Place The Blame Where It Belongs
From CNN:
Here we go again. This is the latest bit of lunacy in a trend that has seen smokers blaming their cancer on tobacco companies and fatties blaming their love handles on fast food restaurants. It seems as though many in this country have forgotten of the meaning of responsibility.
Murder is a cruel, cruel thing. When a person is murdered it leaves a scar on those left behind. Those scars hurt and often drive the survivors to extreme measures in order to exact revenge. Some of the survivors try to harm or kill the one responsible for the murder. Some try to sue the gun companies.
The gun compaines aren't responsible for gun violence. They are like any other business in that they produce and sell and sell guns while trying to maximize their profits. The implication that they "allowed" guns to reach criminals is nonsense. According to the article Glock, the gun company in question, sold the gun used in the murder to a law enforcement agency. That agency then sold the gun to a gun shop who in turn sold it to a gun collector. That gun collector then sold it to the murderer at a gun show. How, in that convuluted trail of ownership, can anyone trace the responsibility for that gun back to the gun company? The gun changed hands three different times before being sold to the murderer.
A reasonable person would also wonder how the responsibility for the murders can be attributed to anyone but the one who pulled the trigger. We forget that the gun didn't murder the people, the person holding the gun did. The gun was just a means to the end. The gun was not smuggled through a network of owners into the murderer's hands so that he could use it to committ a crime, it was sold in a legal manner (with the possible exception of the last transaction) to a variety of owners before falling into the hands of a man who obviously was not right in the head. Would Ford be
sued if the murderer had driven an Expedition into that daycare? Would Ginsu be sued if he had gone on a stabbing rampage? Of course they wouldn't have because those companies can't control what is done with their products once they leave the store.
There are millions upon millions of gun owners across the nation who have never committed a crime using their firearms. It seems like every year that goes by a new gun regulation is passed further restricting a gun owner's right to own and utilize his or her firearm. Meanwhile criminals across the nation commit crimes with guns purchased illegally. More gun laws aren't going to help because the people committing the crimes with the guns aren't following them anyway. According to the article, our President is trying to get a bill passed which would protect gun companies from lawsuits, but guess what the Democrats are going to do? That's right, another fillibuster. The same thing they've done with the judicial appointments, medicare and the energy bill.
Rather than sue the gun companies or pass more useless regulations on gun ownership, why not determine why the crimes are being committed in the first place? Why not try to take some of the tax dollars being used to enforce opressive gun measures and focus it on solving the reasons for the crimes being comitted with the guns?
There is a saying that I have heard doctors use a lot. They say that you do not treat the symptoms, you treat the cause of the symptoms. Gun violence is a symptom of a larger problem that needs to be solved. Take away the guns and these criminals will just find another way to commit their crimes.
Appeals Court Reinstates Gun Lawsuit
Court reinstates suit against gun manufacturers
Anti-gun industry suit is reinstated
A federal appeals court Thursday reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit against the gun industry in a decision expected to re-ignite debate over legislation immunizing gun makers from being sued for crimes committed with their products.
Thirty-three states already have laws exempting gun manufacturers and distributors from such suits. The House in April passed a bill to extend the prohibition on such suits nationwide and President Bush has said he would sign it.
Senate Democrats have threatened to filibuster the proposal.
The 2-1 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstates a lawsuit filed against gun manufacturers and distributors whose weapons were used by a white supremacist who shot a Filipino-American postal worker to death and wounded five people -- including three children -- at a Jewish day care center in a 1999 Los Angeles-area rampage.
...
Since 1998, at least 33 municipalities, counties and states have sued gun makers, many claiming that manufacturers, through irresponsible marketing, allowed weapons to reach criminals. None of the suits has resulted in a manufacturer or distributor paying any damages.
Here we go again. This is the latest bit of lunacy in a trend that has seen smokers blaming their cancer on tobacco companies and fatties blaming their love handles on fast food restaurants. It seems as though many in this country have forgotten of the meaning of responsibility.
Murder is a cruel, cruel thing. When a person is murdered it leaves a scar on those left behind. Those scars hurt and often drive the survivors to extreme measures in order to exact revenge. Some of the survivors try to harm or kill the one responsible for the murder. Some try to sue the gun companies.
The gun compaines aren't responsible for gun violence. They are like any other business in that they produce and sell and sell guns while trying to maximize their profits. The implication that they "allowed" guns to reach criminals is nonsense. According to the article Glock, the gun company in question, sold the gun used in the murder to a law enforcement agency. That agency then sold the gun to a gun shop who in turn sold it to a gun collector. That gun collector then sold it to the murderer at a gun show. How, in that convuluted trail of ownership, can anyone trace the responsibility for that gun back to the gun company? The gun changed hands three different times before being sold to the murderer.
A reasonable person would also wonder how the responsibility for the murders can be attributed to anyone but the one who pulled the trigger. We forget that the gun didn't murder the people, the person holding the gun did. The gun was just a means to the end. The gun was not smuggled through a network of owners into the murderer's hands so that he could use it to committ a crime, it was sold in a legal manner (with the possible exception of the last transaction) to a variety of owners before falling into the hands of a man who obviously was not right in the head. Would Ford be
sued if the murderer had driven an Expedition into that daycare? Would Ginsu be sued if he had gone on a stabbing rampage? Of course they wouldn't have because those companies can't control what is done with their products once they leave the store.There are millions upon millions of gun owners across the nation who have never committed a crime using their firearms. It seems like every year that goes by a new gun regulation is passed further restricting a gun owner's right to own and utilize his or her firearm. Meanwhile criminals across the nation commit crimes with guns purchased illegally. More gun laws aren't going to help because the people committing the crimes with the guns aren't following them anyway. According to the article, our President is trying to get a bill passed which would protect gun companies from lawsuits, but guess what the Democrats are going to do? That's right, another fillibuster. The same thing they've done with the judicial appointments, medicare and the energy bill.
Rather than sue the gun companies or pass more useless regulations on gun ownership, why not determine why the crimes are being committed in the first place? Why not try to take some of the tax dollars being used to enforce opressive gun measures and focus it on solving the reasons for the crimes being comitted with the guns?
There is a saying that I have heard doctors use a lot. They say that you do not treat the symptoms, you treat the cause of the symptoms. Gun violence is a symptom of a larger problem that needs to be solved. Take away the guns and these criminals will just find another way to commit their crimes.
Appeals Court Reinstates Gun Lawsuit
Court reinstates suit against gun manufacturers
Anti-gun industry suit is reinstated
Mickey
Sparkie Arbuckle
Proof
Lestat
2Hotel9
likwidshoe
Carrick
