Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gun maker liable survey USA Today

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by 4thHorseman, Jul 30, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 4thHorseman

    4thHorseman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    617
    Location:
    Right Here
  2. Double Maduro

    Double Maduro Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,125
    We're winning 92-7 %

    DM
     
  3. Jim K

    Jim K Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    17,566
    Unless they can get that poll turned around, they won't publish the result.

    I am thinking of filing a suit against The Washington Post. Having observed that 80% of the trash on District streets seems to consist of old newspapers, and that most of it is from The Washington Post, I am considering filing a $500 billion dollar suit against the Post for offending my senses and littering the streets. (Of course the real reason is that the paper is a left-wing rag, and I want to put them out of business, but I dare not say that - I must keep to honest environmental concerns.)

    The Post will, I am sure, cite freedom of the press, but that is irrelevant. I am not trying to control what they print, only how they dispose of their trash. They will also say that they are not responsible for the actions of third parties in discarding the paper, but they themselves have already destroyed that argument by saying that gun makers should be responsible for what third or fourth parties do with guns.

    So how about it? I am signing up people who would like a piece of the action, and getting a tort lawyer should be no problem. I wonder what John Edwards is doing now.

    Maybe if enough folks sign on, I'll make it 500 trillion dollars. Why think small?

    Jim
     
  4. Ohen Cepel

    Ohen Cepel Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,537
    Location:
    Where they tell me to go
    Up to 93% now. I'm sure that poll will never see the light of day!
     
  5. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,908
    Location:
    Arizona
    Jim Keenan:

    You have the right idea, but to match the gun-grabbers you need to get all of your friends to file identical lawsuits so that the Post has to defend itself against a lot of different actions.

    Then you have to do the same thing to all of the newspapers in the country. :evil:

    That after all, is what they did to the handgun industry. :cuss:
     
  6. txgho1911

    txgho1911 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    973
    Location:
    Indiana;
    So pay the fileing fees

    Or have your lawyer do it. Why do you have him on retainer if you never use him?
    Some jurisdictions it's a small fee and others you might spend 1 or 2 k on the matter.
     
  7. thebaldguy

    thebaldguy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    652
    Location:
    Minnesota 10,000 lakes and even more taxes
    Is Ford held responsible if someone drives one of their vehicles intoxicated and hurts someone? Does the brewer or distiller get sued as well? I do know that bars can be liable if they overserve a client, but where does this responsibility begin and end?

    Does General Motors get sued if someone uses a Chevrolet as a getaway car after a robbery?

    I don't see why firearms are different. How can the firearms company and/or retailer be held responsible if they follow the law? How can they prevent illegal use of their legal products?
     
  8. svtruth

    svtruth Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,689
    Location:
    Bradford, VT
    Or

    Do people sue the med school when a doc croaks a family member?
     
  9. shecky

    shecky Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    Messages:
    129
    Software companies can be held liable if folks use their software to swap things like music or movies illegally. The entertainment industry convinced the govt that this was a good idea, and the Supreme Court recently upheld this law. So it seems that a manufacturer can indeed be liable if their wares are used illegally.

    Of course, it helps if you buy enough influence to help politicians see things your way. Like the entertainment business. Or the NRA.
     
  10. mnrivrat

    mnrivrat Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    4,586
    Location:
    MN
    The NRA spent most of their years of existance promoting the shooting sports and training marksmanship and safety. In close partnership with the government I might add.

    It's members shouldn't have to spend a nickel trying to get politicions to adhere to their oath of office ,which includes protecting the constitution.

    Unfortunately the influence of the anti - gun crowd has to be countered in some way, and being able to remind the politicians that there is a second amendment cost money. (that's how politics work these days - just ask your congressman )

    If your pissed because you can't download your rap music , write a letter , start an organization - The National I Wanna Steal Music Association. Maybe the law your speaking of shouldn't exist ? I don't know much about it to be honest.

