Seems like it WAS the gun's fault after all

[ASTAC]

Originally posted by hawker238
What are guns built to do?

Guns are designed to shoot a projectile at high velocity....It's the human operator that cooses to point the barrel in such a way that the projectile will cause a death.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
you claim it "WAS" the guns fault but then link to an article that proves that it wasn't the guns fault... no problems were found with the firearm.

just quoting the article.

[lazs2]

The article didn't say it WAS the guns fault afterall.... you are the one who said that..  the article said just the oppossite.

lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
The article didn't say it WAS the guns fault afterall.... you are the one who said that..  the article said just the oppossite.

lazs

Erm... No

[NUKE]

So Beetle, you think the gun was at fault?

[NUKE]

I say we arrest all guns and all alcohol before they kill us all.

[Terror]

Go here and read the Response from BushMaster about the settlement.  http://www.bushmaster.com/  

Bushmaster Responds to Brady Groups False Claim of Victory
Thursday September 9, 2004 9:24AM est

Windham, Maine -- The Washington DC Brady Group would have you believe they won some kind of victory! The Brady Group brought this lawsuit not for the victims, but for their anti-gun agenda. The Brady Group asked for the settlement conference after reviewing all the evidence they knew they could not be successful in court and they wanted to stop paying lawyer fees.

The Brady Group sent a second tier lawyer to the settlement conference with nine demands on Bushmaster regarding business practices and Bushmaster denied them all. We then gave the Brady Group our statement that we support the BATF licensing requirements to be a Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) holder and our support for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) safety programs, and they accepted our statement. We did not agree and would not agree to change the way we do business or make any additional demands of our customers. We were emphatic that Bushmaster did not commit any wrong doings.

The attorney for our insurance company was at the settlement conference and informed us that about half of our policy limits had been spent on trial lawyers. It was the insurance company’s position that all of the limit would be spent on this case, and therefore turned the funds over to Bushmaster to use as we saw fit removing the insurance company from the case. Our choice was to continue spending it on trial lawyers or turn it over directly to the victims’ families with no funds going to the Brady Group for their legal fees.

We felt the compassionate thing to do was give it to the victims’ families, not because we had to but because we wanted to. The Washington DC Brady Group should learn what compassion is really all about!

Bushmaster strongly believes and vigorously supports the rights of citizens to own and use firearms, and the settlement of this case in no way compromises that stand. The Brady Group’s attempt at claiming a victory over firearms manufacturers is a hollow one with no substance. Their attempt to eliminate gun rights of citizens has failed legislatively and will continue to fail with these frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

Bushmaster Firearms, Inc.

Terror

[RTSigma]

Reminds me of that case where the house robber broke in through the ceiling window and landed on a cutting knife in the kitchen.

He sued. And Won.


This is just proof people will do anything to get money.

Maybe they should sue the scope company too? And perhaps the bullet maker, and don't forget, the car company that sold them the vehicles to drive to their spots.

Oh! oh! and the card companies that made the cards they left as "warnings".

Don't forget to sue the clothing line that kept them warm or comfortable. And the dentist. Wait, I'm forgetting something...yes..yes....their mothers too.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by NUKE
So Beetle, you think the gun was at fault?

No, NUKE. I don't blame the gun. The thread title was slightly tongue in cheek. I blame the availability of that gun to the Washington sniper. Were it not for the availability of that gun (or one like it), his victims would all still be alive today. Do not even suggest that as an alternative to shooting, the victims would have been stabbed with a sharp instrument, bludgeoned with a baseball bat, or pushed out of windows. A gun was used because the victims could then be targeted at long range, after which the sniper could make good his escape from the vicinity.

You know, in all these gun debates, there's always at least one smart arse who portrays an imaginary and farcical scenario - of guns performing self levitation and walking off to commit a shooting - in their attempts to justify their "guns don't kill people - only people kill people" stance. And technically, I agree with them...

