2652. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 2:49 PM PT
AuNaturel:
"The jury is holding the gun manufacturers responsible for behavior they did not commit."
Nonsense. The charge on which the jury rendered a verdict was that the gun manufacturers were liable as a result of THEIR OWN behavior, namely their marketing and distribution practises. You may disagree with the jury that this behavior renders them liable, but you have no basis for claiming that the jury held the manufacturers liable on the basis of someone else's behavior rather than their own.
2653. CalGal - Feb. 12, 1999 - 2:51 PM PT
Elliot,
I did not call the jurors liars. Now. You can go on and on and on and on and on and on about what you think I said, or you can go on to the main point--should gun manufacturers be held responsible for what the idiots and criminals do with their products?
2656. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 2:56 PM PT
pseudo:
"Why are gun manufacturers responsible for the reckless & irresponsible behaviour of gun users? Did they misrepresent the potential harm of guns, like tobacco companies?"
I don't know. That is one possible basis for the gun manufacturers' liability.
"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."
This is just meaningless rhetoric. What "contradiction?" What law do you believe I wish to "reinterpret out of existence."
2657. AuNaturel - Feb. 12, 1999 - 2:59 PM PT
Eliot, how can the manufacturers be held responsible if:
A) They didn't sell guns to any end users
B) They only sold to licenced retail establishments
If you Eliot gets snockered at a party, is Jim Beam responsible? Or are you really trying to accomplish in the courts what you cannot get enough public support to accomplish at the ballot box?
2658. AuNaturel - Feb. 12, 1999 - 3:05 PM PT
Gosh! I can see why lawyers like this line of thought. If you have a lot of money you are automatically responsible for whatever ill society may experience for misuse of your product. The potential for lawsuits is unbelivable. Hey let's all shut down the pharmaceutical industry too while we're at it! What fun!
2659. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 3:09 PM PT
Christin:
"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."
Those facts are irrelevant.
"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."
No. Just because you aren't breaking the law doesn't mean you aren't liable through negligence, misrepresentation, or some other culpable behavior. Do you believe cigarette companies who deliberately suppressed evidence about the addictiveness of nicotine, who targetted children in their advertising, and who behaved in similar ways should not be held liable for the death and illness caused by cigarettes? Perhaps you do. I don't. Nor do most Americans, according to the polls.
"Holding a manufacturer liable for the misuse of it's product is setting a bad precedent."
There's no precedent here. Manufacturers have long been held liable for damage caused by their products, even in cases where the product was "misused."
2661. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 3:15 PM PT
AuNaturel:
"Eliot, how can the manufacturers be held responsible if:
A) They didn't sell guns to any end users
B) They only sold to licenced retail establishments"
As I said, they can be held responsible through negligence, misrepresentation, or some other kind of culpable behavior that contributes to the death and injury caused by their products. Whether or not they sell directly to "end users" is irrelevant to this liability. Cigarette manufacturers and countless other kinds of company that do not sell to "end users" have been held liable for their products.
2662. AuNaturel - Feb. 12, 1999 - 3:16 PM PT
Let's see, there were all those idiot law suits over breast implants.
Why not go for Viagra next? Let's sue asprin makers for Reye's syndrome and the occaisional ulcer.
Better yet, lets sue em all and let God sort it out. I mean, don't some doctors prescribe Vallium and Codeine and such to people who don't really need it? Aren't the pharmaceutical companies responsible for this? Shouldn't they be supervising every prescription written? Why, we can put the evil manufacturers of precription narcotics, stimulants, analgesics and soporifics out of business and end these plagues on society once and for al1!
2663. CalGal - Feb. 12, 1999 - 3:26 PM PT
Pseudo,
I just did a quick search and couldn't find any one link that covers everything. And perhaps you know everything I've learned already--but in case others don't:
Hamilton vs. Accutek
The suit's central claim is that gun manufacturers oversupply certain areas--New York, Chicago, etc.--knowing full well that the legitimate market (licensed gun owners) was not that big. They were therefore selling guns that they *knew* would end up in unlicensed hands.