    If your pissed because the NRA spends time and money trying to keep our second amendment rights ? Well, then there is wear we part company !
     
  11. KriegHund

    KriegHund Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,514
    Location:
    Colorado, Broomfield
    Of course, since this poll didnt go the way they wanted it will never be mentioned.

    Had it been the oppiste results it would be blared all over cnn and abc as well as the papers. As it stands no one will ever hear a word.
     
  12. shecky

    shecky Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    Messages:
    129
    Point is, justice goes to whoever offers the most money. Constitutional rights, my ass. You need advocacy to make sure the constitution is interpreted your way. In this case, the law clearly blames the tool (software) for the illegal act (downloading mp3s). Just like the entertainment industry wants. The shrewd stance of the NRA, for better or worse, is knowing when to pick a fight.

    In the US, pretty much anyone can be sued by anyone else for anything. While I don't like that gun manufacturers can be sued when their wares are used illegally, this kind of special interest boondoggle is a perfect example of the broken system where gun mfgrs now have special rights, unless you can get it to apply to everyone equally and consitently.
     
  13. shecky

    shecky Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    Messages:
    129
    I don't get it. The poll is viewable by anyone who wants to see it.
     
  14. blackdragon

    blackdragon Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    87
    Location:
    Daytona Beach, FL
    "the law clearly blames the tool (software) for the illegal act"?

    No.

    Fine distinction here, that you missed.

    The supremes upheld that a software package marketed to commit crimes was illegal, hence the "official" purpose of the package was to break the law. That kinda makes sense.

    To compare with guns, colt would need to run a "colt 1911s. Best for knocking over convenience stores".

    Justice, in this case, pretty much was on the money.

    Keith
     
  15. Cesiumsponge

    Cesiumsponge Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,266
    Location:
    Washington
    :D 94%-5% now

    Though both my Senators voted in the 5% group :mad:
     
  16. shecky

    shecky Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    Messages:
    129
    That is a distinction, but a bogus one. It still blames the tool for the illegal act. Something every gun advocate should be wary of.

    This still puts gun industry at risk if they advertise their wares as offering better stopping/killing power.

    This is the kind of sense that got the ball rolling on assault weapon bans. After all, Tec-9s and Streetsweepers are preferred by gangbangers 9-1, right? ;)
     
  17. CajunBass

    CajunBass Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2005
    Messages:
    5,630
    Location:
    North Chesterfield, Virginia
    Actually that would be the next step. The government (at all levels) is always on the lookout for "deep pockets". They have raised taxes to the point now that they can't do that without a fight, so they have to look elsewhere for more money to spend. The tobacco settlement gave them a taste. Now they're looking around for other "evils" to protect us from. Guns, alcohol, automobiles, fast food, anything they can demonize and make look evil, they'll want to "protect" us from. After all, it's "for the children" you know.
     
  18. willeo6709

    willeo6709 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    59
    Location:
    usa
    s 397 rocks....

    I say this not as a class 7 manufacturer of firearms but as a US citizen. As long as I do business in a lagal manner, I should have no repurcussions when someone uses one of my products outside the law. If the legal industry is not brought under control this nation is headed for a death swirl. Addressing the statement "for the children", its so for the children that over 200 million dollars in Federal excise(sp?) tax was collected on firearms purchases in 2002 I believe. I can't tell you where that money goes... but you can damn sure believe it was not all for law enforcement and education.
     
  19. Cesiumsponge

    Cesiumsponge Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,266
    Location:
    Washington
    They start by attacking the smallest statistical slice of the pie as it'll get the minimal of uproar. NFA weapons were banned since those who owned them were a small percentage as compared to hunters and whatnot. Then, we tried to ban assault rifles since it was the next smallest slice of the pie in terms of gun ownership.

    Eventually they're going to nip and bite at the edges until all that's left are bolt-action hunting rifles. Then they'll try to ban those and those anti-assault weapon hunters will realize what is happening...and it'll be too late.

