Hey, I'm american and ive got tons of personal responsibility, and im gonna throw it out there, so does every other american on this site. I love how america bashing is en vogue (sarcasm). Its not that im super patriotic, its just i hate following crowds. My favorite is when foreigners complain that americans stereotype other people. (if you dont know whats wrong with that, its a stereotype itself)

I was talking in direct reference to the article. There are plenty of individual Americans with loads of personal responsibility, but at the same time the US is the most lawsuit-happy nation on earth.

I don't think I'm bashing Americans by pointing out an American news article, about the American legislature, in which Rep. Rick Keller says "We've got to get back to those old-fashioned principles of personal responsibility, of common sense, and get away from this new culture where everybody plays the victim and blames other people for their problems".

It's relevant to this newsgroup in light of the discussion that took place a little while ago about the proposals from the WHO re: fast food advertising guidelines.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

"maybe americans are ready for some personal responsibility" is a pretty general statement. There are certain groups of people (wont say which ones, for fear of backlash) where AIDS rates are rising extremely fast, if there was an education movement in this population, and i stated, "(Ethnic Minorities) ready for some personal responsibility" It would be seen as extremely offensive. A few high profile cases, and an entire population is stereotyped, ex. the woman who spilled coffee on herself, then sued that it was too hot. Everyone points to that, but it's just anecdotal. You're fooling yourself if you think this law was passed to, " get back to those old-fashioned principles of personal responsibility, of common sense" It was passed because of studies on obesity scared the fast food industry, and they gave millions of dollars to representatives, and so they passed the law. On a similar note, Gym memberships and money spent on diets and weight loss are highest in the united states per capita.

The Bush administration is also doing the same thing with lawsuits against hand gun manufacturers. They're obviously much more interested in preserving the corporate profits of those who pay their campaign funding than they are concerned about the health of ordinary Americans. Then of course they disguise it with the "freedom of choice" and "individual responsibility" rhetoric.

Apparently I'm anti-American now. Oh well, I've been called worse.

I would be interested in knowing exactly how this legislation is crafted. If it is simply a case of saying that individuals or groups cannot sue fast food joints because they ate too much and got fat, I can buy it. The benefits are potentially reduced burden on the courts, and reducing insurance premiums.

If they are banning any and all lawsuits against the fast food places for obesity related lawsuits, including things like false advertising, publishing inaccurate nutritional information, negligence, etc., then that would be a problem.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

OK--Here's the scenario. A person breaks into my house and steals one of my guns. He then goes to a 7-11, robs it, and kills the clerk. The clerk's family sues Smith and Wesson. After a few of these lawsuits, S&W decides to go out of business, putting thousands of people out of work and impacting millions of other people who choose to own guns for sport or self-defense. Why is S&W culpable--their product worked exactly as advertised?

Here's another (true) scenario--A guy gets his private pilots license. The next day he goes to his local airport and rents a plane for an hour. When he gets back to the airport, he misjudges the wind, and overshoots his approach turn. Instead of going around and trying again, he shoots for the runway. He puts the plane in an approach turn stall and augers into the ground, killing himself. His family sues Cessna and wins. The airplane functioned exactly as advertised (no engine or airframe failure). The operator simply flew it outside of the envelope. Why is this Cessna's fault? These types of suits have nearly destroyed the light civil aircraft industry in the US, again, impacting the employment of many and the ability to use and buy light, civil aircraft for many others.

Here's another (true) scenario--A bike dealer in Michigan....well, we all know the rest.

Lawyers and plaintiffs hit the jackpot, and the rest of us pay. The Democrats vote against any kind of tort reform, because the lawyers are "those who pay their campaign funding."

A bonehead in Nashville poured hot oil on his wife and 8 month old baby yesterday but God knows the real responsibility lies with Crisco! It's really their fault for making the oil so lets sue them!

---

jimmyk

a little more food for thought...;-)

I agree that people need to take personal responsibility for their actions. But, a good question to ask is does the food supply chain have some civic duty to provide a better product? We can argue day and night that people have a choice - drink or don't drink, smoke or don't smoke, eat McDonald's or eat at the health food store, but consider some of the economic impact. Subsidized products are what are winding up in fast foods & cheap foods, and our less fortunate population (as well as those who are ignorant or just don't care) as a trend picks these commodities over their more expensive, healthier counterparts. They wind up obese. That impacts everyone else with lost productivity, health insurance hikes, etc.

So, to an extent, to speak in Slowtwitchian terms, sometimes the only way to induce change is to apply force. In this case, economic force. The tobacco industry got their pants sued off, now cigarettes cost more (taxed out the yinyang) and they have to give money to anti-smoking campaigns. Caveat that they're making mucho bucks in other countries pushing their product. Until we the people as a whole stand up and say stop giving me this subsidized shite (hydrogenated oils, corn syrups), we're all going to pay, one way or the other.

