2410. CoralReef - Feb. 5, 1999 - 12:02 PM PT
Time for a new topic.
Recently a group of New York policemen decided 40 bullets just weren't enough to stop an unarmed West African immigrant with no criminal record. Three of the officers had been involved in shootings before, in a precinct in which 90% of officers never fire their weapons.
2421. 109109 - Feb. 5, 1999 - 12:37 PM PT
Coral
Do you know the races of the shooters?
2424. CalGal - Feb. 5, 1999 - 1:02 PM PT
Yes, Coral, is there a link on this?
2426. CoralReef - Feb. 5, 1999 - 1:23 PM PT
Shooting link 1
Shooting link 2
2427. robertjayb - Feb. 5, 1999 - 3:27 PM PT
CoralReef,
Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon
story. The one-shoot, all-shoot practice
seems commonplace. That, plus the use
of high-capacity semiautomatic pistols,
contributes to these inexcusable events.
Poor personnel screening, poor training,
and political cowardice play a large
role as well, imho.
2428. BonJour - Feb. 5, 1999 - 3:44 PM PT
New York City cops have excellent training and are some of the best law enforcement officers in the world.
The reason why police have semi-automatic weapons is because criminals use them and a number of cops have been murdered because they were outgunned.
What happened last night in New York was tragic, but let's wait until we hear the policemen's side of the story before we pass judgment.
2429. JadeGold - Feb. 5, 1999 - 3:59 PM PT
Yeah, I'm sure Abner Louma shares your opinion, Freeper.
No excuse for 4 cops to fire 41 rounds at anyone.
2430. bubbaette - Feb. 5, 1999 - 4:16 PM PT
Think back to when you were in grade school and high school. Who became cops when they grew up. As I recall, some of them were kind of overbearing in nature and enjoyed using authority. There was one guy prone to temper-tantrums and an out-and-out bully.
Of course I've known a really neat person who used to be a cop -- my ethics professor in grad school. But over all, I'd say that the profession attracts a certain type like politics attracts a certain type.
2431. CalGal - Feb. 5, 1999 - 4:24 PM PT
Oh, lord.
Bubba, retract.
2432. bubbaette - Feb. 5, 1999 - 4:34 PM PT
How come? Perhaps I should post that in stereotypes? But in my limited sample, it's certainly true.
2433. CalGal - Feb. 5, 1999 - 4:42 PM PT
Well, I don't agree that your stereotype is accurate, but I'm not objecting to your use of it.
But it's not a good idea to make negative comments about cops in the Fray. Some people know cops. Or live with them.
You might want to qualify your statement with, "And of course there are *wonderful* police officers, who are in the profession to help others and benefit the community!"
(and yes, I'm joshing, by and large. Much the same as we all gasped when Diva called Pseudo a libertarian.)
2434. robertjayb - Feb. 5, 1999 - 5:03 PM PT
Excerpts from an article in Tuesday's Houston
Chronicle:
...Police Chief C. O. Bradford has institued additional
trainings, more widespread deployment of specialized
weapons such as tasers and a new review process in
the wake of controversial police shootings...
..."We want them to do what they have to do to survive,"
Bradford said...But, he added, officers must understand
that "for each round they discharge, there is accountability
required..."
...Bradford said he formed a Critical Incident Review
Group, composed of officers and an assistant chief,
to study some of the past shootings and recommend
training changes or additions...
---------------------------
This is typical cover-your-ass self-invesigation.
2436. ranger - Feb. 6, 1999 - 10:24 AM PT
That shooting would never had taken place if the public access to firearms were greatly curtailed. If all of the private firearms were confiscated we would take a giant step toward a more civilised society.
You never hear of bobbies in England of overclubbing a jaywalker.
The second amendment is dead. It was meant for a more gentile time.
If only 30% of a population vote(and a much smaller fraction of that is qualified to vote) They surely, as a society, do not have a great enough sense of responsibility to possess firearms.
BAAAA BAAAA BAAA
American Sheep Party
2437. Greystoke - Feb. 6, 1999 - 10:41 AM PT
ranger
So its the fault of the Second Amendment when cops open fire on citizens? That's an interesting theory.
"The second amendment is dead. It was meant for a more gentile time."
I disagree. In my area, many people carry firearms around in their vehicles all the time, especially during hunting season. We hardly ever have a murder. And when we do it is usually a domestic dispute.
