blatantly stupid... got to love the NY Times choice for op ed writers

[Bonestorm]

I have been told, consistently, by many of the posters here that settlements without convictions are nothing but that....settlements. it is no admission of liability, so your claim really means nothing.

I can't speak to what other posters might have told you, but I didn't say that a settlement was an admission of liability. I said that fact that the claim settled for $2.5 million, which is roughly 2.4+ million more than nuisance value, suggests that the claim was potentially mertiorious (meaning it had a chance of success). And if these claims are potentially meritorious, then Congress shouldn't grant gun manufacturers immunity from suit.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Nobody has "grabbed" any gun in the US via federal law in the last 50 years....even the DC law was overturned. So stop braying that bullshit.

you have been constantly reminded to learn facts before you 'bray your bullshit'. look up how many guns were 'grabbed' by federal law after domestic violence was included in the list of things that eliminated peoples rights.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I can't speak to what other posters might have told you, but I didn't say that a settlement was an admission of liability. I said that fact that the claim settled for $2.5 million, which is roughly 2.4+ million more than nuisance value, suggests that the claim was potentially mertiorious (meaning it had a chance of success). And if these claims are potentially meritorious, then Congress shouldn't grant gun manufacturers immunity from suit.

then maybe governments and police officers shouldn't be granted immunity from claims against them, since settlements dictate potential merit.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Coors, nor an automobile are designed to kill things.

You've obviously haven't drank any Coors lately, have you?

 

[Bonestorm]

then maybe governments and police officers shouldn't be granted immunity from claims against them, since settlements dictate potential merit.

Separate issue, but valid point.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

You've obviously haven't drank any Coors lately, have you?

LOL Mott does comic relief better than anyone here I think.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

If you want to start a movement to ban cars, go ahead. If you want to join MADD or other anti-alcohol groups, go ahead.

But those have nothing to do with guns or gun control; it's a logical fallacy to say "X number of people die in autos and therefore we shouldn't control guns".

Has it escaped your notice that we DO control cars and alcohol? With cars - safety belts, air bags, increased standards for crash safety, licenses, insurance, etc. We do that not because we can stop all car deaths; but because we want to reduce the chance of death.

With alcohol - rules around BAC, age that you can drink at, and a HUGE educational campaign to reduce the damage.

So rules around guns - to reduce the carnage; we know we won't eliminate it. Why can't you gun lovers appreciate that?

Good point but your right to drink or drive a car have not been enshrined in the constitution.

 

[tekkychick]

you have been constantly reminded to learn facts before you 'bray your bullshit'. look up how many guns were 'grabbed' by federal law after domestic violence was included in the list of things that eliminated peoples rights.

Was it federal law or state law?

I know in California for the last couple years we have been going after guns that are owned by people who no longer qualify to own guns. So when they bought the gun, they passed the background check; since then, they have done something - domestic violence, felony, whatever - that would bar them from owning a gun. We are correlating the lists and going after them to get their guns back.

So yes, we are seizing guns in California, but it's a state program. And one I'm comfortable with.

That's a bit of a fine point, of course.

Personally, I do think that people who are abusers should NOT have guns.

Access to firearms yields a more than five-fold increase in risk of intimate partner homicide when considering other factors of abuse, according to a recent study, suggesting that abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners.

Of females killed with a firearm, almost two-thirds were killed by their intimate partners. The number of females shot and killed by their husband or intimate partner was more than three times higher than the total number murdered by male strangers using all weapons combined in single victim/single offender incidents in 2002.

above stats from: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/domestic_violence/resources/statistics.html

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Was it federal law or state law?

federal, because police unions all across the country had a cow when they realized it affected them as well.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Personally, I do think that people who are abusers should NOT have guns.

If that were true no one would ever join the Marine Corp......but I think we're talking about a different kind of abuse.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

LOL Mott does comic relief better than anyone here I think.

When it comes to comic relief I'm a pale shadow compared to Charver.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No, it's a separate issue, which is why you changed your tune from "do we allow this?" to "are these suits successful?"

No, I did not change my tune. You tried to make it about whether there was a law on the books that specifically prohibited it. Which is not what I said. I said we do not allow it. Which is why those cases are not being brought in droves to the courts. Which is why you are the one trying to divert the topic.

That's very informative, but you can sue whoever the hell you want for whatever the hell you want unless there's a law that says you wan't.

Thats quite nice, except frivolous cases without merit are not usually taken by lawyers nor accepted by judges.

Oh, I see. So we can't let gun manufacturers get sued (unlike how we let GM and Coors get sued) because a jury might find the claims meritorious? That doesn't sound like a good reason not to let gun manufacturers be sued.