Normally, they would have to prove that a specific gun was provided by a specific manufacturer. But last May, the judge (Jack Weinstein) in the case under discussion ruled that the "chain of title" is irrelevant. He allowed the plaintiffs to argue that the entire industry creates the risk with indiscriminate marketing, which makes them collectively liable.
A couple weeks ago, the judge dismissed the case against the wholesale distributers, leaving only the manufacturers liable.
Here is the Post article on how that turned out:
The jury found that 15 of the 25 manufacturers were negligent in their marketing and distribution, by not taking reasonable steps to prevent injury.
In 3 of the 7 shootings, they tied the negligence to a specific shooting.
In only one of the cases--as I said above, the only survivor of the plaintiffs--did they conclude that the manufacturer was liable.
2664. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 3:30 PM PT
AuNaturel:
Ridiculing a court verdict is a poor way of arguing against it. Picking up on your aspirin example, if aspirin makers have suppressed evidence about the link between aspirin and the conditions you describe (for example), then I think they should be sued. If drug companies have misrepresented the beneficial effects of Vallium and Codeine to doctors, then it seems perfectly reasonable to me for those companies to be sued for suffering and injury caused by the overprescription of their products.
2665. AuNaturel - Feb. 12, 1999 - 3:30 PM PT
Elliot:
"As I said, they can be held responsible through negligence, misrepresentation, or some other kind of culpable behavior that contributes to the death and injury caused by their products."
Negligence? The law suit was not over guns exploding in the hands of users. Nor was it over selling to unlicenced retail establishment or not complying with the law.
Misrepresentation? The gun manufacturers never said that guns weren't dangeous items capale of killing. Quite the opposite.
The suit as I recall was about distributing to retailers who were in areas where such sales were perfectly legal but adjacent to areas where they weren't. One political jurisdiction seeking to extend its laws over adjoining areas via law suits without having to hassle with a state government that was hostile to their intentions.
You insist on avoiding the real issue. Using this as precedent (fortunately I expect it will be overturned on appeal) there is NO manufacturer of ANY commonly used product that entails any risk whatsoever that cannot be destroyed this way.
2666. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 3:39 PM PT
AuNaturel:
"You insist on avoiding the real issue. Using this as precedent (fortunately I expect it will be overturned on appeal) there is NO manufacturer of ANY commonly used product that entails any risk whatsoever that cannot be destroyed this way."
The idea that as a result of this case all manufactuers of all types of product that could possibly cause harm to people may be "destroyed" by lawsuits is hysterical nonsense.
I don't think this kind of lawsuit even has much chance of "destroying" the gun makers, but it will help.
2667. AuNaturel - Feb. 12, 1999 - 3:47 PM PT
Thanks for the link Cal. I think I remember the argument being that the gun sales took place in retail establishments just outside the cities where the purchasing requirements are less rigid. That's where the alleged "oversupply" took place. If you actually live within the city of New York or Chicago purchasing a firearm legally is well nigh impossible unless your'e a cop or politically connected.
"The jury only appears to have accepted the part of the theory that ascribes negligence to gun companies for not doing more to prevent illegal sales of handguns, but the jurors failed to find broad liability.
"The verdict came after six days of deliberations during which the jurors repeatedly complained that they were deadlocked and were sent back to work each time by the judge."
Well, maybe not such a smashing victory for the gun control crowd after all....
The "'theory of "collective liability' in which the industry as a whole can be held at fault without linking a specific harm to an individual company" is noxious to say the least. Another attempt to achieve political ends by bypassing the political process. No less destructive than the presidential impeachment was.
2668. AuNaturel - Feb. 12, 1999 - 3:49 PM PT
"The idea that as a result of this case all manufactuers of all types of product that could possibly cause harm to people may be "destroyed" by lawsuits is hysterical nonsense."
OK. You try to get a silicone breast implant.
2669. ChristinO - Feb. 12, 1999 - 3:50 PM PT
"There is no way anyone could interpret CalGal's statement to mean what you say she might have meant."
The meaning was perfectly clear to me. While it's not how I would have phrased it I was more interested in the actual issue than posting a pedantic scold on clarity of sentence structure. Said scold being totally undermined by the fact that I'd clearly understood what she meant.