That's my happy meal for the day.

---

Marty Gaal, CSCS
One Step Beyond Coaching
Triangle Open Water Swim Series | Old School Aquathon Series
Powerstroke® Freestyle Technique DVD

How bout this one from a few months in the future. I get sued for causing pain and suffering by smokin' all of you in local and regional triathlons. hahaha, i crack myself up.

"The Bush administration is also doing the same thing with lawsuits against hand gun manufacturers. They're obviously much more interested in preserving the corporate profits of those who pay their campaign funding than they are concerned about the health of ordinary Americans. Then of course they disguise it with the "freedom of choice" and "individual responsibility" rhetoric. "


There are so many things wrong with this statement... 1) the Senate is not the "Bush Administration" - one is the executive branch, the other is the legislative. 2) What is wrong with corporate profits? Corporate profits mean corporate taxes, which means revenue. Profitable corporations also hire people and pay them money. People then use that money to buy food and clothing. Would you rather have a massive welfare state? Worked well in Russia... 3) Who do you really think opposes eliminating lawsuits against the gun or fast food industry? Trial lawyers, who make massive contributions to Democrats. 4) Lawsuits against fast food chains will not make one person healthy. Period. 5) You apparently dislike corporate profits, but do you also dislike the profits made by the law firms? They are the only reason suits like these are filed in the first place. 6) "Freedom of choice" and "individual responsibility" are not rhetoric. These concepts are the lynchpin of our society.

C'mon Cerveloguy....shouldn't ordinary Americans be responsible for their own health? Why should the government get involved? Considering how nearly 80% of all death and disease is a result of lifestyle choices; smoking, overeating (obesity), drinking, drugs.....all preventable with an ample body of knowledge available to the general public on why these things should be avoided.

Let's say you and I bought homes in the same neighborhood 25 years ago and during that time, we took care of our homes and kept them in a good state of repair; cleaning the gutters, trimming the trees, all the regular type of home maintenance.....

We have a neighbor that bought his house at the same time we bought ours and over the years he did -0- maintenance on his house. Now, his house is in need of some serious repairs costing thousands of dollars......why should you and I have to pay the bill?

That's healthcare in America. All kinds of disgusting fatbodies shoveling loads of crap into there pieholes finishing off the meal with a smoke and they wonder why they're getting fat and sick. Why should we have our taxes raised to pay for medical care for all these fat slobs?

You make sure your bike is safe and ready to ride, right? It's your choice. If your bike fails due to you neglecting it's maintenance, is it fair for you to send me the repair bill and expect me to pay it?

Oh yeah, about the gun thing. Why should gun manufacturers be sued? Can the relatives of victims of violent crime sue judges and parole boards who release violent felons into society only to kill again?

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

Evidently you don't shop at Tom's store. . .



;)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

That's the thing, the government IS getting involved by proposing legislation that says Joe Obese cannot sue the fast food guys.

I don't really have a side on this issue. I just thought it was an interesting topic.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

1) While they may be different branches, the same party controls both. We say, bush administration because it is easier than, Policy Makers of the Republican Party 2) Corproate profits are great, but the question is, at what price? CerveloGuy is saying that corporate profits are being put before public safety. i.e. the fast food industry is making a dangerous product, further production of that product increases profits, but at the cost of public health, which is not good. 3) Yes, trial lawyers do oppose this, but so does anyone who wants corporations to act responsibly. Protection from lawsuits gives a corporation no incentive to engage in good buisness practices. What do they care if one BigMac has more than a weeks supply of saturated fat, which has been linked to heart disease? They cant sue, so the industry does nothing to change. Would big tabacco stopped advertising to teenagers if it didnt get sued? 4)"Lawsuits against fast food chains will not make one person healthy. Period." While the tabacco lawsuits didnt cure anyone's lung cancer, it did prevent many people from smoking, and got a lot of people to quit. Imagine a huge campain against unhealthy food similar to the one against cigarettes. If it gets one person to decide to eat salads instead of bigmacs, then it has made one person healthy. period. 6) "public health" isnt rhetoric either. Each side has a valid arguement, and is cloaking its side in lofty terms while each is really driven primarily by special interest. Which do i agree with? I dont know. I think the american diet is horrendous, and something has to be done. Inactivity and Poor diet are going to be the smoking of my generation. I suspect in forty years, people will be amazed at the things we put into our bodies.

I'll throw it back to you another way. If an individual is hurting society the individual will be charged/put in jail. Shouldn't also corporations?

