A man behind city suits against the gun industry

J

Jffal

New member
The Philadelphia Inquirer Sunday supplement, the Inquirer Magazine, ran an article on attorney David Kairys, one of the instigators behind firearm industry lawsuits by cities.
Kairys, according to article author Suzanne Sataline, is specifically targeting sidearms - "Handguns are a product that's designed to kill."

Kairys goes on further to say "No Supreme Court case says ownership of any gun is protected by the Second Amendement." He claims that "each gun used in a crime creates a level of fear that generates more sales."


The lawyer battled John Lott at the Connecticut Law School during March of this year (and Sataline makes it appear that Lott came out second best, with Kairys using the Columbine school shootings to add strength to his arguments. My, what an oppurtunist.


Worst yet, this guy came from my old college, Temple U!

Jeff

I haven't tested this address or email yet but would imagine it is still valid.
Contacting addresses for Kairys.

Temple University School of Law
1719 N. Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19122
dkairys@vm.temple.edu


A few old and new links detailing to some degree Kairys involvement in the firearm lawsuit schemes.


Suing Gun Manufacturers: Hazardous to Our Health Address:http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s223/s223a.html


Legal exerts to discuss guns and liability Address:http://www.news.uconn.edu/rel00028.htm


GT Reports
Address:http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/gt-report/gt-report_052.htm


NCPA Policy Report No. 223
Address:http://www.cila.org/NCPA%20Policy%20Report%20No.%20223.htm


So Sue Them, Sue Them (Commentary)
Address:http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-07-99.html
 
'Handguns are a product that's designed to kill'. Confront this lie straight on.

Handguns are no more 'designed to kill' than are rifles and shotguns. They are used to 'terminate violence'. Do we issue them to LEO's so they can kill? Of course not. Are most of them used to kill? Of course not ... as I recall, something like 99.8% of firearms are never used in a crime.

So, this 'truism' that handguns are made to kill is an absurdity. Don't give a$$holes like this any room with such an absurd argument.

And, if you've never had the pleasure, check out www.firearmslitigation.org .

Regards from AZ
 
Jeff, I have to disagree. This argument that handguns are designed to kill is true. As it is also true for rifles and shotguns. When we argue that it is not true, I believe that we appear intellectually deficient.

Here's why I say this:

We don't point a rifle or shotgun at an animal and expect it to fall over dead from fright (although if we did, the gun would still be designed to kill). No, we pull the trigger expelling the bullet that is designed to introduce a debilitating shock to the body in question. This shock, when well placed, kills. That is the desired end result.

It's use as a crime deterant or to terminate violence without having to pull the trigger (because pulling the trigger involves the scenario above) is a secondary use. Why? Because its use as a deterant introduces the fear of death to the criminal, and because of that fear he usually terminates the criminal activity in which he's engaged.

The argument is irrelevant to the issue of gun control anyway (specious? I think is the word). It is an intellectually lazy way if inducing a deep emotional response, designed, if you will, to create the end result of more restrictive legislation.

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com

[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited July 11, 2000).]
 
Handguns and long guns are designed to accurately fire a projectile, period.

CMOS

------------------
NRA? Good. Now join the GOA!

The NRA is our shield, the GOA will be our sword.
 
"In war that is the goal, is it not? Kill the enemy until they surrender?"

Not the last time I looked, it wasn't. Wounding is more effective; Takes more of the enemy's manpower to treat wounded soldiers than to zip up body bags. That was part of the rationale behind the switch to smaller caliber ammo.

Still, there's a valid point here; Guns aren't made only to kill, but that's beside the point; Sometimes killing is JUSTIFIED.



------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
CMOS, to what end?

BRETT, You may know more about that than I. However, I removed that point from my post. Because in reflection, it didn't add anything to the argument.

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com

[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited July 11, 2000).]
 
I love my handguns and want to protect my right to keep them but I do believe they are designed to kill. If you don't believe that you are in denial. True, there are a lot of guns designed for recreational purposes but they are based on a device created to kill or wound.
 