If the suit claims manufacturers oversupply certain areas then where are the resellers in this? Last time I checked sending massive amounts of unordered product to a reseller was a good way to lose money and business. Who placed the orders for the guns? Why were the orders place if sales didn't warrant the quantity? The implication is that there are people who want to buy guns but are prohibited from doing so in their locality because of the law. They then go outside that jurisdiction to purchase firearms and bring them home. AuNatural has a very good point about trying to extend one county's jurisdiction into the neighboring areas. It's underhanded, un-Democratic and I hope the decision is overturned on appeal.
If they want to ban guns in the city then let them do so. Like the Western towns of old they can post a big sign requiring that all firearms be turned over to the local police on threat of fine or imprisonment.
2670. CalGal - Feb. 12, 1999 - 3:51 PM PT
Yes, I wasn't paying attention to this last May, but that seems to be the unusual part of the case--the judge's ruling that they could proceed with this approach.
And there was very little money involved--besides, it was only given to the one survivor.
2671. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 3:58 PM PT
AuNaturel:
"Well, maybe not such a smashing victory for the gun control crowd after all...."
No one said it was a "smashing" victory. It's a start. It's the first verdict of its kind. And it is expected to spur the efforts of other cities with similar lawsuits pending, and to provoke new lawsuits from cities and other jurisdictions that have been considering going after gun manufacturers in the same way.
"OK. You try to get a silicone breast implant."
Do you actually have a serious argument to make, or are you just going to continue making this ridiculous argument that the entire manufacturing industry is in danger of being destroyed because some manufactuers of some products are found liable in some situations?
2672. AuNaturel - Feb. 12, 1999 - 3:59 PM PT
I actually agree with ChristinO on this. I oppose gun control but if it is going to happen the implementation needs to be done within the political system. This way the issue can be fully debated and maybe even some kind of workable consensus reached. That can't happen using the courts as a proxie.
2673. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 4:06 PM PT
Christin:
"The meaning was perfectly clear to me."
I don't believe you. You may have guessed that that's what she was *trying* to say, but there is no way that any reasonable English speaker could interpret the sentence in question in the way you claim.
"While it's not how I would have phrased it I was more interested in the actual issue than posting a pedantic scold on clarity of sentence structure."
What "scold?" I was responding to what she wrote. I can't read her mind. Nor am I going to guess endlessly about what she is trying to say because she is too incompetent or too lazy to take the time and effort to express herself clearly. Not that the thoughts are worth expressing, anyway.
2674. CalGal - Feb. 12, 1999 - 4:08 PM PT
I agree with Christin as well, although my position on gun control is...sigh....wishy washy.
I don't much care about it one way or another, since I think it is ineffective. I am generally supportive of safety requirements. Waiting periods and restrictions seem pointless.
2676. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 4:12 PM PT
Christin:
"If the suit claims manufacturers oversupply certain areas then where are the resellers in this?"
I don't know. I'm not sure I understand the question.
"Last time I checked sending massive amounts of unordered product to a reseller was a good way to lose money and business. Who placed the orders for the guns?"
I don't know. The dealers, presumably.
" Why were the orders place if sales didn't warrant the quantity?"
I don't know. Because the dealers knew they had a ready supply of criminals to sell to, perhaps?
" The implication is that there are people who want to buy guns but are prohibited from doing so in their locality because of the law. They then go outside that jurisdiction to purchase firearms and bring them home. AuNatural has a very good point about trying to extend one county's jurisdiction into the neighboring areas."
I don't understand the point. The issue in the trial was the gun manufacturers' liability, not county jurisdiction. If the gun makers were negligent in their marketing and distribution practises, as the courts apparently found, then that is a basis for their liability.
2677. AuNaturel - Feb. 12, 1999 - 4:14 PM PT
Elliot:
The point is obvious. NOBODY in the US manufactures or imports silicone implants any more, precisely beacuse of all the lawsuits. This despite the finding (per the judges appointed scientific fact finding panel) that there was no credible evidence that the implants caused any harm. Dow Corning as a company was severely damaged by the bad publicity and the extravagant terms of the out of court settlement. (Should have held out, but the legal system is such a crap shoot they couldn't take the risk.)