...but what some people don't seem to realise is that the anti-gun lobby in your country is not blaming the annual 6000+ gun homicides on the weapons themselves. They're blaming it on the availability of those weapons, given that there are wackos like the DC sniper walking the streets. It's not that they want to ban guns as such - and I do concede that most owners are safe and responsible; No. They want to target the availability of guns, which are of course an essential ingredient in any gun homicide.

By the way, I have never advocated the banning of guns in the US. Never. I'm opposed to unilateral disarmament. The genie's out of the bottle, and won't go back in. Besides, your government(s) get too many backhanders from the NRA for that ever to be a possibility.

[rabbidrabbit]

Originally posted by beet1e
No, NUKE. I don't blame the gun. The thread title was slightly tongue in cheek. I blame the availability of that gun to the Washington sniper. Were it not for the availability of that gun (or one like it), his victims would all still be alive today. Do not even suggest that as an alternative to shooting, the victims would have been stabbed with a sharp instrument, bludgeoned with a baseball bat, or pushed out of windows. A gun was used because the victims could then be targeted at long range, after which the sniper could make good his escape from the vicinity.

You know, in all these gun debates, there's always at least one smart arse who portrays an imaginary and farcical scenario - of guns performing self levitation and walking off to commit a shooting - in their attempts to justify their "guns don't kill people - only people kill people" stance. And technically, I agree with them...

...but what some people don't seem to realise is that the anti-gun lobby in your country is not blaming the annual 6000+ gun homicides on the weapons themselves. They're blaming it on the availability of those weapons, given that there are wackos like the DC sniper walking the streets. It's not that they want to ban guns as such - and I do concede that most owners are safe and responsible; No. They want to target the availability of guns, which are of course an essential ingredient in any gun homicide.

By the way, I have never advocated the banning of guns in the US. Never. I'm opposed to unilateral disarmament. The genie's out of the bottle, and won't go back in. Besides, your government(s) get too many backhanders from the NRA for that ever to be a possibility.

Ya.. that will work just fine...  just like drugs.. if you ban them they will just go away because criminals obey laws.  Thanks for clearing that up.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by beet1e
"A gun manufacturer and retailer have agreed to pay £1.4 million in compensation to families of the Washington snipers' victims in a settlement that could lead to stronger controls over the sale of firearms in America."

Full story here.

What irritates me more then anything. Is we have judges actually willing to hear/allow these cases rather then throw them out which is what should be happening.

Whats next? we gonna be able to sue Farberware because soemone got stabbed with one of their knives?

Or here's a better one Sue the Church the next time lightning hits a tree and it falls on your house.

[lazs2]

ok beetle... I will bow to your gun expertise..  Are you saying that if we banned everything except single shot hunting rifles...  the shootings would have never occured..

obviously, with your firearms knowledge... only the bushmaster short barreled 223 semi auto could have killed from a distance like that?   or...

do you advocate a british style total ban on all firearms except for the ruling class?

do you think that if bushmasters were banned the hommicide rate would go down in the U.S.?

certainly... if there were no rifles at all in the world... the exact same sniper killings would not have occured.   The pair may have had to turn to hillside strangler or jack the ripper tactics.

lazs

[lazs2]

hint... a 223 bushmaster and scope combination is capable of killing shots at well over 400 yards...  the average scoped hunting rifle... 6-700... a few at well over 1000..

but...   how many are ever used to kill people?   And who does this kind of killing?   crazy people?  yeah..  would crazy people still do crazy things without guns?  well... yeah.

looks like bushmaster did the wrong thing for the right reasons in this case.  I think groups like the brady bunch need to be bankrupted.     I think any book or movie on the event should be forced to pay at least half the profits to the victims.

lazs

[beet1e]

Lazs/rabbidrabbit - you should have read the last paragraph of my post, in which I said that I have never suggested a ban of guns in the US, for the reasons given.

But at the same time, I can see why other countries don't want the guns situation to get out of hand. I don't need a Bushmaster, so it doesn't bother me that I can't get one. But what's even more important is that career criminals can't get one, and hence I sleep well at nights - in my bed instead of under it.

[rabbidrabbit]

By all means I don't support career criminals being able to obtain firearms.  The difference is in how we go about the same task.