Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
6/21/2017 8:25:40 PM
Posted: 1/3/2002 6:15:35 AM EDT
Taken from the Chicago Tribune "In a significant victory for gun-control advocates, the Illinois Appellate Court ruled Monday that gunmakers and distributors can be sued on the grounds that their products create a public nuisance." If people can sue gun makers, then shouldn't victims of 9/11 be allowed to sue box cutter makers and knife makers? Was it not a public nuisance when box cutters brought about the deaths of thousands of people and disrupted the entire nation? Should not Knife makers be held responsible for destroying the lives of the thousands of families and be held responsible for the loss of revenue suffered by businesses as a direct result of 9/11? Just a thought.
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 6:19:25 AM EDT
So, let's sue the car manufactures for flooding the market with cars and causing car accidents, or for putting stereos in cars adn letting people turn them up. One more reason NOT to live in Il.... [smoke]
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 6:30:21 AM EDT
We are in serious need of some kind of reform in our court system. The A-holes who initiate these suits don't actually intend on winning...they just hope that defending themselves in court will financially damage the gun makers enough to bankrupt them. Maybe someone needs to enact a law whereby the perpetrators (and lawyers who help them) of frivolous suits will be held personally financially liable if their case fails. That should deter all but the most serious cases. As Yarddawg and timh said, there are multitudes of products out there that in one way or another harm people by their use or misuse. The responsiblity lies with the person who wields the device (assuming it isn't defective). Cars kill WAY more people (and children) than guns do...yet, I don't see anyone suing Ford, Toyota, GM, and Mercedes over it. If I run someone over with my car, who is responsible? Me or Ford?
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 6:31:39 AM EDT
There has got to be a point when the law makers have to say enough is enough and stop allowing people to sue at the drop of a hat. If you buy an item and kill someone with it, it is your fault, not the fault of the manufacturer. If the product were defective and the defect caused a death then hell yes, sue them blind. Put the blame where it belongs, guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 6:34:38 AM EDT
And another thing... Once the gun haters suceed in putting all gun manufacturers out of business, I hope they are ready to hand over their freedoms to our government...or worse yet, another government. Who do they think produces the weapons that defend this nation? Of course, commie libs like to play footsie and nicy-nice with all the despots and tyrannical regimes worldwide...they don't even think that we need to defend ourselves or our interests around the globe. They think that if we play nice, then our potential enemies will be nice back. Idiots.
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 6:40:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Yard_Dawg: There has got to be a point when the law makers have to say enough is enough and stop allowing people to sue at the drop of a hat.
View Quote
I'm not holding out hope. While I agree with your sentiments 100%, we must keep in mind that at least half of the "law makers" out there WANT gun makers out of business. They also WANT to keep all their lawyer friends (ie campain contributors) working...so there isn't much incentive for them to do anyting. Plus, we must consider the political mileage that politicians gain in certain circles (commies, soccer moms, etc) by "taking action" against "evil" gun makers. Sad.
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 6:41:48 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 6:46:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By soylentgreen: I'm not holding out hope. While I agree with your sentiments 100%, we must keep in mind that at least half of the "law makers" out there WANT gun makers out of business. They also WANT to keep all their lawyer friends (ie campain contributors) working...so there isn't much incentive for them to do anyting. Plus, we must consider the political mileage that politicians gain in certain circles (commies, soccer moms, etc) by "taking action" against "evil" gun makers. Sad.
View Quote
Good point. Also, don't forget that about 90% of our esteemed lawmakers are [b]lawyers[/b]. They're not going to do anything serious about tort reform. Forget it. Not gonna happen. They wouldn't dream of doing anything that would hamstring them in case their constituents tire of them loafing on their asses and throw them back in the Darwinian job market. They are always secure in the knowledge that they have ambulance chasing to fall back on.
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 6:52:26 AM EDT
This sucks, but look at the bright side. At least one of these things needs to advance before it can reach the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court as it is now would throw this frivilous crap right out the window and that would be the end of it. These lawsuits will go on forever until the Supreme Court rules on it. Any Justice appointed by Bush in the future most likely will be pro-gun or at worst not anti-gun. This is just the case of some kangaroo court advancing a lawsuit to please the sleazy scumbags (democrats) that appointed them. This is why gun rights groups stessed the importance of electing pro-gun pols for the purpose of appointing fair judges to the courts.