So the silicone implant industry in the US has been effectively destroyed by frivolous lawsuits. I'm not being hysterical. You are in denial of the dangerous externalities of the broad liability theory just because you are phobic about firearms.
2678. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 4:16 PM PT
Christin:
"If they want to ban guns in the city then let them do so."
Who is this "they?" The local prosecutors in this case? They don't have the power to ban guns in the city. Legislative solutions to gun violence aren't working fast enough. So people concerned about the problem are turning to the courts. That's their right. The civil rights movement adopted a similar strategy in the 40s and 50s. If you don't like it, too bad.
2679. ranger - Feb. 12, 1999 - 4:23 PM PT
Amazing! I never thought that it would happen. The court has held a manufacturer responsible for the intended misuse of its product. It swirls the mind and bends imagination. The US government should simply tax the sheep(population) more for the benefits of the victims.
Eliot- it is unconcionable that the judicial branch be used for appropriations or legislation. Regardless if the necessity or percieved dire need. The constitution needs to be followed or it is,
uh oh, I got it.
Yea, lets suspend the entire document. the American people no longer deserve such a well thought out document. Apathy and avarice have ended the peoples claim to a republic.
BAAAAA BAAAA BAAAA
Sheep People Party
Motto: Eh, why bother
2680. AuNaturel - Feb. 12, 1999 - 4:25 PM PT
Elliot:
"I don't understand the point. The issue in the trial was the gun manufacturers' liability..."
OK. Lets say you have a dry county. Joe sixpack drives to a liquor store in the next county, gets drunk from his purchases. Drives home and gets in a wreck in the "dry" county. Your county and the victims of that wreck the sue the liquor industry *in toto* for over supplying the neighboring county with alcohol.
Now some distiller sold that booze to a wholesaler who sold it to a retailer who sold it to someone of legal age and you think the distilling industry *as a whole* is responsible for the accident and each and every distilling company has to defend itself as a separate defendent. That's the theory of broad liability.
2681. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 4:26 PM PT
AuNaturel:
"Elliot: The point is obvious. NOBODY in the US manufactures or imports silicone implants any more, precisely beacuse of all the lawsuits. This despite the finding (per the judges appointed scientific fact finding panel) that there was no credible evidence that the implants caused any harm. Dow Corning as a company was severely damaged by the bad publicity and the extravagant terms of the out of court settlement. So the silicone implant industry in the US has been effectively destroyed by frivolous lawsuits."
I don't agree that the lawsuits were frivolous, and I am not convinced that breast implants are harmless. Even if they are, an occasional failure is the price we pay for living in a democracy in which people have to right to seek damages from companies that they believe have harmed them. It's not perfect. What alternative do you propose? Scrapping the civil litigation system entirely?
2682. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 4:30 PM PT
AuNaturel:
"Now some distiller sold that booze to a wholesaler who sold it to a retailer who sold it to someone of legal age and you think the distilling industry *as a whole* is responsible for the accident and each and every distilling company has to defend itself as a separate defendent. That's the theory of broad liability."
I can't say whether I consider the industry as a whole liable from the information you have provided. I certainly have no problem with holding an industry broadly liable if such liability can be demonstrated to my satisfaction in court.
2683. AuNaturel - Feb. 12, 1999 - 4:43 PM PT
Elliot:
"Legislative solutions to gun violence aren't working fast enough."
So much for democracy. Obviously a majority of the electorate doesn't agree with your position.
"So people concerned about the problem are turning to the courts. That's their right. The civil rights movement adopted a similar strategy in the 40s and 50s."
Where is the civil disobedience? Where are the great marches? Rosa Parks did not sue the bus company. Brown v Board of Education wasn't about getting monetary damages from the construction company that built the school. The cvil rights movement of the 40s and 50s was about forcing *government* to comply with the explicit text of the Constitution as promised by the 14th amendment.
