Definitely not suckage: Another court with common sense.

[sbp]

Its nice to see yet another court used its head in reaching the right decision. Here's a bit from the news article:

Calif. court: Gunmaker not liable in killing spree

"Victims cannot sue gunmakers when criminals use their products illegally, California's top court ruled Monday, rejecting a suit stemming from the 1993 massacre of eight people in a skyscraper.

The 5-1 decision by the California Supreme Court kept in step with other courts in insulating weapons manufacturers from liability.

Every state high court and federal appellate court in the nation to consider such lawsuits has ruled that makers of legal, non-defective guns cannot be sued for their criminal misuse."

Here's another court from 2 months ago that also came to the correct decision: N.Y. court: Gun makers not to blame

----------
Yep. Criminals are the ones who should be held responsible for their crimes.

[Edited by sbp on 08-06-2001 at 04:16 PM]

[topane]

About time someone with a brain made these judgements

[zenbooty]

Glad we can agree on something, sbp.

[TheLoneGunman]

The argument FOR the suit was that the gun shouldn't have been marketed to civilians as it was a gun made to shoot PEOPLE.

One judge agreed with this.

The claim was NOT that the gun was defective, but rather that it wasn't suited to ANY legitimate purpose for law abiding civilians.

What about "Brass Knuckles"? Do they have a "purpose" that is legal? Is their purpose "knuckle protection" for kuckle draggers?

What about bong manufacturers? Head shops? Does anyone seriously smoke tobacco out of a bong? Why is a head shop decorated in psychadelic fashion is the purpose is tobacco? Why doesn't it look like a cigar or tobacco shop?

Who are you trying to kid? Guns kill people. No one ever shoots a deer with an automatic pistol and needs "cop killer" bullets to do it. I mean, have you ever seen a deer with a flak jacket??

[Leon]

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
The claim was NOT that the gun was defective, but rather that it wasn't suited to ANY legitimate purpose for law abiding civilians.

How about protection? Self-defense?

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
Who are you trying to kid? Guns kill people. No one ever shoots a deer with an automatic pistol and needs "cop killer" bullets to do it. I mean, have you ever seen a deer with a flak jacket??

Nope, never seen a deer with a flak jacket. Never seen a civilian marketed automatic pistol either.

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
and needs "cop killer" bullets to do it.

What's a "cop killer" bullet? Are you refering to hollow points or teflon coated bullets? Hollow points are made to expand in body to prevent over-penetration. This is so the bullet doesn't through the person and hit any innocent bystanders. Teflon coatings were made to protect the barrel from the bullet, sort of like a dry lubricant.

There are no "cop-killer" bullets. That whole thing was a media publicity stunt. http://www.webnexus.com/users/pactiv...ry/copkill.htm

[topane]

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
The argument FOR the suit was that the gun shouldn't have been marketed to civilians as it was a gun made to shoot PEOPLE.

One judge agreed with this.

The claim was NOT that the gun was defective, but rather that it wasn't suited to ANY legitimate purpose for law abiding civilians.

<SNIP>

Who are you trying to kid? Guns kill people. No one ever shoots a deer with an automatic pistol and needs "cop killer" bullets to do it. I mean, have you ever seen a deer with a flak jacket??

Hmmm....next time a drunk driver hits and kills someone should we sue the beer (or whatever) maker because they market and sell stuff which impairs judgement? Should we sue the creators of the internet for lost office productivity? And yes, guns do kill people, but if I wanted to kill someone (like a couple of hundred lawyers or something), what makes you think that the lack of a firearm would make it not happen?

[TheLoneGunman]

Originally posted by topane
Hmmm....next time a drunk driver hits and kills someone should we sue the beer (or whatever) maker because they market and sell stuff which impairs judgement?

We do. Actually, we don't sue the "maker", we sue the distributor (i.e. bar and bartender) who the courts have established ARE responsible. One beer, in some circumstances is fine. However, if someone has had 5 and then they are allowed to drive, the bar was negligent in both not cutting them off earlier and not calling them a cab.

Should we sue the creators of the internet for lost office productivity?

Once again, precautions are taken. Office managers BLOCK access to internet sites and certain types of content. If a company didn't take all available steps to prevent viewing or distribution of certain materials, then, yes, they could be held liable for what happens (ex. Sexual harrassment)

And yes, guns do kill people, but if I wanted to kill someone (like a couple of hundred lawyers or something), what makes you think that the lack of a firearm would make it not happen?

