New Lawsuit Against Gun Makers

O

Oscar

New member
Here's a newsclip I just ran across and thougth I would pass on:

Shooting Spree Leads to Lawsuit against Gun Makers

(CNSNews.com) - From last year's random violence at a Jewish community center in Los Angeles springs a class-action lawsuit intended to punish the gun industry. Families of the five people shot and wounded at the community center - and relatives of a postman killed shortly after the attack - are suing six gun makers on the grounds of public nuisance and negligence. "This is groundbreaking. We are alleging that gun manufacturers indiscriminately distribute their products to criminals," said Joshua Horwitz, a gun control advocate and lawyer representing the families. "We think manufacturers have a responsibility and a duty to take more care of who is selling these guns," Horwitz said. The suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, names Glock Inc, China North Industries Corp, Davis Industries, Republic Arms Inc, Maadi, and Bush Firearms. A search of the suspect's property turned up weapons made by those companies. A self-described white supremacist, Buford Furrow, is expected to go on trial in February for crimes ranging from murder, weapons offenses, and hate crimes.
 
OK, lets follow the logic here: Somehow an inanimate object was used in a willful, malicious, illegal act that resulted in the deaths of others, and the manufacturer is to blame because they failed to prevent the criminal from getting their product? If the Justice Department, FBI, BATF, DEA, local police, state police, NICS background checks, Brady Bill, various state, local and municipal laws and licensing schemes can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals, how in the world is the manufacturer going to do it? Oh wait a minute, I forgot none of these agencies have a "duty to protect". Does this mean to say the manufacturers are responsible for doing the job dozens of federal and local agencies failed to do? Why not sue the Deptarment of Unjustice for failure to do it's job?

This is sheer insanity. Is Ford now responsible for the actions of bad drivers? After all, they market sports cars, and we all know how those people drive, yet Ford doesn't check people's driving record before selling them a Mustang! What about drunk drivers? Are the car companies responsible for keeping their products out of the hands of habitual drunk drivers? After all these people are dangerous, we need to do something. For the children. The auto industry's marketing, sales and distribution practices make NO effort to keep their products out of the hands of drunk drivers and people with bad driving records. But they easily could-- they could make Nerf cars with 10hp that only go 20 MPH, which would certainly make us safer. Or they could have dealers do an instant background check and require customers to submit proof of good driving record, insurance and three letters of recommendation before selling you a car. If you don't meet the requirements, you can only buy the Ford EcoGreen Nerfmobile. Do Americans really want to live in that kind of world??

This is even worse than the tabacco cases as far as merit goes. Even though I do not like tobacco usage, I do not agree with those cases either. However, there is at least there was some shred of logic to it: People used a dangerous product habitually ON THEMSELVES, by THEIR CHOICE, so at least one can see a direct cause and effect.IMHO, the fact that smokers had more than adequate warning of the health risks of smoking and voluntarily chose to continue to put themselves are risk should have been enough to put the issue to rest.

However, the problem is the trial lawyers run the system-- for their benefit and no one else's-- so the results were inenvitable. Did you know that in most cases, the "class" of the class action suit sees little to zero of any award or settlement. That's right, ZERO! The trial lawyers get almost all of it. It is an immoral, reprehensible, shameful wealth transfer scheme and that's all it is. The trial lawyers who ran the tobacco case for the airline stewardesses against the airlines got all the money, and the class got zero. Some lawyers literally go BILLIONS in fees, translating to something like $250,000 per hour for their fees. The most interesting part is that this did not hurt the tobacco companies one bit. They raised there prices, and the smokers paid. In fact, it's almost as if the trial lawyers figured out a way for every smoker in the world to donate a few dollars a pack to them. (Source: this was all reported on Dateline not long ago).

If this continues, almost EVERY industry will fall victim to these suits, and we will all lose. Only the lawyers will gain, and it will be a sad world indeed.

What I want to know is, where are the countersuits for bringing frivilous lawsuits? The gun industry has to wake up and realize they must countersue the lawyers, the governments and the plaintiffs to stop this madness.
 
We are seeing the consequences of the trial lawyers so heavily supporting GoreClintonClinton over the last election cycle. The justice department actively participated in civil suits against tobacco, guns, CD's, and what else. Trial lawyers are systematically looting any pot of money they can find and the judicial system is helping.