Not saying that we should round up the McDonald's executives and throw them in jail, but I see no reason why the junk food industry shouldn't be regulated since it is an industry that is hurting or at least having a negative effective on the greater society. It's fine to talk about individual responsibility but that assumes that everybody is well versed on nutrition issues. Unfortunately that's not the case and that's why North Americans are getting fatter with the corresponding increase in health costs to the tax payer.

In fairness to McDonald's, I did read last week that they are doing away with the super fries. That's one small step in the right direction.

Being on the winning side of capitalism, and having been born that way, i totally agree, screw everyone else, i want another BMW. *sarcasm

I would rather try to help them get fit and healthy then spit on their grave shouting, "you deserved it" We as triathletes engage in a pretty dangerous sport. If you were to get melanoma, how would you like it if no one wanted to give you healthcare because, "you did it to yourself by being out in the sun so much"

http://thomas.loc.gov/...3:./temp/~c108rfDTOT::

I've answered my own question. Basically the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act says that a person cannot sue the fast food guys for their own weight gain, unless the fast food guys "knowingly and willfully" violated some other statute. I'm no lawyer, but I think that phrase, "knowingly and willfully" includes anything that the fast food guys should have known about (eg labelling requirements).

I think thats fair.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

"I see no reason why the junk food industry shouldn't be regulated...." Sounds like a true Canadian talking - let's tax and regulate them to death.

---

Andrew Inkpen

The whole sun exposure/melanoma thing is cooked up by the skincare industry for marketing purposes. You're at much greater risk of health problems brought on by vitamin D deficiency. It's better to be in the sun than out of the sun. Like I tell my girl; "The darker the berry, the sweeter the juice"

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

Cerveloguy,

If a corporation is selling a legal product they should not be held responsible for an individuals use of that product.

Maybe the arguement is pointless. Life expectency is up even as we have health scares like this. However, If people are living longer but dependant on government healthcare I am opposed to it because they feds are digging in my pocket to care for someone who gobbled up too much junk food.

I could use that money to buy some ammo for my .357 ;-)

MZM

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

What if it was found that fast food companies were guilty of adding chemicals to their food to not only make it safer and taste better (which all the fast food chains do right now), but also to give their foods an addictive quality not unlike the product manipulation big tobacco has done with its product? Would this warrant a law suit?

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





No sidewindin bushwackin, hornswaglin, cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter!

"the fast food industry is making a dangerous product, further production of that product increases profits, but at the cost of public health, which is not good"

I only have an issue with the "dangerous product" if the company producing it is (mis)represent it as something other than what it is (think Tobacco) or if the existance of the product is inherently dangerous. (Think toxic waste.) The existance of a Big Mac is not a bad thing and McDonalds should not suffer for creating or marketing it. Consuming a big mac might be a bad thing but the only person whom should be held responsible for its consumption is the one eating it. If you think otherwise, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.



"Yes, trial lawyers do oppose this, but so does anyone who wants corporations to act responsibly"

If you want corporations to "act responsibly", vote with the almighty dollar. Don't buy the product if you don't like it. The only time I disagree with what I just wrote is if just doing business is inherently harmful to people/the environment. Companies that do this should be regulated to some extent. As far as I know, cooking McNuggets doesn't kill people. The fact is that McDonalds and the fast food industry are serving an unimaginable DEMAND.



"What do they care if one BigMac has more than a weeks supply of saturated fat, which has been linked to heart disease?"

They should care no more than the individuals that are lining up to shove them down their own faces. I had Ice cream today....who can I blame????



"While the tabacco lawsuits didnt cure anyone's lung cancer, it did prevent many people from smoking, and got a lot of people to quit."

True. My issue with Tobacco is that the companies lied their asses off in saying that cigarettes are not addictive. They deserve to be punished for that. Unfortunately, everybody knew they were lying and smoked up anyway. What a perfect excuse to not be responsible for one's own actions.



"If it gets one person to decide to eat salads instead of bigmacs, then it has made one person healthy. "


http://story.news.yahoo.com/...mcdonalds_salad_dc_2

Horrors, the tobacco companies manipulated the nicotine level in the cigarettes. You forgot to mention that they manipulated it by making it steadily lower over the years. Swallowing the half truth blather is as intelligent as swallowing too many big macs.

Yes, the fast food industry manipulates the fat content of their food. I certainly hope so. An objective observer would call them product specifications.

I am about as interested in having lawyers save me from buying a light airplane, or protect me from McDonald's, or stop me from smoking as I am in having them protect me from Osama Bin Laden. We stuck our lawyers on it after the first WTC bombing. That didn't work out. The second time we handed it over to Special Forces. Funny how much more effective they are.