My family and friends all have many firearms and we've never shot anyone.
"If only 30% of a population vote(and a much smaller fraction of that is qualified to vote) They surely, as a society, do not have a great enough sense of responsibility to possess firearms."
I fail to see any connection between voting and the right (yes right) to own firearms.
2438. Greystoke - Feb. 6, 1999 - 10:47 AM PT
bubbaette
"Who became cops when they grew up. As I recall, some of them were kind of overbearing in nature and enjoyed using authority. There was one guy prone to temper-tantrums and an out-and-out bully."
I agree 100%. Many people get into law enforcement because they like to push other people around. Its easier to push people around without fear of retaliation when you have a badge to hide behind.
2440. cllrdr - Feb. 6, 1999 - 11:48 AM PT
"The second amendment is dead. It was meant for a more gentile time."
You mean before the Jews took over the world -- right ranger?
2441. ranger - Feb. 6, 1999 - 11:57 AM PT
Rights? Rights to own guns? Right.
the people of America do not care enough to have a right as that. They don't vote. Or, when they do vote they aren't educated enough on the issues at hand to even speak intelligently about them, let alone have a say in their implementation.
Yes, there is a connection to the peoples' inability to vote intelligently and the "right" (as you call it) to carry firearms. It is; a sense of duty, a sense of responsibility, a depth of committment. All traits that the populace of the USofA are unwilling to exercise or no longer possess. If a population is unable to vote intelligently, unable to excersise that duty, THAT RIGHT, then they do not deserve the possession of firearms.
2442. ranger - Feb. 6, 1999 - 12:03 PM PT
Wow, Genteel, gentle, gentile OUCH! I deserved that.
Cellar you da man!
Anyhoo, to expand further on the police/GUN stuff. Yes, it is connected to the 2nd amendment. If the populace was disallowed the possession of firearms then the police would no longer need to carry firearms either.
Think of the lives that may die which would be saved if noone had firearms.
2443. CoralReef - Feb. 6, 1999 - 12:57 PM PT
update on the n.y. shooting.
2444. Greystoke - Feb. 6, 1999 - 1:27 PM PT
ranger
"Anyhoo, to expand further on the police/GUN stuff. Yes, it is connected to the 2nd amendment. If the populace was disallowed the possession of firearms then the police would no longer need to carry firearms either."
Yes, and by that reasoning, since drug possession is disallowed, then no citizens have drugs. Right?
Even if gun possession was illegal, some people would obviously still have guns. By definition, they would all be criminals. So the police would still need guns in order to enforce the ban on gun ownership.
But this argument is purely hypothetical because Americans have the right to own firearms because of the Second Amendment. And the Constitution does not make any of our rights contingent on our willingness to vote. So I find all of your arguments against gun ownership to be rather unconvincing.
2445. CoralReef - Feb. 6, 1999 - 7:26 PM PT
Re: the broken windows theory.
It's the idea that allowing small crimes and small disorders to get out of hand creates an atmosphere of criminality and neglect that makes criminals feel they have free rein and makes law-abiding folks retreat. Specifically, the analogy of the phrase is of a neighborhood where windows are broken, maybe some minor vandalism. When it doesn't get fixed it signals 'no one cares about this area', which can lead to problems.
For example, the squeege guys in NY who famously would squeegy the windshield of hapless motorists then demand change. It led to an atmostphere of lawlessness, even if in itself it was no great harm.
Additionally they have found cracking down on minor crimes like turnstile jumping yields many people with outstanding warrants on other issues and cuts down on the brazenness of offenders.
Anyway, that's the theory, make of it what you will. It was touted by various chiefs of police including including N.Y.'s Bratton as being behind the recent downturn in crime.
Of course, the massive economic boom was probably the real cause of the downturn in crime, but that's another story.
And needless to say, guys, if I got part of it wrong, enlighten me.
2446. CoralReef - Feb. 6, 1999 - 7:32 PM PT
Greystoke: it may be past time when it matters whether you are convinced of gun control's worth. The legal steamroller that has been aimed at tobacco companies is now starting up aimed at banning guns.
2447. wonkers2 - Feb. 6, 1999 - 7:41 PM PT
Coral Reef, You got it right except you neglected to mention that cracking down includes shooting unarmed innocent suspects 41 times in their own vestibule, countless erroneous drug raids terrorizing the wrong people, not to mention the sickening Abner Louima episode.
