60 minutes...

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rob Pincus

New member
60 minutes just ran an expected liberal attack on the Gun industry. They attempted to explain and Justify the law suit that Chicago launched against 45 defendants from Sturm Ruger to The Sports Authority, alleging that they knowingly allow criminals in Chicago to obtain weapons.

It was sad.

The VP of Ruger held his own and explained that it was the BATF's job to police dealers, not Manufacturers.

To be honest, given the ultimate benefit of doubt factor to Chicago, I think they should petition Illinois to forbid the sale of any handguns to people with Chicago residences. Apparently, The Mayor's main complaint is that dealers outside of chicago are selling handguns to people that live in the city, where it has been illegal to obtain or own a handgun for several years.

NOTE: I am not saying that Illinois should do it, just saying that that would be hte most legitimate move that Chicago could make.

In theopening of the segment, the pundit from 60 miunutes made the NY verdict sound like the ultimate indictment of the gun industry. In reality there were 7 people sueing over 40 entities in the beginning. After the distributors and wholesalers were removed fomr the case, there were still 7 times 25 possible guilty findings (175), only 10 entities were found liable in one case... that is less than a 6% success rate AFTER the wholesalers were removed...



------------------
-Essayons
 
Did the officers from chicago make false statements in the purchase of firearms ? If so someone needs to prosecute them! I didn't get to see the show. had to take she who must be obayed to dinner.

------------------
www.customholsters.com
M/D ENTERPRISES Custom Concealment Holsters
Gunleather so nice it's almost a crime to conceal it
mde@icsi.net
 
Puke! Puke! Hack! Cough! Sputter! Puke! Puke!

Yeah I saw it. What a bunch of garbage. Not one bit of logic in the whole show.

Andy

[This message has been edited by Andy (edited February 14, 1999).]
 
Years ago the news media discarded the notion that they served to inform the public of recent events. Rather, they joined the ranks of the entertainment industry and have given itself an artistic license to be creative in reporting. Why watch TV?
 
Here is a link to the actual complaint: http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Mayor/GunIndustry/Complaint.html

For the most part, I don't see why the gun makers are being sued. The dealers I don't have a problem with, from what little I know about how dealers are supposed to operate, they went out of their way to get around the law.

Here are a couple of links where you can voice your opinion.

http://www.cbs.com/navbar/feedback.html

http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Mayor/

MayorDaley@ci.chi.il.us

Peace...
Keith

Here are the comments I left at CBS:
There was a time that 60 Minutes was the standard by which all news programs were measured. I think that era must have ended when I viewed the recent story on cities suing gun makers. To enter a story with such a biased view of the facts seriously brings to question the impartiality of your reporting. What was presented was not a news story. Rather it was an ad campaign for that segment of society that does not put trust in the common people to defend themselves.

Admittedly the gun dealers in this case may not be entirely innocent of the charges, but in the past I would have expected better closure in a story presented on 60 Minutes. Where was an investigation of the Illinois laws governing gun dealers. Why was there no comments from the BATF about why the gun dealers licenses are not being revoked. Is there no way that their actions can be stopped with laws that are currently in effect. Why is the mayor going after gun makers. Will automobile makers be next on the list of "deep pockets" to recoup damages from. After all, look at the untold damages from accidents and deaths caused by intoxicated drivers.

Respectfully,
Keith Mitchell


[This message has been edited by KAM_Indianapolis (edited February 14, 1999).]
 
yes, the officers made several false statements. That is one of the reason that the dealers will not be prosecuted.

What amazes me is that they found three officers to stand in a room and make general anti-gun statements. They must have been hand picked. There is no way that three officers randomly picked (even in Chicago) would be that vehement about restricting gun sales. Of course, their statements could have been edited, but two of them were pretty bad.. especially the guy who said that there was no reason for anyone to have an AR pistol.
 
Really can't expect fairness from the flaming liberal NYC media. Especially the station that brought us "The Guns Of Autumn" with as yet unanointed Dano Rather.
 
My comments to the CBS website:

"Your story about criminals buying guns in Illinois was decidedly biased and one-sided.
Why was there no reporting about the fact that criminals are free to buy or steal guns? Why is there no mention that cities/agencies are immune from lawsuits by citizens for failing to protect them? Why is there no mention that case law has established that the police or any agency is under no obligation to protect any individual, just the body society? Why was there no mention of the laws that make it illegal to defend yourself against criminals.
Are you going to blame this story on some dishonest European filmaker as well?"

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
Allright, somebody please explain to me how the gun manufacturers can "glut" the area around Chicago? My basic understanding of the bussiness was Manufacturers sold to distributors, Individual gun shops order from distributors or in a few cases directly from the manufacturers, who then fill those orders. In either case gun shops are only sent what they order, correct? So, what twisted train of thought has the gun manufacturers "flooding" any given area with their product? Also, if the gun manufacturers are remaining entirely within the law as far as their sales go, how could they be held responsible for the acts of others? Trying to figure out "liberal logic" gives me a headache. Did I miss something?
 
Indeed, that is the point of the Gun Manufacturers.. if they are within the law, then they shouldn't be liable.

There arer cases where, as in the Tabocco industry, where being within the law is not enough. In other words, if the dealers have reason to believe that the guns they seel are being bought in "straw" purchases or that they will end up being used by criminals (ie- when the girlfriend buys a gun for the guy standing there telling the dealer that he is a felon.. DUH! on the dealer's part for that one..) then they are open to civil suit.. NOTE: not criminal.. just civil.

Of course, I am not defending them, just trying to explain their logic.
 
Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet, but I still don't get it.

I. In the case of the undercover officer illegally buying a gun for her felonious boyfriend, why did the dealer not refuse to sell? How can these cities not realize that ultimately the problem lies with irresponsible dealers, not the manufacturers?

II. How should we, the consumer, respond to this blatant liberalism by 60 Minutes? Would a boycott be in order? Should we bring that suggestion to the attention of the NRA? As a life member, I would certainly support such a move...
 
It seems to me that the suits against the tobacco industry were a bit more valid than the suits against the gun industry.

1. Tobacco companies tested and proved nicotine was addictive - then said the opposite. They lied.

2. Then, tobacco companies (some? all?)worked to artificially increase the amount and the effect of nicotine in their products with the sole aim of increasing the addictive effects of their products. They lied about that.

3. Gun makers sell through government licensed and controlled dealers. The gun makers haven't been caught in lies about their products or doing anything to make their products "addictive" (medically speaking, guys...).

4. Unlike tobacco companies, gun makers have been working to make their products safer to use.

I don't know how the law can equate the lies of the tobacco industry with the safety-conscious gun makers. I just don't get it.

I hope the survivors of a drunk driving victim sue an auto manufacturer for negligence. Then we will see how far this nonsense will go.
-----------------
When I get angry with a TV show, news article, etc., I try to write EACH and EVERY sponsor (or publisher) a strong but tactful letter explaining:
-- my disagreement with the show,
-- my disappointment in their sponsoring such a show
-- my intentions immediately, and in the future.

The anti-gunners are high-profilers. We must shed the "redneck, beer belly, unshaven slob" image to show gun owners in a more appropriate light.

Kam,
Thanks for the links. I did my CBS bit...

Okay, okay. I'll go shave now...


[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited February 15, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited February 15, 1999).]
 
Thanks, KAM; everyone follow that link and also complain to CBS.

BTW, I had already started a thread on this subject of my own in "Legal and Political" before I saw this one. However, this type of thread belongs in Leg & Pol, not here, for future reference!
 
I'm glad the new members are reading the policies.. ;)

Let's take it over to the other 60 Minutes thread.

------------------
-Essayons
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top