<<We stuck our lawyers on it after the first WTC bombing. That didn't work out. The second time we handed it over to Special Forces. Funny how much more effective they are. >>

Some people take "mission objective" to heart better than others...

Brett

warning: RANT - you can't sue you've been warned.

I'm suing the the next person who passes me b/c i want to win. whine whine bitch and complain. What ever happened to acepting responsibility for one's actions?
why can't americans realize that the buck stops with them. They have a brain, in theory anyway, and they make a choice. To try and land that plane (bad choice if you ask me) or go around (better choice). To eat at BK or the golden arches or to make their own meals. to exercise or not. to smoke or not. Guess what you smoke your chances or dying a rather less than pleasent death go up. Take responsibility for your own actions and quit being a pansy and trying to blame someone else for your shortcomings.
I wish it were less expensive to go to court than settleing and say you know what my product worked as designed and promised your bad decisions put you in the spot your in. ENJOY!.
(this is directed at no one, but at our society as a whole)

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Its human nature to whine and bitch, to blame everyone else for your problems. Third world countries whine that america is holding them down, that we're not helping them enough. Im pissed when countries get mad that we cut their aid from x billions of dollars to only x/2 billions of dollars. How bout they be happy we even care at all. Havent they ever heard of the asian miracle, The southeast asian countries that through high savings and investment in their own country and a good government transformed their country into a economic powerhouse within a generation. How bout they try that instead their current technique of blowing themselves up, its a little more effective in the long run.

If you were offended by this, tough. In truth I see validity in both sides, the "help yourself, youre lazy" and the "everyone is interconnected" arguements.

Nobody is discussing the proverbial elephant in the room.

We are blaming products for behavior. Eliminating/Regulating the product does little to nothing to change the behavior. The attitude is selfish and childish to say the least.

There are plenty of fast, quick & easy, healthy alternatives out there (think Subway, etc) ... they don't *want* them. We could name lots of things people could eat instead of what they do. They don't want these foods, and they don't want to hear it. People want to smoke, but they don't want cancer.

Responsibility seems to be in short supply. If we need to impose tax/insurance breaks for the healthy and tax/insurance penalties for the unhealthy ... then I'd rather do that then the alternative (i.e. more regulation). If there wasn't junk/fast food and guns, we'd find another way to display our violent and unrestrained nature. The behavior is the problem, not the product. Fix the behavior. Stop looking for easy, pain-free solutions.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

How about this:Shotgun blows up in shooter's face causing blindness or death due to manufacturing defect, lawsuit dismissed because we protect gun manufacturers with special laws lobbied for by NRA.

I don't think any of the proposed regulations include not allowing lawsuits for manufacturing defects. That isn't the intention of any of this.

-Nick

That is not the intention of the legislation. Lawsuits against gun manufacturers for defective products would not be affected.

"Stand back--I've got a cheeseburger, and I'll use it if I have to!"

I think you've been smoking too many left-handed cigarettes. The only thing anti-gun legislation accomplishes is to remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens. See, the thing with criminals is that they break the law, that's why their criminals.

No industry, be it gun manufacturers, fast-food companies, or (insert an industry you hate here), should be blamed for the wanton misuse and abuse of their products. To do otherwise is to blame someone else for your behavior. That's what children do.

Gun control works, just ask the experts: Fidel Castro, Adolf Hitler, Quadaffi, Hussain, Idi Amin, Stalin...

Murder/assault is already a crime, wether it be from fists & feet, a Louisville Slugger, J.A. Heinkles 8 inch chef knife, Slica bike pump, Craftsman 13 inch crescent wrench, fire extinguisher, automobile, I could go on and on before even getting to firearms.

We should ban automobiles to reduce the harm to society caused by drunk drivers. It will work, I guarantee it. If it saves just one human life, won't it be worth it?

Brett

It's not the automobiles we should ban. It's all that crashing. If we made it against the law to crash your car, then no one could be killed by a drunk driver.

<<It's not the automobiles we should ban. It's all that crashing. If we made it against the law to crash your car, then no one could be killed by a drunk driver.>>

Matt, thanks for highlighting my contention with the anti-gun movement. Why should the vast majority of us who use automobiles responsibly have them taken away when it is the negligent ACTIONS of a few who are causing harm. However, when the subject of firearms (guns usually have wheels and a three person crew) comes around, people are ready to eliminate the physical object thinking that it will reduce/eliminate the violent actions. The logic is not applied equally. Many people in the "anti-gun" crowd are smart, intelligent people who have simply not been exposed to the positive side of firearms. They did not grow up around them, take multiple NRA saftey classes, have fun "plinking" with friends and family, etc. Instead, their lack of familiarity means that they get most of their information from biased sources such as the news media and Hollywood. Guns are not evil, humans are. I have a ten inch cast iron frying pan in my kitchen cupboard, it doesn't sneak out while I'm at work and bash innocent people all on it's own. It stays in it's spot until it's time for me to cook up some vittles. It's no more dangerous than the rifles locked in my gun safe.