2448. wonkers2 - Feb. 6, 1999 - 7:42 PM PT
CR, Sorry, I hadn't read the previous few posts. Pardon! Now I have!
2450. Slackjaw - Feb. 7, 1999 - 1:22 AM PT
I believe that the sociologist James Q. Wilson coined the term broken window effect.
I have also heard it used to refer to the notion that physical destruction is good for an economy because it stiumlates employment to fix the damage. As in new construction work following a hurricane.
2452. resonance - Feb. 7, 1999 - 1:25 AM PT
The ironic thing is that Laertes originally used the phrase to explain why a half-stripped woman arouses desire in men.
2454. FreeToChoose - Feb. 7, 1999 - 7:53 AM PT
Slackjaw
I had forgotten about the other meaning of the broken window effect. Thanks for reminding me. As you no doubt know, the hypothesis is flawed. The debunking can be found in Henry Hazlitt's delightful, and easily readable book:
Economics in one easy lesson
As an ironic aside, while searching for the book, I bumped into the following item. Perhaps yet another “window-breaking” concept.
“1 Microsoft Way : A Cookbook to Breaking Bill Gates Windows Monopoly Without
Breaking Windows”
2456. Greystoke - Feb. 7, 1999 - 8:30 AM PT
CoralReef Message #2446
"The legal steamroller that has been aimed at tobacco companies is now starting up aimed at banning guns."
Well, a person's supply of tobacco must constantly be replenished. So if the tobacco companies are driven out of business, then smokers may indeed have trouble getting cigarettes.
But once a person has a gun, he is likely to keep it for the rest of his life. So even if the gun companies are driven out of business, tens of millions of people would continue to own hundreds of millions of guns.
Now if the lawyers start aiming their lawsuits at the manufacturers of ammunition, then the problem may be a bit more like cigarettes. However, many people have guns and ammo, and rarely even fire the gun. And some people load their own ammo. So the ammo would last a lifetime, too.
In my opinion, it is absolutely ridiculous that the courts would allow these kinds of lawsuits to go forward. Cigarette smokers know the risks. There are many remedies to help people quit smoking. If a person continues to smoke and gets cancer, they have no one to blame but themselves. I don't mean to be dismissive of the suffering of lung cancer patients and their families, because it is terrible. My father-in-law died of lung cancer last year. But no one in my wife's family blamed the cigarette manufacturers for his fate.
This is just another opportunity for greedy lawyers to abuse the tort system in order to line their own pockets with money. Just look at the scavengers grabbing for money every time a state makes a settlement with the tobacco companies. Its disgusting.
2457. Greystoke - Feb. 7, 1999 - 8:31 AM PT
continued
For guns, its not even the case of a defective product, or a product having unintended consequences. If someone pulls the trigger of a gun it will fire a bullet. If the gun it aimed at another person the bullet may kill that person. How is it the fault of the gun manufacturer if this occurs? The product is working as it was designed to. It is entirely the responsibility of the person pulling the trigger if someone is killed. But of course the person pulling the trigger may not have millions of dollars.
The lawyers are simply chasing the almighty dollar, not justice.
2458. CalGal - Feb. 7, 1999 - 9:06 AM PT
Greystoke,
It has been lonely here on the iconoclastic left. I'm happy for the company.
2459. FreeToChoose - Feb. 7, 1999 - 9:17 AM PT
Greystoke
Absolutely
2462. wonkers2 - Feb. 7, 1999 - 11:58 AM PT
Greystoke, Money no doubt entered the minds of the lawyers, but the plaintiffs are people whose relatives have been killed unnecessarily as a result of the negligence of the gunmakers who spew out guns far beyond their possible legitimate use.
2463. ranger - Feb. 7, 1999 - 1:12 PM PT
Tarzan- You really believe that the Constitution will survive without a people that votes regularly and responsibly? BAH!!
The Gun Control Act of 1932
The Gun Control Act of 1968
The Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, has been twisted to mean whatever people want it to mean. The constitution has been folded into an Origami-transmogrifiable into the flavor of the moment.
The government has been afraid of firearms in the peoples hand since the Whiskey Rebellion. The Government outlawed machine guns because it saw the Tommy Gun as the genesis of of the gangland violence in the twenties and thirties. Did the violence diminish? Only the 21st Amendment reduced the violence. Only the legalization of illicit drugs will diminish it now.