John/az2: Well, that's what they told us in ROTC, anyway.

As for "to what purpose", I'll gladly field that: "Purpose" is an attribute of the human intellect, not chunks of steel. To whatever purpose the guy HOLDING the gun has, and no other!

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Yes, Brett.

But the gun did not invent itself. :D The human behind its invention and development had a purpose. As did all the subsequent developments to refine the gun had humans behind them with their purposes.

Why design something to be used in warfare (self-defense included in this catagory) and hunting that would be ineffective in its intended use?

I suppose that we could split hairs about this whole argument, but my point is, the deterent that a criminal finds at the business end of the muzzle of a gun is grave bodily harm, or death. Without such a thought, the potential effect of a gun's discharge becomes nothing to fear and therefore renders the gun an impotent self-defence device.

Therefore, guns are designed to kill.

And I am looking forward with great anticipation when some gun-bigot tells me that very fact. I will answer with supreme delight,


"So?"


:D

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com


[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited July 13, 2000).]
 
Well John et al, I still disagree.

Whether we use the word 'designed' or 'made' ... to kill ... the issue becomes the same. And, it has a lot to do with 'gun control', in my book.

You've all heard the argument ... there's no good reason to have a handgun, they're simply made to kill. I submit this is false logic, and I see nothing specious or deficient in my counter.

A firearm, any firearm, is designed to accurately send a projectile down range. That's it. An automobile is designed to move from point A to point B. That's it.

A very, very small percentage of firearms are ever used to kill, or are ever used in criminal activity. I'd wager that a larger percentage of automobiles eventually kill. And yet, people view cars as simply transportation, and accidents are seen as an unfortunate by-product. OTOH, guns are seen (by some) as unnecessary and malevolent instruments designed only to kill, even though that is very, very seldom their use.

When I use my CCW firearm properly, if I ever have to draw the firearm it will most likely not be fired ... I think we're all familiar with those stat's. And, it will be used to terminate violence. Just like an LEO's firearm.

I think this is a major point. We fall right into their rhetorical trap when we accept their 'guns are made to kill' logic. When you accept that your gun is made / designed to 'kill', you are essentially accepting their logic that the gun causes the action, not the human hands holding the firearm.

I believe this is a very important point, and to be frank, the arguments above do not make me waver in my perspective.

Regards from AZ

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited July 13, 2000).]
 
Jeff, I want to understand your position, because as I see it, to say that guns are not designed to kill is to say that the sun revolves around the earth. The very thought is that foreign to me.

It seems that we are talking about several different things here.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>The function of a gun,
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>A firearm, any firearm, is designed to accurately send a projectile down range. [/quote] and
<LI>the design of a gun <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>...guns are seen (by some) as unnecessary and malevolent instruments designed only to kill, even though that is very, very seldom their use.[/quote]and
<LI>the use of a gun. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>A very, very small percentage of firearms are ever used to kill, or are ever used in criminal activity.[/quote]</UL>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>When I use my CCW firearm properly, if I ever have to draw the firearm it will most likely not be fired ... And, it will be used to terminate violence. Just like an LEO's firearm.[/quote]

Please explain to me just how does a firearm terminate violence?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>We fall right into their rhetorical trap when we accept their 'guns are made to kill' logic. When you accept that your gun is made / designed to 'kill', you are essentially accepting their logic that the gun causes the action, not the human hands holding the firearm.[/quote]

No. Even though I accept that guns are designed to kill, it makes no conection to me that the gun has a will of its own. That is their flaw, not ours, if indeed they make this connection.

Again, to me it is so blatantly obvious that guns were designed to kill, my jaw drops in shock when someone says that they are not.

Please enlighten me if my thinking is flawed, I am not beyond change.

Sincerely,

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com
 
Handguns, rifles, any gun are designed to safely initiate and contain a rapid gas expansion, and to use that gas expansion to propel a malleable alloy pellet down a vibrating grooved tube, with a predictable degree of accuracy.