Brett

Clearly, the problem is you like guns because your a right-wing Christian coalition woman hating fear mongering redneck.

Just like me.

I've never understood the anti-gun argument. You're correct in saying that the argument is frequently made by intelligent, otherwise reasonable people. However, they seem to shut off any common sense when the topic of guns comes up. I would love to have an intelligent debate over the merits of gun legislation with someone who opposes my views, but I've never been able to find anyone to take me up on it.

As you mentioned, there is definately a cultural aspect involved. I was raised around guns and hunting and continue that sport today. As a result, I am comfortable around and respect guns for what they are. If that makes me a redneck, fine by me.

Purely hypothetical. I don't think the immunity law has been passed yet. We don't know the final version or how it would be used by the attorneys representing manufacturers. Can anyone cite a case where a gun maker had to pay judgment in a lawsuit just because someone was shot, the supposed stolen case, etc. I know they are filed, but how many actually get to trial. I'm a gun owning Republican, but I'm suspicious of favoring selected industries with special laws.

Several have been brought. I think Baltimore and Boston (not sure of the cities) tried to bring class actions against gun makers, a la the cigarette cases, but were unsuccessful in being heard. Only takes one liberal activist judge though before one gets through.

You can't get ice cream out of a 1/2 gallon container without using a spoon. The ice cream is harmless in the container.......if it stays there.......out of your mouth, you won't get fat.

I smell a lawsuit...............against spoon manufacturers.

MZM

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

Don’t blame this on the Bush administration. While Tort reform has been a traditionally Republican theme, this bill received some measure of bi-partisan support. It has very little to do with corporate profits once you look to see that almost all the fast food chains donate to both the Democrat and Republican parties. This is even limited by the new McCain/Feingold law, which limits the amount of money any one person or company donates to a candidate and to a party. Your characterization of the current President is simply a symptom of an under informed media that seeks to sensationalize solid, common sense laws. Next thing you will tell me is how great a guy Bill Clinton was and that Richard Nixon really wasn't a crook.

I just finished a fast food double cheeseburger with a side order of tater tots with cheese on top. I came up for air long enought to notice there were NO WARNING LABELS on any of my food.

If I can suit the fast food industry, them I'm going to sue the Surgeon General for forgetting to warn me about the dangers of eating myself to death.

I've owned a .22 and a shot gun but see no reason why anybody needs to own a hand gun. Toronto is starting to develop a handgun/gang problem and guess where the guns are being smuggled across the border from. But I will also admit that our federal gun registration law up here in Canada is the stupidest piece of legislation ever conceived. Don't know if you're familiar with it but basically it registers every farmer with a shotgun above his chicken coup and has done asolutely nothing to keep hand guns out of the hands of criminals.

To me, owning a handgun is similar to owning a car that will do speeds in excess of the posted speed limit. By possesing that object, I can choose to break the law with it or I can choose to operate it in a safe manner, whatever that may be. What I object to is having someone else tell me that I can't be trusted to obey the law, so they will use legislation to remove the temptation.

How's this for a reason--Criminals are more afraid of encountering a homeowner with a handgun than they are of getting caught in the act by police. Therefore, it can be argued that handguns (or even the implied threat of them) prevent or deter crime many times without even being used. In order for the police to provide the same level of security, we would essentially have to have a cop on every corner, which is totally unaffordable. Could you defend your home with a shotgun? Yes, but in tight quarters, give me a .357 or .45 ACP (hollowpoint so it doesn't go through a wall and hit someone it shouldn't).

Your point on the ineffectuality of Canadian gun laws is well taken by those who would propose the same model for the US. If driver license laws don't stop people (criminals) from driving with a suspended or no license, what makes people think criminals will all turn in or register their guns?

Some people point to lower violence rates in Europe and Canada as reasons why we should have stricter gun control. I have recently read an article about "Social Capital." Social capital is the degree to which people feel "invested" in ther community and neighbors. Due to our (US) highly mobile, multi-ethnic/religious/etc. society, we have lower social capital than say a country like Norway. Explains why violence and crime rates are usually lower in small towns than large cities, where people are more likely to feel less a part of a community with common goals and mores. Makes me think we should spend less time celebrating "diversity" as a good thing in and of itself, and more time finding common values.