Wonkers is Bonkers- The Pistol has only one legitimate use, To Kill another Person. That is why it was designed. All other uses are to support that original purpose. Firearms do what they're designed to do properly, only when they are used only by responsible and educated individuals, Items which are few and far between in this Country.
Rome lasted for 800 years, but was in decline for 300. The United States of America started its decline after only 100 years.
The people of The US have taken the principles which the forefathers founded the Country on and tarnished them with neglect and avarice.
BAAA BAAA BAAA
American Sheep Party
Motto: Born to follow blindly
2464. ranger - Feb. 7, 1999 - 1:20 PM PT
the police will not be able to throw away their firearms ovenight. It is a transition which will take time. It will be a long-drawn out battle but it is a good fight. Remove all firearms from the people.
It has taken England many years to get to its current level of civility. Countries on the Continent as well. We have one handicap to overcome , that wild 'frontier' stereotype which the United States has.
2470. Greystoke - Feb. 7, 1999 - 2:43 PM PT
wonkers
"Greystoke, Money no doubt entered the minds of the lawyers, but the plaintiffs are people whose relatives have been killed unnecessarily as a result of the negligence of the gunmakers who spew out guns far beyond their possible legitimate use."
So when someone uses a gun to murder another person, it is the fault of the gun manufacturer and not the fault of the person who pulled the trigger?
And when a reckless driver runs over a child with his Mustang, it is the fault of Ford Motor Company. And when a lunatic beats his wife to death with a baseball bat, it is the fault of Louisville Slugger, Inc. And when an alcoholic needs a liver transplant, it is the fault of Jack Daniels. And when a tornado destroys a town, it is the fault of the US Weather Service for failing to provide enough warning.
Right? The entity with the money is always at fault, no matter how tangentially they are connected with the incident in question. Just ask a lawyer.
2471. wonkers2 - Feb. 7, 1999 - 6:12 PM PT
Greystoke, Cars and pistols=apples and oranges. Cars have a number of legitimate purposes for ordinary citizens. Most of the guns currently produced have few or no legitimate, useful purposes. The production and sale and ownership of all guns except legitimate hunting guns should be tightly regulated and with few exceptions prohibited entirely.
The gun manufacturers are flooding the market with guns in states with lax laws. These guns are then migrating to states and cities with tough laws where they contribute to crime and mayhem. Tougher national laws are needed. The analogy with the cigarette companies is valid.
2472. Greystoke - Feb. 7, 1999 - 7:27 PM PT
wonkers2
"The production and sale and ownership of all guns except legitimate hunting guns should be tightly regulated and with few exceptions prohibited entirely."
Have you ever read the Second Amendment? It doesn't mention hunting at all. Every American (except a convicted felon) has the right to keep and bear arms, for whatever purpose they choose.
"Most of the guns currently produced have few or no legitimate, useful purposes."
Not true. Most of the guns currently produced could be used to defend the homes and lives of law abiding citizens. Less important uses would be hunting and target shooting.
2521. robertjayb - Feb. 8, 1999 - 8:32 PM PT
...Bradford (Houston Police Chief) said he...is concerned over the number of shots fired in some incidents. The number has gone up greatly over the past two decades as more officers begin carrying semiautomatic weapons...
HPD was widely criticized in October after seven officers fired 59 shots at Derek Kaeseman after a chase from downtown Houston into Fort Bend County.
Kaeseman,24, was shot 14 times as he climbed from his wrecked vehicle holding a shiny object that turned out to be a can opener.
...a throw-down can opener?
2524. robertjayb - Feb. 8, 1999 - 8:47 PM PT
...in another shooting six HPD officers, without a search warrant, burst into a souhwest Houston apartment July 12 and killed Pedro Oregon Navarro.
The officers, who said they had a tip that drugs were being sold in the apartment, fired *about* 33 shots, hitting Oregon 12 times. The officers said Oregon pointed a gun at them, and *believed* he had shot one of them.
Bradford fired all six officers, although only one was charged with misdemeanor criminal trespass.
------------------
Wonderful. An out-of-control swarm of cops broke into the wrong apartment and blew away a guy who never knew what was happening.
2525. darkviolet - Feb. 8, 1999 - 8:53 PM PT
"Wonderful. An out-of-control swarm of cops broke into the wrong apartment and blew away a guy who never knew what was happening."
I remember several years ago a group of cops in Portland, OR blasting a 12 year old hostage that way. Guns are really dangerous.