Now, if whether that alloy pellet winds up in paper, wood, aluminum cans or a critter is toally and completely up to the person initiating the firing process.

Given the deplorable results I have personally seen in handgun shootings, if handguns were designed to kill, then the designers have porked the puppy big-time, and need to re-think their designs.

LawDog
 
John, it was nice chatting with you today. We discussed our points already, but let me continue my rebuttal here, on TFL.

As I noted, when we are trained in the proper use of firearms (for self defense), when are we told to stop shooting? When the BG is dead? No. We are trained to fire two shots, center of mass, and then keep firing until the threat is stopped. We are not trained to kill ... I maintain we are trained (and train others) to use our firearms to terminate violence. That is, to stop the threat.

Frankly, I see little difference between 'function' and 'design'. But, whatever difference there is will be lost in any debate with an anti or a fence sitter.

Finally, as I noted in our conversation, please consider the implications of your argument. Perhaps you don't personally see a link between their assertion that 'guns are made to kill' and banning them, but in my mind there is a clear link. Their perspective is designed to demonize the object.

And, IMHO, that demonization is illogical, both from a standpoint of the intent most people (including LEO's) have in carrying a sidearm, as well as the empirical evidence regarding how firearms are actually used in this country.


I simply believe it is unproductive, damaging to our cause, illogical and unnecessary to concede their argument that 'handguns are a product that is designed to kill'. I suggest confronting that assertion head on, because I believe the argument can, and should be won by pro-self defense activists.

Take care. Regards from AZ
 
Lawdog,

Wouldn't it be the same to say that a can opener is designed to apply pressure in a confined area in order puncture metal?

Granted, it has many uses, but was designed to open cans.

A screwdriver can be used to open cans, but was originally designed to turn screws.

Yes, the use is determined by the individual wielding the device.

Again it seems that we are talking about two different things here.

"...contain(ing) a rapid gas expansion, and to use that gas expansion to propel a malleable alloy pellet down a vibrating grooved tube, with a predictable degree of accuracy" is a function, and that in order to acertain the real purpose behind the design I suppose that we must ask the original inventor.

As Jeff has said the anti's use this reasoning: "Guns are designed to kill, therefore they are baaaaaad, and we must be rid of them!" to create more legislation to further restrict a right that should not be restricted anyway.

This is an age-old tactic. State some truth, then twist (spin) it to fit the agenda.

For me, the fight needs to address the irresponsible connection made between the design and the use.

After all, is it not that fear of death or pain from that expelled projectile that terminates the violence?

I feel as if I'm talking in circles... never-the-less, I will ponder what you and Jeff have said because I believe we are just seeing two different sides of the same coin.

Sincerely,

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com

[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited July 13, 2000).]
 
Perhaps the anti argument rests on this choice of words - Handguns are designed ONLY to kill.

A factor in the anti-handgun sentiment is the portability of such tools. This compactness is also a serious threat to grabbers because it means that anyone around them may be armed. Citizens so equipped are capable of controlling, to some extent, their own destiny.

Wouldn't a number of hands on firearm scholars (esp Jeff Cooper) find handguns to be weapons secondary to longarms in terms of power and range? Had the alleged "career criminal carjacker turned human sponge in Philadelphia" the other day been hit five times center of mass with a rifle (even .223 rounds that tumbled or expanded) instead of 9mm, would he still likely have been frisky enough to steal a police vehicle?

While a number of rifle and shotgun configurations have offended antis, it would seem to be the humble handgun that recieves the brunt of their bad publicity.

Jeff
 
Gentlemen...gentlemen.... "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This is the issue... the anti's only get away with this BS because we have failed to assert our Rights ! Any rational person knows this...so are we going to let this crap continue or are we going to act to assure that this insanity stops once and for all...or at least another couple of hundred years...

------------------
What part of "INFRINGED" don't they understand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top