Interesting that you raise that issue in that way. This case was specifically about someone who went into a law office and slaughtered a bunch of people. Most were not lawyers (who were in their offices) but instead support staff who were on the floor in cubes and at desks.

---

When I defend someone who is caught with a "silencer" (federal mandatory ADDITIONAL 5 years if they are a felon or certain misdemeanants), we always call it a "flash suppressor" or "barrel extender," both of which are "legal". The argument is similar to how you explained away the bullets.

---

With the proper word rearrangement and deletion (like gun activists do to the 2nd Amendment), we can claim that Presidents have absolute power, Senators have life terms, babies can vote when they are less than 2 years old and various other absurdities.
If you are trained and are of the proper mental attitude and are a member of a "regulated militia" you should be able to have a firearm for that purpose. Otherwise, it will likely be misused in some way

[Leon]

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
When I defend someone who is caught with a "silencer" (federal mandatory ADDITIONAL 5 years if they are a felon or certain misdemeanants), we always call it a "flash suppressor" or "barrel extender," both of which are "legal". The argument is similar to how you explained away the bullets.

Did you read the article? Teflon coating has little or no effect in enhancing the armor-piercing properties of the bullet. Hollow points are even worst against body armor. I'm saying that "cop-killers" don't exist. It's a catch phrase the media invented. However, there are differences between silencers, flash suppressors, and barrel extenders. And they do exist.

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
With the proper word rearrangement and deletion (like gun activists do to the 2nd Amendment), we can claim that Presidents have absolute power, Senators have life terms, babies can vote when they are less than 2 years old and various other absurdities.
If you are trained and are of the proper mental attitude and are a member of a "regulated militia" you should be able to have a firearm for that purpose. Otherwise, it will likely be misused in some way

Turn it around.

With the proper word rearrangement and deletion (like anti-gun activist do to the 2nd Amendment), we can claim that Presidents do not have absolute power, Senators don't have life terms, babies can not vote when they are less than 2 years old and various other absurdities.
If you are a an adult and are not a criminal and a citizen of the United States of America you should be able to have a firearm. Otherwise, those in high government positions will likely abuse their power in some way.

[topane]

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman

Originally posted by topane
Hmmm....next time a drunk driver hits and kills someone should we sue the beer (or whatever) maker because they market and sell stuff which impairs judgement?

We do. Actually, we don't sue the "maker", we sue the distributor (i.e. bar and bartender) who the courts have established ARE responsible. One beer, in some circumstances is fine. However, if someone has had 5 and then they are allowed to drive, the bar was negligent in both not cutting them off earlier and not calling them a cab.

In this case, they were trying to sue the gun maker, and not the distributor. Yes, we hold the bartender or establishment responsible for allowing someone to go out and drive impaired. My point was that suing Seagram's for misuse of vodka is stupid and frivolous, as is suing a gun manufacturer for misuse of a firearm.

Interesting that you raise that issue in that way. This case was specifically about someone who went into a law office and slaughtered a bunch of people. Most were not lawyers (who were in their offices) but instead support staff who were on the floor in cubes and at desks.

It's a shame that those people died like that, but what makes you think that they would not have been killed if the murderer did not have a gun? It's easy to walk in and mow a few folks down, I'm sure, but what about other ways of doing it? Light a fire, poison the office drinking water, walk in with a sword and hack a few people up, or even set off a bomb. If you are determined to off someone, you're going to do it whether the method is convenient or not.[/b]

With the proper word rearrangement and deletion (like gun activists do to the 2nd Amendment), we can claim that Presidents have absolute power, Senators have life terms, babies can vote when they are less than 2 years old and various other absurdities.
If you are trained and are of the proper mental attitude and are a member of a "regulated militia" you should be able to have a firearm for that purpose. Otherwise, it will likely be misused in some way

Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's a little ambiguous I'll agree, but now everyone's got a gun. What can you do about it? Nothing. You'll never outlaw guns unless you do it all at once, and that's not happening.

[Jeffbx]

Originally posted by Leon
If you are a an adult and are not a criminal and a citizen of the United States of America you should be able to have a firearm. Otherwise, those in high government positions will likely abuse their power in some way.

All right, let's be serious for a minute. Do you actually believe that high ranking government officials don't abuse their power because a bunch of average joes have assult rifles?

Little late for that, don't you think? Last time I looked, high level government officials do whatever the hell they please.

At least call it like it is. The law protects your right to own and in some cases carry a lethal weapon designed to kill other people. If that makes you feel important or powerful, or if you compete in the biathalon or hunt wild turkeys, I don't care. Carry your weapon and stockpile ammo if you want. Just don't spout out the silly NRA crap about how the government is going to become a Nazi state if we don't defend ourselves against them.