2526. robertjayb - Feb. 8, 1999 - 9:03 PM PT
Guns are *really* dangerous.
Yes, but some guns are more dangerous than others.
When I am in charge, I will take away the semiautomatic pistols with high-capacity magazines (16-rounds plus) and issue revolvers (good old six-shooters) and pump-action shotguns.
2527. darkviolet - Feb. 8, 1999 - 9:10 PM PT
Revolvers (good old six-shooters) and pump-action shotguns aren't dangerous?
2528. robertjayb - Feb. 8, 1999 - 10:05 PM PT
Yes, of course. All firearms are dangerous when misused. But revolvers and pump shotguns are not as susceptible to panicky misuse as other weapons. The popular Glock handgun, with its unique trigger, seems particularly suspect.
2535. wonkers2 - Feb. 9, 1999 - 2:17 PM PT
Apparently the UK police, contrary to their traditional benign image, are nearly as racist as their U.S. counterparts, according to a story I heard part of on NPR today about the bungled police investigation of the racist murder of a young Jamaican immigrant. The five? white toughs got off due to police incompetence/neglect/racism. A hit play depicted the story. At least the bobbies didn't kill the victim as is the frequent case here.
2537. CoralReef - Feb. 9, 1999 - 2:29 PM PT
wonkers, would that be the Stephen Lawrence case? If so, there's a top notch article describing in detail the facts of that case in Granta 57 [avaiable at amazon, etc]. Highly recommended.
2582. CoralReef - Feb. 11, 1999 - 8:30 PM PT
NEW YORK (CNN) -- In a case bound to rock America's gun industry, a federal jury Thursday found 15 of the nation's largest handgun makers negligent in their marketing and distributing practices.
"I thank God, we absolutely won," said lead plaintiff Freddie Hamilton, whose son, Njuzi, was slain in 1993. She predicted the verdict would bring a "new phase" of litigation against the firearms industry.
"I don't think they felt they needed to care, and this verdict will have them rethinking that," said Hamilton.
Another 10 manufacturers were cleared of negligence. "We have seen some things they did that helped take guns off the street ... and stuff like that, that a lot of others didn't do," juror Charles Beatty said.
2583. darkviolet - Feb. 11, 1999 - 10:49 PM PT
CoralReef -
Re: Message #2582
There are so many deadly weapons in American hands.
2588. cartman69 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 1:00 AM PT
CoralReef Message #2582:
Ah, you beat me to it. I've been out of the Fray for a while, but had intended to bring that particular topic up tonight or tomorrow. Interesting story; apparently there are about a half-dozen or so similar lawsuits in the courts right now, all over the country.
This is yet another classic example of judicial idiocy in civil cases. Suing Beretta because your kid got shot by a criminal (or even a friend) makes about as much sense as suing Buick when you wrap your Regal around a telephone pole after going out drinking.
A similar case of idiocy in the courtroom occurred Wednesday, when former 3-pack-a-day smoker Patricia Henley was awarded $51.5 million in punitive & compensatory damages. Now, tobacco companies and their lawyers are the scum of the earth; no news flash there. But whatever happened to personal responsibility? Jurors in civil suits seem to be under the impression that they're in charge of lottery disbursements, and anyone can get paid, no matter how ludicrous their case may be.
2589. CalGal - Feb. 12, 1999 - 1:11 AM PT
Cart,
Hi, guy!
I agree wholeheartedly. But I'm off to bed, so I'll check in in the morning to see what your post has wrought.
2592. CoralReef - Feb. 12, 1999 - 5:26 AM PT
Message #2588 Welcome back, Cart. But I actually brought this up a week ago. I agree it's idiotic but what I most oppose is the undemocratic nature of banning guns by lawsuits rather than using normal legislative procedures, open to public debate.
Unfortunately, this is how sensitive issues are often decided in America, by the courts or by committees.
As for cigarettes, the reason tobacco companies are so reviled in some quarters is no doubt political, they are associated with giving money to the GOP.
2594. Mrtoner - Feb. 12, 1999 - 5:45 AM PT
Cartman 69 (#2588)
You criticize the verdicts against tobacco companies on the ground that the smoker didn't exercise "personal responsibility".
But what about the companies' policy of claiming, for decades, that tobacco wasn't either harmful or addictive?