"lower violence rates in Europe and Canada "

I don't know if the "social capital" is any different in Canadian or European urban areas. I've also found that arguing over hand guns with many Americans is fruitless because so many of you are stuck into the "right to bear arms" mentality that is embedded in American culture. The undisputed point is that the gun violence rates in the US are higher than in other western democracies where gun control is stricter. That's enough proof for me.

Overall crime rates are higher in Europe than here in the US because they don't have enough guns to deter the criminals. In the US criminals are detered and crime is prevented thanks to ordinary citizens with guns. So if gun violence is high, is it good violence (self defense) or the other kind (crime)? You can't say that guns are the root cause of crime and violence without also saying how much crime is prevented by guns used in self defense.

I was out riding in a pretty desolate place here in SoCal about a month ago and some hillbilly in a truck came by and smacked be square in the back with a piece of redwood fencing material. Almost knocked me on my a$$ and stung pretty bad. If the fool would have come back for a second try, I would have ventilated him with my .357.......well, I didn't have it with me. Does anyone carry anything more lethal than pepper spray when they ride? What's the smallest, most powerful pistol that will fit in a fanny pack?

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

I'm generally suspicious of limiting lawsuits, too.
However, I think protecting the gun industry in this case was necessary.
It doesn't matter whether or not a gun maker had ever lost a lawsuit because a gun was criminally used. (Although there was that case in Florida- student shot teacher with stolen gun, teacher's family sued gun manufacturer and won. That judgement might have been thrown out on appeal, I'm not sure.)
The lawsuits against the gun industry were not designed or intended to win, per se. They were intended to bankrupt the industry by forcing it to spend big money on legal defense. Contrary to popular myth, gun manufacturers are not really huge companies with unlimited financial resources- the strategy was a real threat to the industries survival.
Whatever your feelings on gun control, I think it's clear that these lawsuits were an abuse of the political/legal process. They were brought by anti-gun govt officials who had no real legal standing anyway, to force an outcome that they haven't been able to achieve through legitimate democratic means.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

What's the smallest, most powerful pistol that will fit in a fanny pack?[/reply]

How big is your fanny pack?
I believe Kel-tec now has a .380 that's only a little heavier than the .32 it makes- which is smaller than a wallet and weighs 6.5 oz empty. The .380 must be pretty snappy in the recoil dept, though.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

[Just responding to the last post in the thread]

The argument against guns has to do with their lethality. When someone uses a gun for emotion or crime purposes, the possibility of death is high. When someone uses a baseball bat, stick, club, fist, etc with emotion or crime, the possibility of death is less. The idea is "damage is better than death". This should be pretty easy to understand. If you were going to be robbed by someone, would you rather be shot or beaten?

I once heard a comedian say that they only guns people should own are muskets ... like those from the revolutionary war. By the time you got it loaded for a drive-by, everyone would be gone. By the time you had it ready to rob someone/store ... they would have fled to safety. Gang shoot-outs would take 3 hours before anyone got shot. It was pretty funny b/c the guy was going through the motions of loading, etc.

----------------------------------------

The argument against handguns is concealment. That is the advantage of handguns. I don't know anyone that hunts with a handgun. I can think of very few reasons why an everyday person outside of military/police needs a handgun. I worked for a gunsmith (in high school) and understand the want for a handgun, but the need is minimal. [Note: I own guns -- even handguns -- for protection of my family. I also enjoy hunting, though I haven't been for the last few years]

Herein lies the problem ... tougher guns laws only affect the person that uses guns responsibly. The guy that wants a gun to hunt or shoot at the range with his buddies, has a FOID card, waits 2 -weeks to buy a gun, doesn't shoot peopple, etc. The criminal buys a gun on the street and 5-minutes later commits a crime with an untraceable (to them) weapon. Tougher gun laws do nothing but make in a bigger pain-in-the-ass for law-abiding citizens.

Now ... if you have a magic wand that can erase all guns from existence ... then we should talk. =)

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

<<Now ... if you have a magic wand that can erase all guns from existence ... then we should talk. =) >>

Since religion has been the basis of many conflicts throughout the world, we should ban it too. Not everybody uses religious doctrine for good. So let's just ban the practice of organized religion. The world would be much better off and a lot less violent.

Rights are not "need based"

Brett

<<most powerful pistol that will fit in a fanny pack?>>

S & W makes a few small frame revolvers. For a limited time, they had an alloy framed 5 shot chambered in .38 Special that would handle +P loads (I'm not sure about +P+). My only contention with alloy framed firearms are the tendancy to cut the top strap if you put a lot of rounds through the weapon. I have the stainless steel version, weighs more, but I don't sweat putting +P+ loads through it.