Except that it isn't meritorious. It is frivolous. If you buy a product and misuse it which leads to the injury or death of another, it is on YOU... not the company that made the product. If we let such cases go to court, no one would make anything unless they had insurance to cover such events. When insurance gets involved you get the insane jury awards because they think the insurance companies can 'afford it'. I know liberals like you like to put the blame on everyone else rather than have personal responsibility, but sane people disagree.

Also, too, you keep talking about "misuse" of guns and I'm not sure why. Killing people is what guns are designed to do when operated properly.

Killing innocent people is not what they are designed to do. Killing people is something they CAN do. So is target shooting. So is killing animals for food or pest control.

You pretend not to comprehend this because it shatters your gun grabbing rhetoric.

Cars are not made for killing people... yet they kill far more people each year... so are you really worried about the end result? or are you really just all about grabbing guns?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Nobody has "grabbed" any gun in the US via federal law in the last 50 years....even the DC law was overturned. So stop braying that bullshit.

And guns are designed to KILL...whether it be for food, defense or offense. "Target" shooting is to hone those skills. CHOICE determines how the gun is used.

People kill people....and they can do it more efficiently with guns.

Read the bolded... that is precisely the point. It is the choice of the individual how to use the gun. Thus it is the individual that is responsible.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Nobody has "grabbed" any gun in the US via federal law in the last 50 years....even the DC law was overturned. So stop braying that bullshit.

And guns are designed to KILL...whether it be for food, defense or offense. "Target" shooting is to hone those skills. CHOICE determines how the gun is used.

People kill people....and they can do it more efficiently with guns.

Also, there are more than 300mm guns owned in the US and about 250mm cars.

 

[Bonestorm]

No, I did not change my tune. You tried to make it about whether there was a law on the books that specifically prohibited it. Which is not what I said. I said we do not allow it. Which is why those cases are not being brought in droves to the courts. Which is why you are the one trying to divert the topic.

But we do allow it.

Thats quite nice, except frivolous cases without merit are not usually taken by lawyers nor accepted by judges.

Judges dont have to accept cases for them to be filed. They're just filed. And you don't need a lawyer to file a lawsuit. You see, you're speaking to the mertis of the lawsuit, not whether the cases can be brought in the first instance. They can most certainly be filed, they're just not very likely to be successful. By contrast, lawsuits against gun manufacturers cannot be brought in the first instance, even though they're meritorious. And that's why "Can the case be brought?" is separate and apart from "Is the case meritorious?"

Except that it isn't meritorious. It is frivolous. If you buy a product and misuse it which leads to the injury or death of another, it is on YOU... not the company that made the product. If we let such cases go to court, no one would make anything unless they had insurance to cover such events. When insurance gets involved you get the insane jury awards because they think the insurance companies can 'afford it'. I know liberals like you like to put the blame on everyone else rather than have personal responsibility, but sane people disagree.

Defendants don't pay $2.5 million to settle and spend God knows how much lobbying Congress for immunity against frivlous suits.

Killing innocent people is not what they are designed to do. Killing people is something they CAN do. So is target shooting. So is killing animals for food or pest control.

Guns are designed to kill when operated properly. Innocent. Guilty. A little shady but nice when you get to know him. It doesn't matter to the gun. Their other uses are killing (anmials) and practicing killing.

You pretend not to comprehend this because it shatters your gun grabbing rhetoric.

Smart take.

Cars are not made for killing people... yet they kill far more people each year... so are you really worried about the end result? or are you really just all about grabbing guns?

You don't see me advocating for lawsuits to shield automobile manufacturers from liability from lawsuits do you? So what is your point, exactly?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

But we do allow it.

Then you will be able to provide us with cases... link us up

Judges dont have to accept cases for them to be filed. They're just filed. And you don't need a lawyer to file a lawsuit. You see, you're speaking to the mertis of the lawsuit, not whether the cases can be brought in the first instance. They can most certainly be filed, they're just not very likely to be successful. By contrast, lawsuits against gun manufacturers cannot be brought in the first instance, even though they're meritorious. And that's why "Can the case be brought?" is separate and apart from "Is the case meritorious?"

I didn't say anything about people 'filing' a suit. I am saying whether or not they ever see the light of a court room for trial. Do they make it or do they not?

Defendants don't pay $2.5 million to settle and spend God knows how much lobbying Congress for immunity against frivlous suits.

When the gun store owner loses the damn gun to someone who eventually goes on a shooting spree... they do. Companies settle all the time to avoid on going costs of extended suits. Which is what Bushmaster did. $500k to be done with it. Then they and others spent money to stop other frivolous suits from coming forth. Otherwise every murder would come back to them, regardless of whether the gun was purchased legally or not. They would have to fight one suit after another. It would be never ending.

Guns are designed to kill when operated properly. Innocent. Guilty. A little shady but nice when you get to know him. It doesn't matter to the gun. Their other uses are killing (anmials) and practicing killing.

No guns are designed to fire bullets. The target is up to the owner of the gun. A point you refuse to acknowledge. It is the person shooting the gun that determines whether or not it is pointed at something/someone he/she wishes to kill.