Newsflash: Tobacco is very harmful and incredibly addictive. Some "personally responsible" people simply cannot quit, once hooked. Others quit successfully, but only with enormous effort and expensive medical aids.
In my view, anybody who can demonstrate cause/effect relationship between their health problems and smoking deserves to get some of the money these SOBs have taken out of the economy for the past century. It would be quite wonderful if they were so successfully attacked in litigation that eventually it would become economically impossible to continue the manufacture and sale of tobacco products.
2595. CoralReef - Feb. 12, 1999 - 5:46 AM PT
Cart: I think the next target for the deep pockets lawsuit strategy will be casino operators.
FTC: I read that scientists are considering taking away Pluto's planet status on account of it's runtiness.
2596. Msivorytower - Feb. 12, 1999 - 6:34 AM PT
I'm sorry MrToner, but the warning labels on cigarettes have been around for at least 30 years, plenty of time for those who started smoking under false information to have quit.
I don't agree that the tobacco companies have "taken" money out of the economy over the last several decades, rather consumers have continued to demand their products *in spite* of the health hazards.
If you want to argue that the health related costs of smoking have been shunted off to the rest of society, then you make a case for INCREASED taxes on cigarette manufacturers and smokers to help defray those additional costs. That does not justify lawsuits holding cigarette companies personally liable for continued consumption by individuals who decide to abdicate all responsibility for their choices.
I also agree with Cart and CR. The gun case is another misuse of the legal system. If you think guns are dangerous over and above individual costs, that is, take an enormous toll on society as well, then, that again is an argument for increasing taxes on gun buyers, owners and manufacturers to help defray those costs. We, as a society, are under no obligation to pay for these costs without expecting those individuals who bring such problems to pay a larger share of those costs.
And CR's point is well taken. These issues should be settled by legislation not by courts of law.
2597. CalGal - Feb. 12, 1999 - 7:19 AM PT
Yes, the worst aspect of this is, as CR says, the circumventing of the legislative process.
I wonder if it's possible for the verdicts to be overturned?
2607. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 8:33 AM PT
Cartman and CoralReef:
You are misrepresenting the gun cases. They're not about "suing Beretta because your kid got shot by a criminal (or even a friend)" nor "banning guns by lawsuits rather than using normal legislative procedures." They're about holding gun manufacturers liable for reckless and irresponsible behavior.
Legislation is not working, or is not working fast enough, to address the problems guns cause in our society. I think it is entirely appropriate to turn to the legal system for redress.
2608. CalGal - Feb. 12, 1999 - 8:36 AM PT
Well, they seem to be about holding gun manufacturers responsible for someone else's reckless and irresponsible behavior.
2611. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 8:47 AM PT
CalGal:
"Well, they seem to be about holding gun manufacturers responsible for someone else's reckless and irresponsible behavior."
Explain to me how the complaints filed against the gun manufacturers in these suits (and I'll bet you don't even know what those complaints are) constitute "holding gun manufacturers responsible for someone else's reckless and irresponsible behavior."
2614. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 9:08 AM PT
And it was discovered here in Arizona, at the wonderful Lowell observatory in Flagstaff, so they'd better damn well not relegate it to the status of an asteroid, or a "trans-neptunian object," or whatever.
2615. CalGal - Feb. 12, 1999 - 9:26 AM PT
Elliot,
Well, actually I do. It is rarely lack of information that leads to my loopiness.
The argument is that the gun manufacturers knowingly allow their guns to be sold in an underground market. As such, they are responsible for the damage done by criminals.
They were also found liable for not taking reasonable steps to prevent their products from being used harmfully.
They were able to tie the negligence to actual shootings in only three instances. And they went from that to declaring damages in only one case--coincidentally, the only live victim in the bunch.
What was your point?
2616. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 9:34 AM PT
CalGal:
"What was your point?"
The point is that your claim that the gun manufacturers were held responsible for someone else's behavior is wrong. They were held responsible for their own behavior, which was also held to be a proximate cause of some of the shootings.
The ruling is expected to embolden other cities with suits pending against gun manufacturers and to incite new suits from state and local governments that have been wavering. It's bad news for the gun industry, despite their efforts to spin it as a partial victory.
2617. CalGal - Feb. 12, 1999 - 9:47 AM PT
Elliot,
Are you under the impression that you have provided new information?
Hmm.
2618. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 9:56 AM PT
CalGal:
The point is that your claim that the gun manufacturers were held responsible for someone else's behavior is wrong.