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by Leon
With the proper word rearrangement and deletion (like anti-gun activist do to the 2nd Amendment), we can claim that Presidents do not have absolute power, Senators don't have life terms, babies cannot vote when they are less than 2 years old and various other absurdities.

I hate to be a stickler, but I don't see too much absurd about the above whatsoever.

[Grimm]

Why you can't sue a gun manufacturer:

The right to keep and bear arms so we can form a regulated militia is constitutionaly protected. Therefore there MUST be a means for producing and obtaining arms. This means that the right for an arms manufacturer to exist and do business is constitutionaly protected. Putting them out of business by littigation would be a violation of the constitution. This is basicaly the same as the ruling protecting newspaper. You can't bring frivilous suits against a newspaper, you will lose. Even justified suits are hard to press.

There is no comparison with bongs, headshops or tobbaco. These are not constitutionaly protected and can not be compared. The only valid comparison is that of free speech.

There was a "cop killer" bullet. It was a ceramic bullet that was never produced, except for a small quantity for development and testing. Law enforcement organizations failed to get an injunction preventing the ammo from being manufactured. However, the evil arms corperation decided that it would be irresponsible to produce the ammunition despite a high demand for it. They gave up the profit and took the high road. The stuff was nasty. Tests showed that when it hit a kevlar vest it shattered, and kept going. The fragments pierced the vest and turned the meat on the other side into hamburger. The fragments cut like glass, you know how glass cuts bleed. It was believed that even a hit in the arm or leg would kill as the person hit would bleed out in a minute or two. The only purpose of this ammo was to kill people, not wound, kill.

Anyone who believes that we do not need the right to keep and bear arms to maintain a free country, please e-mail me. I have a bridge I want to sell you.

[pennypinch]

Please point out the other countries in the G-9, or any other Western democracy for that matter, that have gun control laws and consequently have lost their ability to "maintain a free country".

[Leon]

Until 1943-44, the German government published its laws and regulations in the 'Reichsgesetzblatt,' roughly the equivalent of the U.S. Federal Register. Carefully shelved by law librarians, the 1938 issues of this German government publication had gathered a lot of dust. In the 'Reichsgesetzblatt' issue for the week of March 21, 1938, was the official text of the Weapons Law (March 18, 1938). It gave Hitler's Nazi party a stranglehold on the Germans, many of whom did not support the Nazis. We found that the Nazis did not invent "gun control" in Germany. The Nazis inherited gun control and then perfected it: they invented handgun control.

The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb "gang activity," violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? "Gun control" did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.

The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they 'lawfully' took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not "reliable." Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.

In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other "reliable" people.

The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10. 1938 -- one day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS) savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish businesses throughout Germany -- new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.

http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm

[Leon]

Originally posted by pennypinch

Originally posted by Leon
With the proper word rearrangement and deletion (like anti-gun activist do to the 2nd Amendment), we can claim that Presidents do not have absolute power, Senators don't have life terms, babies cannot vote when they are less than 2 years old and various other absurdities.

I hate to be a stickler, but I don't see too much absurd about the above whatsoever.

My point was that you can rearrange words to support anything you want.

[Leon]

Originally posted by Jeffbx
At least call it like it is. The law protects your right to own and in some cases carry a lethal weapon designed to kill other people. If that makes you feel important or powerful, or if you compete in the biathalon or hunt wild turkeys, I don't care. Carry your weapon and stockpile ammo if you want. Just don't spout out the silly NRA crap about how the government is going to become a Nazi state if we don't defend ourselves against them.

It protects your right to self-defense. Sometimes that means killing, sometimes it doesn't. It doesn't make me feel powerful or important, but it does make me feel a little safer because I would be on the same playing field. If guns didn't exist, then I would have a sword or a crossbow at home.

Right now there are three types of people groups with guns - law abiding citizens, criminals, and the Gov't (Law Enforcement and Armed Services). If guns are outlawed, the playing field becomes uneven. Now, only the criminals and Gov't have the guns because criminals aren't going to obey the laws. Do you trust the Gov't to protect you 24/7? They're not always going to be there on time.

I don't think that saying the Gov't becoming a Nazi state is that far off. Now, it may not happen in our lifetime or even in our great-grandchildren's lifetime, but it could happen. Firearm ownership needs to be preserved.

