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. --