2619. CalGal - Feb. 12, 1999 - 10:02 AM PT
Elliot,
The point is that we clearly differ on the issue of assignment of responsibility.
2620. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 10:08 AM PT
CalGal:
No, the point is that your claim that the gun manufacturers were held responsible for someone else's behavior is wrong. It is irrelevant to that fact whether you agree with the jury's decision or not.
2621. CalGal - Feb. 12, 1999 - 10:19 AM PT
Elliot,
"It is irrelevant to that fact whether you agree with the jury's decision or not."
Hey, we agree on something!
I disagree that the jury was holding the gun manufacturers responsible for their own behavior.
2623. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 10:28 AM PT
CalGal:
"I disagree that the jury was holding the gun manufacturers responsible for their own behavior."
Then you are calling the members of the jury liars. On what basis do you make that accusation?
2630. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 1:01 PM PT
CalGal:
"I disagree that the jury was holding the gun manufacturers responsible for their own behavior."
Then you are calling the members of the jury liars. On what basis do you make that accusation?
2631. ChristinO - Feb. 12, 1999 - 1:35 PM PT
Is the city now going to sue steele manufacturers for providing the materials for gun manufacturers to provide opportunity for immoral people to commit crimes?
2632. ChristinO - Feb. 12, 1999 - 1:38 PM PT
The Jury believes the actions of the gun manufacturers are responsible for the actions of criminals. CalGal isn't saying the Jury doesn't believe that she's just disagreeing with their opinion as do I. I don't get to sue Chevrolet because some idiot broadsides me in an intersection. Nor should I be allowed to sue the makers of Jim Beam because some drunk guy in a bar takes a swing at me.
2633. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 1:54 PM PT
Christin:
"The Jury believes the actions of the gun manufacturers are responsible for the actions of criminals. CalGal isn't saying the Jury doesn't believe that she's just disagreeing with their opinion as do I."
No, she's not disagreeing with them, she's accusing them of being dishonest. If she had said, "I disagree that the behavior of the gun manufacturers makes them liable for the shootings" then she would be disagreeing with the jury. But she didn't say that. She said "I disagree that the jury was holding the gun manufacturers responsible for their own behavior." She's accusing the jury of lying.
Christin, on what basis do you claim that the behavior of the gun manufacturers (their marketing and distribution practises) does not make them liable for the shootings? How can you possibly make that judgement without more information? Or do you just completely reject the idea that anyone other than the person who pulled the trigger can bear any responsibility for a shooting?
2636. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 2:02 PM PT
Christin:
"Is the city now going to sue steele manufacturers for providing the materials for gun manufacturers to provide opportunity for immoral people to commit crimes?"
Probably not. Why do you consider this verdict worthy of ridicule? Suppose an explosives manufacturer knowingly sells its products to terrorists, and those terrorists then use the explosives to blow up a building and kill people. Don't you think the manufacturer may reasonably be held partly liable for those murders? I do. That is essentially the same legal reasoning behind the liability of the gun manufacturers in this case.
2639. CalGal - Feb. 12, 1999 - 2:05 PM PT
Christin,
Well, I got a phone call before I could post the same thing you did, dammit!
But it sounds better when you say it.
Elliot--I am sure the jury *thought* they were holding the gun manufacturers responsible. I just disagree that this is what they are doing. The end result of their actions, etc.
2640. ChristinO - Feb. 12, 1999 - 2:16 PM PT
"I disagree that the jury was holding the gun manufacturers responsible for their own behavior."
Can be read two ways: "The Jury is lying" or "I disagree that the behavior of the gun manufacturers is in fact responsible for the results being claimed." The latter reading was what I saw. It's possible that CG is calling the jurists liars, but unlikely to my way of thinking. I'm sure she'll let me know if I misinterpreted her statement.
"Or do you just completely reject the idea that anyone other than the person who pulled the trigger can bear any responsibility for a shooting?"
Not at all, but I don't consider knife manufacturers responsible for stabbing deaths. If the intent of the city is to ban fire-arms then let the cops start making sweeps and setting up checkpoints at all points of entry to the city. I don't have a problem with banning fire-arms. What I do have a problem with is assigning responsibility to an entity in order to curb the actions of another entity.
I'm not final in my decision on this, but this is the way I'm leaning. Just as I feel it would be wrong to sue Taco Bell or McDonald's for causing heart attacks and obesity.