---

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

-Thomas Jefferson

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by Leon
Until 1943-44, the German government published its laws and regulations in the 'Reichsgesetzblatt,' roughly the equivalent of the U.S. Federal Register. Carefully shelved by law librarians, the 1938 issues of this German government publication had gathered a lot of dust. In the 'Reichsgesetzblatt' issue for the week of March 21, 1938, was the official text of the Weapons Law (March 18, 1938). It gave Hitler's Nazi party a stranglehold on the Germans, many of whom did not support the Nazis. We found that the Nazis did not invent "gun control" in Germany. The Nazis inherited gun control and then perfected it: they invented handgun control.

The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb "gang activity," violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? "Gun control" did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.

The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they 'lawfully' took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not "reliable." Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.

In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other "reliable" people.

The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10. 1938 -- one day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS) savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish businesses throughout Germany -- new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.

http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm

Oh, come on. You honestly believe that a lack of guns pushed the Nazi's to power?

There is ample evidence that the Nazi's had the explicit and implicit consent and support of a large contingent of Germans. Of course, it is difficult to guage precisely how popular they were, but I've seen enough evidence to suggest that it was not simply a small crew of rabid anti-Semites that crushed a quiet majority of opponents. I don't think for a second it was because of a lack of guns for "unreliables" will lead to a police and/or totalitarian state.

The gun lobby has been trained to invoke the name of the Nazi's at the first sign of some organized anti-gun resistance. We are supposed to instinctively shudder. Yet I submit that pre-WWII Germany is the exception, and not any sort of predictor of doom and gloom. It's one outlier in a relative galaxy of contrary data points (Canada, Sweden, GB, etc.).

[Grimm]

Pennypinch,
Talk about knee jerking. You are being unreasonable and there is no point in arguing with an unreasonable person. Leon answered the question with historical facts that can be verified. You asked this question and discredit him with your oppinions, not facts, for his troubles. That's just not cool. He didn't say it was the only factor, just one of the things they did. Could they have done what they did without gun control? Probably not, maybe, by my opinion is that they couldn't. You can argue with that, it's just an opinion. But I will be ignoring on this thread you until you present facts.

[Jihforce]

If you don't have it, don't drink, don't own a gun, don't drive, etc...

I don't own a gun and I don't really plan to either. However, I do support the fact that people should have the right to own them. People who are responsible, will use them for the right reasons. And you will always have those who don't, but you can't limit the freedom of people who are responsible because someone else isn't.

Suing manufactures does absolutely nothing to solve the problem, it just makes lawyers wealthier. As stated before, you can't blame Seagrams for a drunk driver driving over people, nor can you blame automakers because some idiot decided to use their vehicle as a weapon. So how can you blame gun makers when some irresponsible person decided to use innocent people as target practice?

I guess we should be suing companies that make kitchen knives too if someone gets stabbed huh? I am sure you get my point.

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by Jihforce
If you don't have it, don't drink, don't own a gun, don't drive, etc...

I don't own a gun and I don't really plan to either. However, I do support the fact that people should have the right to own them. People who are responsible, will use them for the right reasons. And you will always have those who don't, but you can't limit the freedom of people who are responsible because someone else isn't.

Suing manufactures does absolutely nothing to solve the problem, it just makes lawyers wealthier. As stated before, you can't blame Seagrams for a drunk driver driving over people, nor can you blame automakers because some idiot decided to use their vehicle as a weapon. So how can you blame gun makers when some irresponsible person decided to use innocent people as target practice?

I guess we should be suing companies that make kitchen knives too if someone gets stabbed huh? I am sure you get my point.

Throughout this, I've been trying to rationalize the point of the lawsuit, and I've given up. I see a VERY tenuous and amorphous connection to perhaps cigarette liability, but beyond that, I just don't get it. This is about as frivolous as it gets. Talk about going for the guys with the deepest pockets!

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by evilcyclops
Pennypinch,
Talk about knee jerking. You are being unreasonable and there is no point in arguing with an unreasonable person. Leon answered the question with historical facts that can be verified. You asked this question and discredit him with your oppinions, not facts, for his troubles. That's just not cool. He didn't say it was the only factor, just one of the things they did. Could they have done what they did without gun control? Probably not, maybe, by my opinion is that they couldn't. You can argue with that, it's just an opinion. But I will be ignoring on this thread you until you present facts.

Here's fact. Every single other Western democracy with gun control has both lower levels of violent crime and still has a pretty decent hold over the "freedom of their own country". Explain. By Leon's rationale, they should all be well on their way to marching around in brown shirts.