    Once in a while you'll get someone who tries the waters to see "what would happen" and what the reaction is from the media and us. You watch...eventually someone is going to sue a car company because their vehicle was stolen or used in a murder.

    This poll is probably to see where their audience (or anyone who gets the link) stands. They'll either view the result and modify their outlook to be more popular with us (unlikely) or view it as their efforts aren't good enough, and they'll ramp up anti-gun material.
     
  20. DirtyBrad

    DirtyBrad Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    421
    Location:
    Maryland
    If I'm not mistaken, this isn't the type of poll that gets released one way or the other. You see these kinds of polls all the time in the middle of articles or whatever and you can vote and see the results. But it's not as if the results are publishable, no matter what the results.
     
  21. mnrivrat

    mnrivrat Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    4,586
    Location:
    MN
    Blackdragon : He still misses the distinction , but perhaps your comparison of ,

    was not quite the right one. What he doesn't get is that the product he defends only has one usage - and that usage is an illegal act. (unless it has other uses that I'm not aware of).

    To compare, the gun industry would have to build a product that has no other purpose than to commit a crime. Whatever gun that is ?

    shecky :

    There is a difference between protecting a right and getting a special right. If special right is even the right way to say - a privilege , as you seem to think this law is.

    I can agree with you that we sadly have to fight like hell "to make sure the constitution is interpreted your way" .
    I just can't relate the mp3 thing with second ammendment rights which are specific and easy to interpret for those who are not anti-gun . And I can't relate to your anomisity toward the NRA for working to protect us from loosing our second amendment rights by helping manufactures stay in business with the legal products they provide.

    We live in a world that sometimes seems upside down to me . People can sue a restraunt for spilling coffee on themselves ? , the tobacco industry can be sued for the health damage caused by a product that you are warned is bad for you right on the package ? There are those who want to sue the restraunts for making you fat ? I'm amazed at the mess the lawyers can make out of common sense. I'm amazed that we have to try to pass a law just to stop this kind of stupidity .
     
  22. allmons

    allmons Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    115
    Location:
    East Tennessee
    Firearms law

    I agree with the comparisons to a point, but the Supremes were wrong to rule against software companies. As to other uses of KAzaa, Grokster and the like, I direct your attention to post 911- ALL the major networks began to IMMEDIATELY censor those horrifying images to "prevent a backlash against the Muslim community".

    The ONLY place free Americans could share images, videos and thoughts uncensored by the Old Media Giants was on the INTERNET. The file sharing services were vitally important to share and save those images.

    If the censoring continues, where else can Americans far apart get truth? I do not trust the DOJ as far as I can fling wreckage from Mount Carmel or a door from Randy Weaver's house.

    If there are concerns about misuse, tag MP3's so that they cannot be given away freely. It makes much more sense than trying to shut down file sharing. It is not all porn and stolen copyrighted material, you know.

    :)
     
  23. Andrew Rothman

    Andrew Rothman Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,669
    Location:
    MN
    Baloney. This is a non-scientific self-selected-respondents survey. As DirtyBrad says, they are NEVER mentioned.

    The poll exists because it makes readers feel like they have input on national matters.

    Not that it hurts anything for people to see that 97% of respondents are pro-gun, but news organizations know the difference between the Gallup poll and a box on a web site.
     
  24. Chrontius

    Chrontius Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    472
    McDonalds knew that coffee at 185 degrees was undrinkable and horribly dangerous. The woman who spilled coffee had the cup *dumped* in her lap by the window clerk, who was holding it by the un-secured lid.

    Facts here.

    My favorite tidbit:

    McDonalds knew they were being evil, and they kept doing it. All they had to do was twist this little knob here on the coffee machine, and make sure they had the lids on all the way when they sold a cup of coffee. They were asking - no, begging - for it.
     
  25. Andrew Rothman

    Andrew Rothman Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,669
    Location:
    MN
    Nope. At least, not that I've ever heard, and not mentioned in your link. (And you'd think they would -- it'd be pretty damning!)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page