billvon 3,120 #26 September 10, 2004 >Who's going to sue Walmart? You're kidding, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #27 September 10, 2004 Quote>Who's going to sue Walmart? You're kidding, right? Why not - they are after all - a gun dealer. I think we should sue Bill Gates for the false documents being created too.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #28 September 10, 2004 QuoteAircraft manufacturers already have some special lawsuit protections, which have helped them stay alive and in-business. Are you in favor of cancelling those special protections, just because everyone else doesn't have them too? QuoteYes! Those protections are destroying FBO's and pilots, because they are still suable, and those lawsuits go somewhere. The only fair thing to do is protect ALL industries. Protecting two at the expense of dozens more is not only unfair, but will have the opposite effect of what you intend (i.e. if you protect manufacturers, gun stores will be sued out of existence - and you will be worse off than you were before.) This is goofy logic to me. Maybe you are saying this tongue-in-cheek, but I'm not sure. Just because FBO's and pilots get sued, doesn't mean that manufacturers don't deserve protection. The solution is not to re-open frivolous lawsuits against manufacturers, but rather to add protection for others who deserve it. Just because it wasn't done all at once up-front, doesn't mean that we should take a step backwards and throw out the good that has been done so far. It's like saying that because some Americans don't have health insurance coverage, that nobody deserves to have it. We should all be equally miserable and in poor health. After all, if everyone can't have it, then nobody should have it! Give up your health insurance now - join the ranks of the wretched and poor! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #29 September 10, 2004 QuoteSo long as manufacturers choose to settle without admission of liability (or rather, their insurers choose to) rather than to win a more costly trial, yes it's a problem. No caselaw gets established, and it's clear that you can be hit up for a tidy sum on no merits. We were pretty close to getting federal protection for gun makers against lawsuits for criminal use of firearms, but someone screwed up on procedure and the bill had to be killed. "Someone" "screwed up on procedure"?! The bill had to be killed because it was perverted by anti-gun democrats from being a bill to protect the gun industry from predatory, meritless lawsuits to being one to destroy the gun industry, and gun rights, by making even more guns illegal to produce and sell! Adding the extension and expansion of the "Assault Weapons Ban" to a measure intended to justifiably protect a legal industry from pernicious, vindictive lawsuits which have YET to win in court and be upheld, mind you is hardly "screwing up on procedure." It's deliberately poisoning the bill against its own sponsors, who then killed it. The bill, as amended, was untenable. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #30 September 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhat REALLY needs to stop is the FUCKING JUDGES taking those cases. They didn't. This was an out of court settlement. There are some inherent flaws in the US legal system that mean that far too often it's cheaper to simply pay people off than fight the claim. There are also incentives to make unfounded claims without the risk of penalties on the claimant. It's a balancing act and IMHO the pendulum has swung too far in favour of access to justice over there. The companies were getting sued and/or about to be sued. This was not a case of the victims' families' lawyers just calling up the companies and asking for money. Everyone knew that if the plaintiffs filed suit, this thing would see an entire trial. Why would you not think so? It's happened several dozen times in the U.S. already! (Of course, the news media love to gloss right over the fact that no judgment against the gun manufacturer or distributor has ever survived appeal.) --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #31 September 10, 2004 Quote "Someone" "screwed up on procedure"?! The bill had to be killed because it was perverted by anti-gun democrats from being a bill to protect the gun industry from predatory, meritless lawsuits to being one to destroy the gun industry, and gun rights, by making even more guns illegal to produce and sell! Yes, yes, but it wasn't really germane to this discussion. Trying to keep the topic focus. Remeber the past, but don't dwell on it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #32 September 10, 2004 QuoteQuote>Who's going to sue Walmart? You're kidding, right? Why not - they are after all - a gun dealer. The largest in the world, I believe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #33 September 10, 2004 QuoteOf course you're right... hence I asked a question and did not make a statement - on account that we can see the trend here too .. (what ever happens over the pond does tend to make it's way here sooner rather that later, these days - both Good & Bad stuff) But this 'case' is even more stupid than usual, It's not even the supplier shop that's paying up, it's the manufacture - several steps removed from the end user -- what a dangerous precident to make, me thinks! Well, every time this kind of thing happens, and sends ripples across all industries -- and into all countries -- you can thank ANTI-GUN ACTIVISTS, who are at the HEART of this strategy, and this preposterous legal theory. There is no debate about that. They coined this kind of attack. You have anti-gun people over there in the U.K., don'tcha? By the way, this is not about "ambulance chasing." Denis Henigan of the Violence Policy Center is not an ambulance chaser, he is an anti-gunner. He and various anti-gun organizations go around the country helping people bring suit against gun makers and sellers in the hopes of bankrupting the industry through exorbitant legal costs. Don't think for a second that this is really about the money -- the gun industry is not a relatively rich one. They are after extra-legal "legislation." It's a despicable tactic, and we can already see via the lawsuits against McDonald's by fat people that it is spreading its sickness elsewhere. I can't wait til it hits home someplace that the anti-gunners care about. Maybe survivors of victims who could have defended themselves with a gun and saved their lives should sue HCI, Brady Center, VPC, etc. for culpability in those deaths, if they occurred in a "gun control" area. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #34 September 11, 2004 QuoteThe companies were getting sued and/or about to be sued. I know. QuoteThis was not a case of the victims' families' lawyers just calling up the companies and asking for money. I know. QuoteEveryone knew that if the plaintiffs filed suit, this thing would see an entire trial. Quite possibly, yes. QuoteWhy would you not think so? I don't. Please indicate where you think I state this. QuoteIt's happened several dozen times in the U.S. already! I know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #35 September 11, 2004 QuoteQuote Singling out one industry (guns) for special protection from frivolous lawsuits is inappropriate. All industries should receive protection from frivolous lawsuits. I don't know of any other industry that has its existence threatened by those who admit their cases have no value but to bleed the other side dry. Maybe tobacco. It's been long established that you can't sue Ford when a drunk driver kills a teenager. Why is Glock or Beretta different? You know what the common refrain answer to that question is: "Cars aren't made specifically to kill people." It's a bullshit argument, but that's what they attempt to use. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #36 September 11, 2004 If you watch my occasional postings you will know that I am an anti-gun left of center American but this is bullshit. These companies, especailly the manufacturer, should have fought this tooth and nail. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #37 September 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteDo what your countryman, William Shakespeare, suggested. Kill all the lawyers. and stop voting them into office (Kerry/Edwards). Well, maybe you recall that it took a Nixon to go to China... Please show us where you get the indication that Kerry/Edwards would support tort reform. Edwards is a shining example of what people hate about lawyers.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