[Leon]

Originally posted by pennypinch
Here's fact. Every single other Western democracy with gun control has both lower levels of violent crime and still has a pretty decent hold over the "freedom of their own country". Explain. By Leon's rationale, they should all be well on their way to marching around in brown shirts.

Where are your facts? Do you have any evidence? Here are my facts:

Australia:

- Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
- Assaults are up 8.6 percent.
- Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent.
- In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent.
- In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily.
- There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

England:

-The percentage of the population that suffered "contact crime" in England and Wales was 3.6 percent, compared with 1.9 percent in the United States and 0.4 percent in Japan.
-England and Wales also led in automobile thefts. More than 2.5 percent of the population had been victimized by car theft, followed by 2.1 percent in Australia and 1.9 percent in France. Again, the U.S. was not listed among the "top 10" nations.



Strangely enough, the UK and Australia have some of the strictest gun control laws.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=21902

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=003.../ncrim123.html

[Leon]

More about "Cop-Killer" Bullets:

- In an October of 1996 campaign stop, Bill Clinton met with the widow of Police Officer Jerome Harrison Seaberry. Later at a political rally, Bill Clinton cited Officer Seaberry's death as a reason to outlaw armor piercing bullets.

- Officer Seaberry died in a car crash. No guns or bullets were involved.

- Armor piercing bullets have been referred to in the media as "cop killers."

- As of 1998, no law enforcement officer has ever been killed because an armor-piercing bullet defeated a bulletproof vest.

http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

[sbp]

The western democracies New Zealand and Switzerland have high rates of gun ownership with low levels of violent crime. Explain. South Africa has gun control and a super high level of crime. Explain.

Originally posted by pennypinch
Throughout this, I've been trying to rationalize the point of the lawsuit, and I've given up. I see a VERY tenuous and amorphous connection to perhaps cigarette liability, but beyond that, I just don't get it. This is about as frivolous as it gets. Talk about going for the guys with the deepest pockets!

Yes this was a frivolous lawsuit being pushed by lawyers and groups with agenda's preying off the tragedies of others.

Oh, come on. You honestly believe that a lack of guns pushed the Nazi's to power?

It made it easier for the Nazi's and Communists to slaughter defendless people when engaging in their sickening agenda's.

[sbp]

Originally posted by Jeffbx
All right, let's be serious for a minute. Do you actually believe that high ranking government officials don't abuse their power because a bunch of average joes have assult rifles?

It will pause them for a moment. Just like it gives criminals cause for concern.

Little late for that, don't you think? Last time I looked, high level government officials do whatever the hell they please.

So why should do they do whatever the hell they want to in this case? Isn't enough, enough? Seeing how government has acted, we shouldn't be so inclined to give up any more freedom.

At least call it like it is. The law protects your right to own and in some cases carry a lethal weapon designed to kill other people. If that makes you feel important or powerful, or if you compete in the biathalon or hunt wild turkeys, I don't care. Carry your weapon and stockpile ammo if you want. Just don't spout out the silly NRA crap about how the government is going to become a Nazi state if we don't defend ourselves against them.

Don't you find some of the propaganda being spouted by gun grabbers silly?

[MisterTenchi]

The right to purchase and own a gun is a right protected by the US Constitution, though many people may disagree with that interpretation. This Constitutional right is one of many things that make America unique among all industrialized democracies. But this freedom also comes at a price. America pays a great price for this freedom. Nationally there were 18,500 unintentional injuries, 1,400 unintentional deaths, and 17,566 suicides caused by firearms in 1997, not including intentional homicides. Gun-related morbidity and mortality is so serious now that even the American Medical Association now made the gun issue it's platform. Heck, I even had to learn how to counsel patients on gun safety as part of my medical curriculum!

So we as a society have to ask ourselves, is the price we pay too high? Is it worth having kids shot accidentally by a playmate who found daddy's gun in a drawer? I believe that we can have laws to that protect misuse of firearms while protecting the Constitutional freedom to own guns. We have laws protecting people against slander and defamation of character - these laws protect us from the misuse of the 1st. Amendment and thereby ensuring its continued importance. In the same way, we CAN have rational gun legislation without bleaching out the 2nd amendment. We can if proponents and opponents stop insisting on being on opposite sides of the fence.

[MisterTenchi]

For those of you who think my earlier ramblings are not a complete waste of your time, here's more!