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 6:55:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: Just another nail in the coffin. I read an article some time back in one of the gun magazines. The author asserted that the gun industry is in an irreversable decline. From everything I have seen, the guy is right.
View Quote
Won't it be hilarious once the gun makers are in bankruptcy if the government has to bail them out in order to get war materiel? That would really steam the pinkos in our country, eh? Can't the President do something about this? How about an executive order? I mean, we need guns to continue and be successful in our "war on terrorism". Isn't it the executive's duty to halt these ridiculous lawsuits in the name of national security?
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 6:57:27 AM EDT
This stems from the liberalization of social values in our country. Part of the liberal mantra is that people are not responsible for their own actions, it is always somebody else's fault or there were mitigating circumstances. These "victims" of gun violence want to sue gun manufacturers because they were wounded or (sadly) lost relatives to gunfire because the shooter was not responsible. The gun manufacturer was/is responsible for the gun violence because they created a weapon that will go bang if the trigger is pulled. This deals mostly with the idiot parents who had children blow their own brains out because they found a gun. Like the lawsuit some PRK dipshits brought against Beretta a few years ago. The parents lost a child because they didn't properly secure the weapon and unload it and when Little Johnny found it, bang, dead toddler. But of course, it wasn't the parent's fault. The damn gun manufacturers didn't put passive safeties in their weapon to prevent unauthorized users from firing the weapon. The criminal misuse is not the fault of the criminals who used the firearms because they are not responsible for their actions. If the evil gun manufacturers had not made the firearm, the criminal would never have had access to a weapon and would have led a perfectly normal, law-abiding life. You don't even need to read between the lines of the anti-gunner's arguments to see that they don't believe gun violence is the fault of the criminals who perpetrated the act. It is a little bit harder to realize how they feel about negligent parents however, because they will side with negligent parents who blame others, but stigmatize parents who accept culpability. Don't even get me started on the liberal pursuit of "reproductive rights."
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 6:58:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By dolphin72: This sucks, but look at the bright side. At least one of these things needs to advance before it can reach the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court as it is now would throw this frivilous crap right out the window and that would be the end of it.
View Quote
Yes, but how many millions of dollars in court costs and lawyer's fees would it cost gunmakers by the time it got to the Supreme Court? As I said, THAT is the real aim of this...draining the pocketbooks of gunmakers until they succumb to the economic realities of that.
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 7:02:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Redmanfms: This stems from the liberalization of social values in our country. Part of the liberal mantra is that people are not responsible for their own actions, it is always somebody else's fault or there were mitigating circumstances. These "victims" of gun violence want to sue gun manufacturers because they were wounded or (sadly) lost relatives to gunfire because the shooter was not responsible.
View Quote
While I agree with you 100% on the liberalization of social values and the scapegoating of manufacturers for the irresponsiblity of individuals...I also have another thought. Suing the irresponsible thug who shot your kid or your wife is fruitless...they have no cash. On the other hand, the "evil" corporate gunmakers have deep pockets. That's a major motivating factor in going after them...they actually have money.
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 7:04:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22: Good point. Also, don't forget that about 90% of our esteemed lawmakers are [b]lawyers[/b]. They're not going to do anything serious about tort reform. Forget it. Not gonna happen....They are always secure in the knowledge that they have ambulance chasing to fall back on.
View Quote
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding...give that man a cigar!
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 7:10:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By soylentgreen:
Originally Posted By dolphin72: This sucks, but look at the bright side. At least one of these things needs to advance before it can reach the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court as it is now would throw this frivilous crap right out the window and that would be the end of it.
View Quote
Yes, but how many millions of dollars in court costs and lawyer's fees would it cost gunmakers by the time it got to the Supreme Court? As I said, THAT is the real aim of this...draining the pocketbooks of gunmakers until they succumb to the economic realities of that.