Target practice is just that... target practice. It is fun. It is recreational. Another point you gun grabbers refuse to acknowledge.

No one said it 'mattered to the gun' you idiot... a gun is an inanimate object. The gun also doesn't care if you only use it for target practice. In fact (and this will shock you), the gun doesn't care about anything. Inanimate objects are like that.

Smart take.

better than your dumbass take

You don't see me advocating for lawsuits to shield automobile manufacturers from liability from lawsuits do you? So what is your point, exactly?

That you are a gun grabber.

 

[tekkychick]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/let-shooting-victims-sue.html

'let shooting victims sue gun companies' says this walking brain trust op ed writer for the NY Times. Do we allow people to sue Coors if someone drinks too much and starts a fight? Do we allow people to sue GM when some moron drives drunk/wreckless and injures/kills another?

No... we do not. Yet we hear this type of nonsense from gun grabbers.

So back to the initial post. The gun industry is the only one we DON'T allow to be sued; all the others can be sued.

Why should the gun industry get special protection from lawsuits?

Lawsuits, as I posted earlier from the Time article, cause companies to take more care about making their products. Oh, Time said it better:

Civil lawsuits do two important things: they compensate people who are injured by the bad acts of others and they penalize people and companies for bad behavior. If a company knows it may have to pay a large amount of money if it poses an unreasonable threat to others, it will have a strong incentive to act better.

Lawsuits prod companies to make their products safer. Years ago, lawsuits over the Ford Pinto’s fuel tank fires led Ford to recall the troubled car and improve the design. Since then, all sorts of consumer products — from aboveground swimming pools to children’s pajamas — have been made safer by litigation or the threat of litigatio

Lawsuits also make retailers act more prudently when they sell things. “Dram shop” laws are a classic example. These laws, which allow victims of drunk drivers to sue the bar that sold the liquor, put pressure on bars and restaurants not to let people drive home drunk.

http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/24/why-is-congress-protecting-the-gun-industry/

So why do you want the gun industry to continue to get special treatment?

 

[Bonestorm]

Then you will be able to provide us with cases... link us up

Nope.

I didn't say anything about people 'filing' a suit. I am saying whether or not they ever see the light of a court room for trial. Do they make it or do they not?

Actually, you did say something about people filing a suit. You may not have meant to, but you did. You asked "Do we allow people to sue . . . " A separate question is whether the claims are meritorious. We allow people to sue GM and Coors and whoever and have their claims resolved on the merits. Not so for gun manufacturers.

When the gun store owner loses the damn gun to someone who eventually goes on a shooting spree... they do. Companies settle all the time to avoid on going costs of extended suits. Which is what Bushmaster did. $500k to be done with it. Then they and others spent money to stop other frivolous suits from coming forth. Otherwise every murder would come back to them, regardless of whether the gun was purchased legally or not. They would have to fight one suit after another. It would be never ending.

$2.5 million is not nuisance value. I agree that it's much easier to get your friends in Congress to grant you immunity than it is to win on the merits of a lawsuit, but let's not pretend that the defendants paid out $2.5 million without any fear that they might lose.

No guns are designed to fire bullets. The target is up to the owner of the gun. A point you refuse to acknowledge. It is the person shooting the gun that determines whether or not it is pointed at something/someone he/she wishes to kill.

Target practice is just that... target practice. It is fun. It is recreational. Another point you gun grabbers refuse to acknowledge.

I'd take you slightly more seriously if you just admitted the basic fact that guns are designed to be efficient killing machines. That's what they are. Yes, you can use them to do other things (like shooting at inanimte objects (that often are facsimiles of animate objects -- like people)) but killing is what they are designed to do.

No one said it 'mattered to the gun' you idiot... a gun is an inanimate object. The gun also doesn't care if you only use it for target practice. In fact (and this will shock you), the gun doesn't care about anything. Inanimate objects are like that.

Oh, I'm aware of this. I just wasn't sure that you were since you said that guns aren't designed to kill innocent people as though gun manufacturers designe the firearms to discriminate amongst the innocent and guilty.

That you are a gun grabber.

Another smart take. I don't see how its "gun grabber" for someone to oppose gun manufacturers being granted special immunity from liability in civil lawsuits where plaintiffs might otherwise prevail on the merits of their claims. That strikes me as kinda fucked up and not really the way to get gun manufacturers to ensure that their products are as safe as possible.

 

[The Dude]

Also, there are more than 300mm guns owned in the US and about 250mm cars.

Which is the main reason our murder rate is 4x England and France

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So back to the initial post. The gun industry is the only one we DON'T allow to be sued; all the others can be sued.

Why should the gun industry get special protection from lawsuits?

because the firearms industry is a target group for gun banners to sue and cause hardships for with no other purpose than to bankrupt them.