The strategy is totally dissimilar. M.L.King had the law on his side. The struggle was in getting getting it obeyed and he fought primarily with moral suasion. He knew you had to win the hearts and minds of the people before real social change can happen, regardless of the law. You have found moral suasion lacking in effectiveness and seek easy shortcuts.
2684. AuNaturel - Feb. 12, 1999 - 4:53 PM PT
"What alternative do you propose? Scrapping the civil litigation system entirely?What alternative do you propose? Scrapping the civil litigation system entirely?"
I think loser pays would be a good start. Juries need to be treated with respect commensurate to the responsibility entailed. The manipulation of the composition of the jury in the selection phase needs to be seriously restricted. Plus, contrary to the Judges misbegotten opinion, chain of title needs to be considered in determining who is liable for the illegal use of a product.
2685. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 5:08 PM PT
AuNaturel:
"So much for democracy. Obviously a majority of the electorate doesn't agree with your position."
Oh, but they do. Polls show that a large and persistent majority of Americans favor greater gun control. But they don't favor it strongly enough to counter the wild-eyed fanaticism of the gun lobby (although that too is now beginning to change.) In any case, it wouldn't matter to my argument if the majority did disagree, since American democracy means more than simple majoritarianism. One of those other things is the court system.
"The strategy is totally dissimilar."
No, it isn't. The strategy I'm talking about is using legal solutions when legislative ones were moving too slowly. Yes, of course the courts are being used in different ways, but the basic strategy of turning to the law is the same.
"He knew you had to win the hearts and minds of the people before real social change can happen, regardless of the law."
Many significant civil rights victories were won in the courts(including Brown) before public opinion had shifted to the extent that made the legislative victories that came in the 60s possible.
2686. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 5:11 PM PT
AuNaturel:
"I think loser pays would be a good start."
I think that would be a terrible idea. There would be virtually no lawsuits. Of course, that's what corporate America wants, but it'll never happen.
"The manipulation of the composition of the jury in the selection phase needs to be seriously restricted."
Restricted how?
2687. ChristinO - Feb. 12, 1999 - 5:24 PM PT
Message #2673
Fine, don't believe me but it isn't the sort of thing I would lie about had I the inclination to be a liar.
"there is no way that any reasonable English speaker could interpret the sentence in question in the way you claim."
I suppose this is not the time to bring up my recently re-discovered mutant IQ?
Whatever, moving on.
It looks as if AuN has addressed your question regarding resellers for me, but just to make sure that we're on the same page
Here I sit in Customer Service waiting to take an order for product. Mr. Wholesaler calls and says "I need X number of widgets," I say "Okay, I'll ship them out right away."
Why am I responsible for his overordering? Why is he responsible for the order that his reseller placed with him? It is the manufacturer's job to fill the order that is placed. That's how he runs his business. It's how he makes a living. Requiring him NOT to fill orders on threat of fine or imprisonment is wrong. If one wishes to criminalize the sale, possession or manufacture of a product then do so. To penalize the manufacturer for the legal sale of a legal product in a legal manner is wrong.
If someone is going to be blamed for flooding the area with firearms then the reseller who placed the order is more clearly at fault. Since the reseller was left completely out of the equation it seems clear to me the the target all along was gun manufacturers. Regardless of how one feels about gun control this action is underhanded and ought not to have been allowed.
I don't want safety from guns at the expense of justice and democracy.
2688. ChristinO - Feb. 12, 1999 - 5:28 PM PT
Oops, sorry, Elliot, 2687 is to you.
2689. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 5:38 PM PT
Christin:
"It is the manufacturer's job to fill the order that is placed. That's how he runs his business. It's how he makes a living. Requiring him NOT to fill orders on threat of fine or imprisonment is wrong."
You need to read the post in which CalGal summarized the case. The manufacturers were found to be negligent because they knew they were being asked to supply more guns than the legitimate market could absorb, and thus they knew that their guns would end up in the hands of unlicensed owners. That negligence is the basis for the liability.
"If one wishes to criminalize the sale, possession or manufacture of a product then do so."
So you keep saying.