I enjoy squeezing off a few rounds at the range and I also support gun control. Conflicted aren't I? Not really. I wear my goggles, ear muffs, observe the safety etiquette and enjoys shooting at paper targets. I don't shoot out of anger or frustration. And I certainly don't drink before shooting. So you can say I am peeved when people suggest that the government should take away my Constitutional right while I have done nothing wrong. But everytime I read or hear about another shooting, especially kids, I can't help but think about what this freedom is costing us as a society. That is why I support gun control.

With that said, I believe the California court made the correct decision. The argument by the plaintiff is a pretty convincing one at first glance:

"The argument FOR the suit was that the gun shouldn't have been marketed to civilians as it was a gun made to shoot PEOPLE." (Borrowing TheLoneGunman's words)

Things that lack a legitimate or socially acceptable civilian use should not be marketed and made available to the public. If someone bought a fully functional F16 jet fighter and crashed into my apartment because it was marketed to civilians , I believe I have the legal grounds to sue General Dynamics. But if the plane were a private jet (assuming pilot error, not a firestone tires thing), I would lack the legal grounds to sue the manufacturer of that plane (I could sue the pilot, but he would most likely not have survived the crash). The difference between the F16 and the private jet is that the F16 Falcon is not suited to legitimate use for the general public.

The plaintiff in this case brought forth a good argument - but with a flaw in its premise. Unlike the F16, guns do have legitimate civilian purposes. And I would expand the definition of "legitimate" to include socially acceptable. My going to the shooting range is a legitimate purpose. Hunting is a legitimate purpose. Even just collecting firearms and putting them behind glass is a legitimate purpose. These activities have been accepted by the American society as legitimate. This is why the Justices made the legally sound decision - even if I support gun control. The Judicial branch's job is to interpret existing law (Enacting new laws is the job of the Legislature). And our laws say that shooting ranges, hunting, etc. are legal and acceptable civilian activities. Therefore, despite my support for gun control, I readily admit that the Justices made the legally sound decision. (Note: I did not read the Court's opinions, so I don't know what arguments the Justices used, including the dissenting Judge.)

For the Justices to rule in favor of the plainiff despite the false premise in its argument would be a case judicial activism, and we've all seen judicial activism rear its ugly head in the Florida Supreme Court during the presidential election recount debacle.

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by MisterTenchi
But everytime I read or hear about another shooting, especially kids, I can't help but think about what this freedom is costing us as a society. That is why I support gun control.

Every time I see "the innocent children" bandied about to evoke public sympathy, I can't help but think about what this society is costing us in terms of freedom.

For the Justices to rule in favor of the plainiff despite the false premise in its argument would be a case judicial activism, and we've all seen judicial activism rear its ugly head in the Florida Supreme Court during the presidential election recount debacle.

Hey and let's not forget the Federal Supreme Court's activism throughout it, as well.

[billxp]

Interesting thread to say the least.

So I'll throw this on the fire.

What if everybody in that office had been trained in and carried a hangun. Might have saved some lives.

The problem seems to me that they make it hard for the law abiding citizen to get a gun legally that some just get them anyway possible. Those people don't receive the proper training in use and storage. This also causes fatal accidents.

[Grimm]

Originally posted by MisterTenchi
The right to purchase and own a gun is a right protected by the US Constitution, though many people may disagree with that interpretation. This Constitutional right is one of many things that make America unique among all industrialized democracies. But this freedom also comes at a price. America pays a great price for this freedom. Nationally there were 18,500 unintentional injuries, 1,400 unintentional deaths, and 17,566 suicides caused by firearms in 1997, not including intentional homicides.

Exactly how does a gun CAUSE a suicide? Does a person become so depressed about the existance of guns that they kill themselves? Face it if a person is going to kill themselves, they are just going to do it. Them shooting themselves is much safer for the rest of us than other methods. It would really suck to have a jumper land on you crippling or killing you (we could just make the maximum building height 2 stories, get rid of all those skyscrapers and multi story malls). Carbon Monoxide poisoning from a car? Great it can leak into the house and kill the kids too, or whoever finds them. Or how about plowing your car into a wall, another car, or a cliff? Some people have tried this and taken their kids with them, not to mention other drivers or a hiker at the bottom of that cliff. We should just get rid of cars too. Let's see, bridges can go to since we don't have cars. Need to get rid of trains too, they can run over people that jump in front of them. Electricity is used by some people in tubs, got to get rid of electricity too. Don't forget pills, got to stop making them, too many pill suicides.
Look, people will find a way to do themselves in with or without guns. To add them into any statistics as a "danger of guns" is pointless. Automobiles are much more dangerous than guns. Why don't we get rid of those first?