The list is endless .... in as much as, about anything you can think of can be misused or abused.
The point is, the firearms manufacturer is no more culpable than if he were producing underwear. His product is sold ''as seen'' by the buyer (aquirer) ....... who is, in the final analysis, the only one on whom any culpability should rest. As I always state .... ''guns do NOT kill people (per se) - people kill people'' ......... they just might happen to use a gun to achieve this.
The whole litigious mechanism when directed this way is for one purpose only ..... which is the ''at any cost'' approach to ridding the country of guns ........ legal guns that is ........ which naturally then leaves the law abiding individual effectively defenceless, and ever more open to attack my armed felons ...... in effect the ''undisarmable''.
I would argue that the only possibly acceptable case that might be brought against a gun manufacturer, would be a civil case brought by an individual, who had one blow up in his face for example .... even when used ''as directed'' ... with proper ammo and conditions. How often though do we hear of this? Hardly at all, because guns are well engineered for the most part and when used responsibly represent no blatant threat.
It is up to the user to ''use as directed'' and apply general safety rules and common sense. Quite how the gun manufacturer is supposed to have ANY control over this, I cannot see. No doubt this nonsense will continue to flourish.
P95