"To penalize the manufacturer for the legal sale of a legal product in a legal manner is wrong."
I have to keep repeating myself. They're not being penalized for legal selling of legal products; their being penalized for negligence. There is nothing new or revolutionary about this. Countless manufacturers have been successfully sued for negligence.
2690. cartman69 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 6:22 PM PT
Mrtoner Message #2594:
I thought I made myself pretty clear, that tobacco companies & their lawyers are a half-step above animal torturers & child molesters. Their utter disregard for ethics, in the chase for the almighty dollar, while poisoning people by the millions, is shameful.
However...they put their lies and disinformation forth in front of Congress. And no one went to jail. Imagine that! They were able to say, with straight faces, before the, er, majestic legislative body of the US of A, that they didn't think smoking was addictive OR harmful. Presented with reams of scientific information stating otherwise, they stuck to their stories.
And that was that. No one went to jail for perjury. No one went to jail for willfully poisoning people, or addicting them to their toxic product. That indicates to me that there was no criminal conduct on their part.
Now, I happen to disagree with the accepted legal assessment. I think there was *plenty* of illegal behavior on the part of the tobacco people, and their lawyers, and their lobbyists. And if this was the United States of Cartman, I'd have locked 'em all up and thrown away the key. But we all have to accept the fact that bad guys frequently get away with bad shit. This is generally predicated on their ability to buy their desired outcome, which of course the tobacco companies did.
So my question to you is, if the tobacco companies have not been found *legally* culpable in the deaths of millions of people (including several of my relatives), why are they *financially* responsible?
2692. cartman69 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 6:26 PM PT
(cont.)
Incidentally, I don't buy the idea that the tobacco companies are responsible for addicting people. *People* have addictive personalities, or they don't. Lots of people quit smoking cold turkey. Lots of other people, like myself, never took up such a nasty habit in the first place.
I think the tobacco companies have bought themselves far too much leeway in how their cases have been adjudicated. There is absolutely no reason not to allow the FDA to regulate nicotine as a controlled substance, but that was part of the big settlement. And I find it a travesty that our tax dollars are spent on subsidizing tobacco farmers. They're drug dealers, pure and simple. But that STILL doesn't justify giving one woman $51.5 million, just because she lacked the willpower to quit. I suppose if she got hooked on Moon Pies, and ballooned to 800 pounds, she could sue the Moon Pie Co. for making her too fat to go out and earn a living. Right?
2693. Greystoke - Feb. 12, 1999 - 6:26 PM PT
Elliot
When negligence is alleged, it is usually because the use of the product results in undesirable side effects that are harmful to the purchaser of the product.
In the case of handguns, the product is performing exactly as it was designed, and the responsibility for any undesirable results rests solely with the person who is pulling the trigger.
Given the Second Amendment to the Constitution, opponents to gun ownership can only resort to illegitimate tort claims to try to circumvert every citizen's right (yes, right) to own firearms.
As for myself, I would be willing to donate money directly to the NRA to fight for Second Amendment rights in courrt. And I will buy guns that I don't really need in order to demonstrate my support for gun manufacturers to produce a perfectly legal product.
2694. Msivorytower - Feb. 12, 1999 - 6:34 PM PT
Well, I'm sorry, I don't think tobacco companies are any more immoral than hundreds of other companies that produce useless and potentially harmful products.
Their culpability, if any, was in not disclosing the potentially harmful effects of consuming their product once that was made known in the research and the growing medical knowledge base. Once the risks are known and diseminated, however, the decision to consume the product becomes a consumer one, as with all other products.
I simply don't see any greater responsibility that these companies have to "protect" people from their own decisions than other companies do in promoting their products.
*IF* there are greater social costs associated with such products, then it is up to the government to TAX these companies and the users high enough to compensate for those costs.
2695. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 6:42 PM PT
Greystoke:
"Elliot: When negligence is alleged, it is usually because the use of the product results in undesirable side effects that are harmful to the purchaser of the product."
That may or may not be the "usual" case, but there are certainly cases in which manufacturers have been found liable through negligence for damage that results from their products getting into the wrong hands, e.g., kids getting hold of pharmaceutical drugs.