Brett

Wouldn't want to p*ss any of you guys off in the heat of the moment otherwise I might be a dead man. If you tried strangling me after a few seconds you might come to your senses and ask "what am I doing". Once a trigger is pulled the damage is done.

Do you get my point about hand guns? The statistics speak for themselves.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

<<The statistics speak for themselves.>>

You are absolutely correct, the statistics do speak for themselvs. Millions of law abiding citizens enjoy the safe use of firearms for sport year after year without incident.

The U.S. averages roughly 50,000 deaths per year from drunk driving. I say ban alcoholic beverages and the roads will become safe. I don't consume beer myself, so I see no reason anybody else should either. The statisics speak for themselvs.

As far as smuggling goes, Joe Kennedy (yes, those Kennedys) smuggled Canadian Whiskey (and other spirits) into the U.S. during Prohibition. That's how a large portion of the Kennedy fortune was created.

<<Wouldn't want to p*ss any of you guys off in the heat of the moment otherwise I might be a dead man.>>

What's the name of that guy who plays (played) for the Canuck's? Last week, didn't he blind-side sucker punch one of our boys and drive him into the ice resulting in fractured vertebrea? Another example of why handguns should be banned...

Brett

"Another example of why handguns should be banned..."

Because of Kennedy's, prohibition, Canadian whiskey and hockey...do you want to run that by me one more time again. Somehow I feel to see the connection.

Yes, I've sport shooted, with a rifle. However, most Americans don't buy hand guns for sport shooting. And yes the statistics do speak for themselves - the US has the highest rate of hand gun crime/homocides in the western world.

<<Because of Kennedy's, prohibition, Canadian whiskey and hockey...do you want to run that by me one more time again. Somehow I feel to see the connection>>

Well, there was a few hours where I mysteriously could not post to the forum. So, the comment about Joe Kennedy smuggling whiskey was referring to your earlier post about firearms being smuggled into Canada from the U.S. Is the gang problem a result of firearms? The hockey reference was an attempt to highlight that violence/injury can occur without any involvment of an inanimate object, such as a pistol or hockey stick.

Cerveloguy, I'm going to include you in the group of people I mentioned in an earlier post. That is the group of intellegent people who for some reason that I don't understand, do not apply the same logic or thought process to banning automobiles or alcohol that they apply to firearms/handguns etc. I can drag out statistics and anecdotal evidence showing how alcohol has negativly impacted the lives of Americans, Canadians, Europeans, human health in general, etc. You have mentioned that you enjoy a good brew most nights. I am going to make the assumption that your enjoyment of beer/wine/spirits has not negatively impacted your life or your family. So, why should the government ban/tax to high heaven/over-regulate a product you consume responsibly? How about your car? I'm sure you have a very clean driving record. Some people cannot seem to manage their lives in a manner that allows them to not be dangerous while behind the wheel. Should you have your "right" to operate a motorized vehile responsibly restricted/revoked?

I hope I haven't insulted you as a person or your intellect, because that was not my intention. I'm not calling or implying that your are some filthy gun grabbing pinko-commie or anything even close. Perhaps one reason the United States experiences a high rate of firearms violence is due to the lax punishment criminals receive for commiting a violent crime. I mean this in the friendliest manner I can deliver via a medium such as the internet: Next time you are sitting down and enjoying a good microbrew, think about what your reaction would be if your "right" to drink a beer was to be threatend.

Now, go out and get some running miles in;-)

Brett

Cerveloguy, I understand your argument against handguns,but consider them for a moment for self defense. SELF-DEFENSE (im not yelling:) is what its all about. Their is a large segment of our population that is in no position to defend themselves from an aggressive,large,male attacker.. Think about a single mom, 5'2", a-buck-fifteen, home alone with small kids. Who is going to defend them from a madman???? Not you, not me, the cops may take 20min to respond to the 911 call. And it's not just women, it's elderly people, it's the guy in a wheelchair, it's anyone weaker than the thugs.Don't these people have a right to defend their lives and their families from predators who would kill or maim them?

I remember one of the funniest TV news stories I ever heard was when I lived in Atlanta. Small community west of Atlanta, no one home at this residence, dad at work, mom at the store, little brother off somewhere. Big brother, home from college and asleep on the couch, when he hears someone trying to break the door down. What does big brother do? call the cops??? no, no time.... Time gets incredibly short in these scenarios.... he does have time to run in his room and fetch his .44mag w/scope (we do use these for hunting down here) He tells the pair of thugs that he's about to drop the hammer but they are undeterred. So as they come in the door, w/ weapon if memory serves correct, he lets them hold one. TV reporter, "what was going through your mind as they were bearing down on you?" Kid, (in the thickest Ga. accent, it was beautiful!!!) " I was thinking I might be able to get both them SOB's with one shot!!!!" I remember thinking that is one salty college kid:) Moral to the story, the kid with the handgun prevailed, but what if it would have been mama or little brother at home?? they are certainly doomed in a physical struggle with two armed men... Think about it... When the chips are down, sometimes the only option is to branish or use the dreaded handgun. I don't understand why our learned Senators like Teddy K, chuck Schumer, etc...refuse to allow a weaker person in our society a chance to level out the playing field.