2641. AuNaturel - Feb. 12, 1999 - 2:18 PM PT
Elliot:
"She said "I disagree that the jury was holding the gun manufacturers responsible for their own behavior." She's accusing the jury of lying."
No, she is accusing them of being idiots. The jury is holding the gun manufacturers responsible for behavior they did not commit. Just like thinking that GM and Jim Beam should be held responsible for criminal acts of drunk driver. Sentimental idiocy.
Elliot:
"Suppose an explosives manufacturer knowingly sells its products to terrorists, and those terrorists then use the explosives to blow up a building and kill people."
If that statement even vaguely resembled the case in point you might have a point but it doesn't and you don't.
2642. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 2:21 PM PT
CalGal:
"Elliot--I am sure the jury *thought* they were holding the gun manufacturers responsible. I just disagree that this is what they are doing."
Of course they were holding the gun manufacturers responsible. The gun manufacturers were the defendants in the trial. The gun manufacturers are the ones who were held liable for damages. You're now denying even the facts of the case.
2643. AuNaturel - Feb. 12, 1999 - 2:25 PM PT
Suppose GM happens to sell cars and Archer-Daniels-Midland happens to sell fertilizer and somebody puts the two together and blows up a building full of people. The jury's logic holds GM and Archer-Daniels-Midland responsible. Sentimental idiocy. Feeling unhappy over some vague problem, they reach for the nearest deep pocket.
2644. ChristinO - Feb. 12, 1999 - 2:28 PM PT
Elliot,
The vast majority of explosives are sold to construction sites not to terrorists. The vast majority of fire-arms produced are never used to commit crimes. Gun manufacturers are looking for a market for their product. If they are breaking the law to sell it then they should be punished for that. If they are selling in an area where the law permits their actions then however much one might dislike their product they are doing nothing wrong. Why not sue the neighboring cities that allow this traffic because of their lax gun laws?
Or, let's turn it around.
If gun manufacturers are to be held liable for shooting deaths then should they not also receive monetary tribute for the lives of police officers and citizens saved by the use of fire arms? How about just a percentage off the top of the police payroll?
The whole thing just looks underhanded to me. If they want to ban guns then they should ban guns. Holding a manufacturer liable for the misuse of it's product is setting a bad precedent.
2645. Pseudoerasmus - Feb. 12, 1999 - 2:29 PM PT
elliot803 (Message #2607)
"They're about holding gun manufacturers liable for reckless and irresponsible behavior."
Why are gun manufacturers responsible for the reckless & irresponsible behaviour of gun users? Did they misrepresent the potential harm of guns, like tobacco companies?
"You are misrepresenting the gun cases. They're not about 'suing Beretta because your kid got shot by a criminal (or even a friend)' nor 'banning guns by lawsuits rather than using normal legislative procedures'."
Legislation is not working, or is not working fast enough, to address the problems guns cause in our society. I think it is entirely appropriate to turn to the legal system for redress."
I see the two statements as essentially contradictory. Elliot can't get handguns banned, so he & his confederates turn to the courts, whether this makes sense or not. This sort of "judicial activism" is the stereotype of liberals that conservatives have painted, to the detriment of liberal causes! If you can't change the law, reinterpret it out of existence. I don't think that's a good idea.
2646. AuNaturel - Feb. 12, 1999 - 2:30 PM PT
Gun manufacturers sell their wares to federally licenced retail establishments. Retail establshments are then required by federal and state laws to fill out certain paperwork and perform certain checks. Assuming all laws are complied with there are no rational grounds for holding the manufacturer responsible for something they were one step removed from and had no control over.
2647. Pseudoerasmus - Feb. 12, 1999 - 2:31 PM PT
But it all depends on the specifics of what they were charged with. The article quoted from Message #2582 gives few specifics. What was negligent about the gun manufacturers' marketing & distribution practises?
2650. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 2:44 PM PT
Christin:
"'I disagree that the jury was holding the gun manufacturers responsible for their own behavior.'
Can be read two ways: 'The Jury is lying' or 'I disagree that the behavior of the gun manufacturers is in fact responsible for the results being claimed.'"
Oh please. CalGal's statement is about who the jury held responsible and on what basis. Your second "reading" is about the correctness of the verdict. There is no way anyone could interpret CalGal's statement to mean what you say she might have meant. I can't read her mind. I can only respond to what she actually says.