"In the case of handguns, the product is performing exactly as it was designed, and the responsibility for any undesirable results rests solely with the person who is pulling the trigger."
The jury in this case found otherwise.
"Given the Second Amendment to the Constitution, opponents to gun ownership can only resort to illegitimate tort claims to try to circumvert every citizen's right (yes, right) to own firearms."
Nonsense. Despite countless challenges, no gun control law, up to and including gun bans, have been struck down on Second Amendment grounds.
"As for myself, I would be willing to donate money directly to the NRA to fight for Second Amendment rights in courrt. And I will buy guns that I don't really need in order to demonstrate my support for gun manufacturers to produce a perfectly legal product."
Whatever. I'm a member of Handgun Control, Inc. and have donated time and money to fight the NRA. We're finally getting the gun nuts on the ropes.
2696. cartman69 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 6:45 PM PT
Elliot Message #2607:
"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.'
I'm not misrepresenting anything. That's *exactly* what some of these gun lawsuit cases are about. I'm going to go eat dinner and watch a movie, but later tonight I'll find a link on another pending lawsuit in the Bay Area. A 14-year-old kid, named Kenzo Dix, and his friend are in the friend's house, and find a loaded gun sitting on the nightstand of the friend's father. Neither one of these kids knew the first thing about guns (including whether or not it was loaded), so naturally they picked it up and started fooling around with it.
The friend, thinking it was unloaded, pointed the gun at Kenzo and fired, nailing Kenzo in the heart, and killing him almost instantly. So now Kenzo's father is suing in court. Is he suing the friend, who was at the very least an idiot? No. Is he suing the friend's dad, who careless and negligent enough to leave A LOADED GUN in plain sight of his kids, who were obviously too ignorant to know that you NEVER point a gun at someone even if you KNOW the gun is unloaded? No, he's not suing the dad either.
He's suing *the gun manufacturer*, for not putting a better indicator on the gun to tell if it's loaded or not. Folks, I couldn't make this shit up if I wanted to.
"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 disagree. I also think that the modern civil juror has gotten the notion that they are in charge of disbursing lottery payments, to the detriment of our judicial system.
2697. cartman69 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 6:48 PM PT
Message #2633 (Elliot to ChristinO):
"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?"
I can't speak for Christin, but I certainly reject that notion. If you pull the trigger, *you* are entirely responsible for where that bullet ends up. 100%. Even if you're a bad shot. That's what democracy's all about, that you are responsible for what you do. What a novel concept!
2698. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 6:54 PM PT
cartman:
"I'm not misrepresenting anything. That's *exactly* what some of these gun lawsuit cases are about."
Sorry, but you are too misrepresenting them. The basis of the liability is the negligence of the manufacturers, not the fact that someone got shot.
"He's suing *the gun manufacturer*, for not putting a better indicator on the gun to tell if it's loaded or not."
Good for him. Many companies have been successfully sued for failing to provide adequate warnings and safety mechanisms on their products. I see no reason why gun manufacturers should not be subject to the same liability.
"I also think that the modern civil juror has gotten the notion that they are in charge of disbursing lottery payments, to the detriment of our judicial system."
The cost of civil litigation to American consumers is negligible, and the number and amounts of damages awarded to plaintiffs is greatly exaggerated in the public mind.
2699. Greystoke - Feb. 12, 1999 - 6:54 PM PT
cartman69
"I disagree. I also think that the modern civil juror has gotten the notion that they are in charge of disbursing lottery payments, to the detriment of our judicial system."
Right on. And don't forget the blatant money grubbing dishonesty of the lawyers who pursue these cases.
2700. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 6:59 PM PT
cartman:
"I can't speak for Christin, but I certainly reject that notion. If you pull the trigger, *you* are entirely responsible for where that bullet ends up. 100%. Even if you're a bad shot. That's what democracy's all about, that you are responsible for what you do."
Well, as I said, the jury found otherwise. And I don't think many Americans share your simplistic view of responsibility. Tell me, do you also believe that Terry Nichols bears absolutely no responsibility for the Oklahoma City bombing because he didn't light the fuse?