I hope Bush has tort reform at the top of his hidden agenda.



------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Barry Goldwater--1964
 
well, if this is the case, then:

They should sue the manufacturer of his car, because his high speed murder transport made it easy to quickly and efficiently aprroach and escape the crime scene with a minimum of detection. People should have to undergo a 60 day state and federal backgound check along with a psychoanalysis by a licenced psychotherapist before they can buy a car. That way we can screen out all the undesireable people who have no business owning and operating a machine capable of large-scale destruction.

The manufacturer of his shoes should be sued as well, since his high-comfort, assault-tread footwear made it unbeliveably easy to stalk his victims and escape the scene of the crime. Again, we should regulate interstate footwear purchases, institute mandatory background checks for shoe owners, and outlaw any sniper-style footwear. Think of the children, for God's sake! If we could all compromise with a tread softness limit and install integrated taps or bells on all new shoes sold in the US, we could greatly reduce the numbers of people stalked and killed with military-style assault shoes. Soft soled shoes and steel toed shoes made after December 31, 2001 should be for military and law-enforcement use only, and should be clearly stamped or maked with a neon-green symbol designating their restriction. It wouldn't affect anyone's ability to walk, and would save lives, so where's the problem? If only one life is saved...

Also, with the discovery of so-called "safety razors" (which isn't fooling the US public) in this man's home, it should send a clear message to the toiletry manufacturers of the US - the decent citizens of this great country are no longer going to tolerate your blatantly irresponsible marketing practices and your negligent distribution of unregulated shaving products to white supremacists! Your advertising offers the average skinhead many attractive features which makes their propagation of race hatred that much easier. Features like flexible blades and integral aloe vera strips - features the US military doesn't even include with the razors they distribute to their trrops - which make it all too easy for young teenagers to casually shave their heads without a second thought and become crazed racist murderers. Are these rapid-shave features really neccessary for the average citizen? Using your products, skinheads are tragically able to shave their own heads and the heads of others with little or no consequence - no nicks or scrapes that would otherwise make them think twice before shaving their heads and promulgating their hatred. We should propose a 100% tax on all rapid-shave razors and gel shaving creams, and regulate the market which the razor industry so blatantly floods with their horrible products. A background check wouldn't hurt, either.

etc, etc, etc....



------------------
Glock 19
S&W 629 Classic
KelTec P32

"Oh yeah? Well I talk LOOOUDLY! And I carry a BIIIGGER stick! And I'll use it, too." -Yoesemite Sam
 
OK i got one, lets sue ATF, FBI, State, and local Police for NOT enforcing Firearms laws!!!! Lets also sue Car Makers, as those are many times more deadly than guns.

------------------
Dead [Black Ops]
 
If I'm not mistaken, one of the guns used by that idiot was sold by the San Fran Police department or was it a police department in Washington?

Who needs to be sued again?

Also, finally, abortion clinics are getting sued. I like this. Rule by lawsuit. Let's see how the liberals like getting thier Ox gored (pun meant)

madison
 
You guys are all making the mistake of trying to cloud the issue with the facts and logic.

Remember, when it comes to these issues, facts and logic need not apply. Only passionate emotions and lies, count.

J.B.
 
Remember that these people coordinate these attacks, and they pool resources. The legal community has an entire 'program' set up to pursue the industry ... a rather well-coordinated ambulance-chasing scheme. Please see www.firearmslitigation.org - you'll be impressed.

Live and let live. Regards from AZ
 
so if i go on a stabbing spree will they search my house & sue Victorinox, Himalayan Imports, CRKT, Spyderco, Kabar, Oneida & Washington Forge cutlery? Wait a second i think i have an arsenal of plastic picnic knives too...
Better sue Libby too.

Oneida does seem to be fostering an attitude of violence on their website:
TitleShot.GIF


dZ
 
Here is a NEW idea. Sue/prosecute the perpetrator of said crime! Why can't this be done anymore? WHY??????????

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>are suing six gun makers on the grounds of public nuisance and negligence.[/quote]

Um....even though suing gun makers shouldnt be happening anyway...in this particular case shouldnt you sue the maker of the ONE gun that was used in this crime?

The common sense is flowing freely now!

------------------
Try to take away my gun...and you will see my 2nd Amendment Right in ACTION!!! -Me

[This message has been edited by MrBigglesworth (edited August 11, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top