View Quote
Very true, but the anti's aren't just going to stop one day. They will continue this unitl they have drained every resource or until the state legislatures pass laws preventing this stuff. More states than not have passed laws against these lawsuits. This is about more than guns, it is about tort reform and personal responsibility. An overwhelming percentage of Americans do not support these lawsuits. Even a lot of anti-gunners don't support these lawsuits because they have deeper implications than just getting rid of gun manufacturers. Next it will be distilleries and breweries, then auto manufacturers, drug makers, fast food chains the list will go on and on. Hell, I have even heard of people suing their investment firms because the stock market took a dump and they lost their life savings. There will always be some judge or appellate court that will side with the victim and not the law.
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 7:27:54 AM EDT
Suing gun manufactures because their products cause a “public nuisance” is absurd. Lawsuits should only be filed if there are injuries caused by a product not operating properly due to poor design, like if the brakes on a new car fail. Suits should not be filed for injuries resulting from intentional misuse, such as car tires that blow out because they were over inflated. Likewise, if a criminal murders someone with a gun, it is the criminal’s misuse of the gun, not a poor gun design, which results in death. Guns that are used in a safe, legal manner very rarely cause injuries.
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 7:37:58 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 7:58:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By dolphin72: An overwhelming percentage of Americans do not support these lawsuits. Even a lot of anti-gunners don't support these lawsuits because they have deeper implications than just getting rid of gun manufacturers. Next it will be distilleries and breweries, then auto manufacturers, drug makers, fast food chains the list will go on and on.
View Quote
Agreed. But, somehow I think only industries which are deemed "evil" by a massive public relations campaign will actually fall victim to this mentality. Right now, I think gunmakers and tobacco (and possibly makers of alcoholic beverages) fall into this category. I suspect you are right...as time goes by, more and more industries will be hit with this sort of ridiculous thing. It's maddening.
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 8:19:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Cato556: Suing gun manufactures because their products cause a “public nuisance” is absurd.
View Quote
Yup. This is a "back door" way for the gun-haters to forward their twisted agenda.
Originally Posted By Cato556: Lawsuits should only be filed if there are injuries caused by a product not operating properly due to poor design...
View Quote
...or defective manufacture. And, I would say that the vast majority of cases where injury is caused by deficient design or manufacture could be settled without any courts at all. I mean, most manufacturers would be happy to compensate their customer in the event of an unfortunate happening involving their product. They don't want any bad publicity. If their product truly is at fault, most of them would offer some kind of good faith compensation. The only time there is a need to go to court is when: 1) There is a disagreement between the user and the manufacturer as to the cause of the injury (misuse or defective product). 2) The manufacturer refuses to act in good faith to settle the issue which is due to their fault. 3) Some A-hole figures he'll get really rich if he sues. 4) Another A-hole (or group of A-holes) uses the opportunity to villify and take down an industry. 5) A politician (or aspiring politician) uses the situation to further his own political career.
Originally Posted By Cato556: Suits should not be filed for injuries resulting from intentional misuse
View Quote
No reasonable person would disagree with you there. Unfortunately, reason seems to be in short supply these days...
Originally Posted By Cato556: Likewise, if a criminal murders someone with a gun, it is the criminal’s misuse of the gun, not a poor gun design, which results in death. Guns that are used in a safe, legal manner very rarely cause injuries.
View Quote
True, so true. Almost any implement could be used as a murder weapon. A brick, a kitchen knife, an ice pick, a pipe, a folding chair, a baseball bat, a can of gasoline, a forklift truck, a sharpened stick, etc, etc...
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 8:39:32 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 9:04:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: For the last 50-100 years, we as a human race have finally realized our dream of conquering nature via mechanical means. We have elevated ourselves above the natural element, using our superior(?) intelligence. With that ability came the promises of the technology to protect us from the laws of nature.
View Quote
Sometimes, I think we are less insulated from nature than we'd like to think. People are still killed by floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. In general, only a small percentage of the human population has attained our level of "comfort". But, I totally see your point. When things fall out of place, people don't know what to do...all they usually do is whine.
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: For the last 50-100 years...Suddenly we were free from the day to day struggle to survive, to explore the outer limits of human existance, expression, science and art."
View Quote
Yea, we've been so "freed" that we have time to pursue BAD art too! Ha, ha, ha!
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 9:57:53 PM EDT
Top Top