2701. Greystoke - Feb. 12, 1999 - 7:04 PM PT
Elliot
"Well, as I said, the jury found otherwise."
Well that jury is full of shit. There is nothing magic about a jury verdict. Countless jury verdicts have been reversed on appeal, rendering them MEANINGLESS.
Why do you have so much trouble accepting the concept that the person who pulls the trigger is entirely responsible for the results of that action?
2702. elliot803 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 7:28 PM PT
Greystoke:
"There is nothing magic about a jury verdict. Countless jury verdicts have been reversed on appeal, rendering them MEANINGLESS."
Most of them, I believe, are NOT reversed on appeal.
"Why do you have so much trouble accepting the concept that the person who pulls the trigger is entirely responsible for the results of that action?"
Because it's stupid. It's beyond stupid, in fact. It's absurd.
Tom decides he wants to murder Dick. He doesn't have a gun, so he says to his friend Harry, "Harry, please give me your gun so that I can kill Dick." Harry says ok and gives Tom his gun. Tom then shoots and kills Dick. According to you, Tom is solely responsible for this murder, and Harry bears no responsibility at all. That is what I consider absurd. Fortunately, so does our legal system. In such a situation, Harry would be prosecuted for at least being an accessory to murder, and possibly for murder itself.
2703. IrvingSnodgrass - Feb. 12, 1999 - 7:29 PM PT
I've started a new thread for this interesting topic. Let's move the discussion over there. Thanks!
2704. cartman69 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 7:30 PM PT
Elliot:
You're missing my point here. If the gun was defective, or if the kid had known what he was doing but got an incorrect indication from the safety mechanism, then fine--the gun manufacturer would indeed be at fault.
But this was a kid that was so damned ignorant, he had no way of knowing if the gun was loaded or not--and he still pointed it right at his buddy. Safety mechanisms are designed to protect users who know what they're doing. There's no way to prevent a moron from flipping every button and switch he sees until something happens.
As far as I'm concerned, the negligence lies in the father who owned the gun. But hell, he feels bad too, and he's probably more or less broke, so it doesn't make sense to go after him, does it? Unfortunately, our current national trend in civil cases is that, dammit, *someone* must pay. Generally it's the one with the deepest pockets, even if someone else bears more responsibility for the tragedy. Some lawyers are pimps, and some juries like to play Santa Claus. Not exactly a news flash.
"Well, as I said, the jury found otherwise."
Don't get me started on juries. Does the name OJ Simpson mean anything to you?
"And I don't think many Americans share your simplistic view of responsibility. Tell me, do you also believe that Terry Nichols bears absolutely no responsibility for the Oklahoma City bombing because he didn't light the fuse?"
Don't be silly, Elliot. That's not what I'm saying at all. And from what I've read in the posts on this subject thus far, I'd have to say that more people agree with my "simplistic" view than with your take on this. Which doesn't make me any more right or wrong, but I do think it's a huge part of American culture to promote the notion of personal responsibility. Gun manufacturers aren't even indirectly responsible for their weapons falling into the hands of idiots or criminals.
2707. Greystoke - Feb. 12, 1999 - 7:38 PM PT
elliot
"Harry says ok and gives Tom his gun. Tom then shoots and kills Dick. According to you, Tom is solely responsible for this murder, and Harry bears no responsibility at all. That is what I consider absurd. Fortunately, so does our legal system."
Morally, I would say that Tom is indeed solely responsible for the murder and Harry bears very little responsibilty. And, while it would be legally possible to bring charges against Harry, it would be an extremely tough case on which to get a conviction. Especially if I was on the jury.
2712. cartman69 - Feb. 13, 1999 - 1:58 AM PT
Elliot:
Here is an article explaining the Dix case I mentioned in the News thread. Evidently the parents lost the suit, as they should have. I hadn't heard about that. But they are appealing the jury's decision.
2713. cartman69 - Feb. 13, 1999 - 2:10 AM PT
And here is an article mentioning the grounds for appeal in the Dix case. Admittedly, the juror sounds like she's not playing with a full deck.