You are helping people by being a living breathing example of fitness and a healthier lifestyle thats 10 times better than any government regulation. For the most part the government is not in the problem solving business they are in the power and control business. Tabacco is a perfect example. If health is the concern it should be outlawed no ifs ands or buts. They are not interested in health just a Mafia shake down of the industry which they continue to subsidize while most of the funds are misappropriated to other than "tabacco education" ,whatever that is, purposes.

"So, the comment about Joe Kennedy smuggling whiskey was referring to your earlier post about firearms being smuggled into Canada from the U.S"

You can smuggle Pabst or Samuels up here any time.

Prohibition was a "made in the USA" invention. Totally stupid laws, since 95% of the US population drank alcohol in some degree, but it made gansters rich and caused an incredible amount of violence all in the name of "law and order".

I've lived in the USA and am familiar with your mentality about guns. I've also lived in England and have seen a dramatic difference with a country where even the police didn't normally carry guns. There is a cultural gun history involved in the US and I understand this, but I feel that the NRA is a very negative force in American society and just a PR front for the gun manufacturers with a pretty face called Charleton at the helm.

I understand collectors, sport shooters, etc having hand guns and don't have a problem with this. My dad had an air force issued Berretta hand gun that we sport shooted with when I was a kid. Unfortunately the American system allows any kook to buy a gun at any time and this just feeds a paranoia that then you must have a gun just in case you get in a fender bender with some irate dude that has one under his car seat.

Again, I will state, the homicide statistics speak for themselves. It's part of the American culture and IMO caused by too easily an availabilty to hand guns. All I request is please keep it south of the Canadian border.

Yeah .... well .... uhhh .... ummm ... You know .... Hmmmm .... Uhhh .... Lemme See ... Aaaah .... Uhhhh .... Ouch. =)

I said earlier that if there weren't guns we'd beat each other to death with wiffle ball bats if we had to [I should have said "violence" instead of "guns" in my Magic Wand quote ... bad choice of symbolism on my part]. What we've got here is the same thing as in other situations we've discussed ... taking away the means doesn't take away the behavior/cause.

As a teacher, I don't believe in punishing everyone for the actions of a few. There will always be students that talk when they shouldn't and affect others' learning environment ... removing everyone's vocal chords is not the answer. That same logic applies here [and in regards to fast food or whatever is talked of being banned this week].

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

<<Prohibition was a "made in the USA" invention. Totally stupid laws, since 95% of the US population drank alcohol in some degree, but it made gansters rich and caused an incredible amount of violence all in the name of "law and order". >>

And this is where I fail to understand why people believe it would be any different with the prohibition of firearms. Criminals, buy their very nature, do not obey laws. Whether it be killing, harming, robbing, stealing, smuggling and the list goes on.

<<Again, I will state, the homicide statistics speak for themselves. It's part of the American culture and IMO caused by too easily an availabilty to hand guns.>>

And there are laws on the books making homicde, regardless of instrument used, a crime. Just like there are laws on the books making it crime to get behind the wheel of an automobile while piss-drunk. But it still happens and we (the U.S.) lose about 50,000 lives annually as a result. Which mechanism should we ban, the car or the bottle?

I doubt I will be able to change your mind on this issue, unfortunatly. I do hope you beleive me when I tell you that I do respect you and wish you no ill-will because of our disagreement. We still agree that Led Zepplin kicks ass and perhaps we'll meet at a race someday, share a beer afterwards and talk about anything but firearms.

Brett

<<Yeah .... well .... uhhh .... ummm ... You know .... Hmmmm .... Uhhh .... Lemme See ... Aaaah .... Uhhhh .... Ouch. =)

I said earlier that if there weren't guns we'd beat each other to death with wiffle ball bats if we had to [I should have said "violence" instead of "guns" in my Magic Wand quote ... bad choice of symbolism on my part]. What we've got here is the same thing as in other situations we've discussed ... taking away the means doesn't take away the behavior/cause.>>

My bad, sorry.

Brett

"I doubt I will be able to change your mind on this issue...Led Zepplin kicks ass... share a beer afterwards and talk about anything"

I'm up for that any time. Posted here before that just because you don't always agree with somebody doesn't mean that you don't like 'em.