Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: beet1e on September 10, 2004, 11:49:26 AM
-
"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 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/10/wsnipe10.xml).
-
Hate to take a little thunder out of your storm but: "the first time a gunmaker has agreed to pay damages to resolve claims of negligent distribution of weapons, the families' "
Karaya
-
From a different Reuters article:
... "238 guns had disappeared from the Bull's Eye gun shop, near where Muhammad and Malvo lived for a brief time, and that more than 50 guns from the shop were traced to criminal acts between 1997 and 2001"
Sounds like negligence to me. That shop should be closed, if they haven't already been forced to close because of the settlement payout.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
From a different Reuters article:
... "238 guns had disappeared from the Bull's Eye gun shop, near where Muhammad and Malvo lived for a brief time, and that more than 50 guns from the shop were traced to criminal acts between 1997 and 2001"
Sounds like negligence to me. That shop should be closed, if they haven't already been forced to close because of the settlement payout.
If this is true, they should be charged with Criminal Neglagence and tried in Court.
-
Because we can't sue the guy who used the gun to shoot innocent people...
These F****** Lawyers make me want to puke.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040910/us_nm/crime_sniper_gunshop_dc
-
Originally posted by Muckmaw1
Because we can't sue the guy who used the gun to shoot innocent people...
Who says victims can't sue their attackers?
-
How in the hell can you hold the manufacturer liable...The shop yes maybe...but not the manufacturer..I can't believe they agreed to settle..That is utter BS.....So if I kill someone with a frying pan their families can sue Farberware...thats the mentality that is being considered acceptable nowadays...This is just sick...not compensation for the victims families..its pure and utter GREED.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
..I can't believe they agreed to settle..That is utter BS...
No company, large or small, wants to stand opposed to a crying mother/sister/daughter in court. They'll always settle, and the lawyers from both sides will all get rich. I'm sure it will get better with an ambulance-chaser/trial-lawyer in the white house though.
-
Either Beet1e is trolling or he can't read. I'm guessing it's a little of both.
-
Originally posted by Otto
If this is true, they should be charged with Criminal Neglagence and tried in Court.
Agreed 100%!
Silly to hold the manufactures responsible. They settled because sadly, it would have been a losing case for them most likely costing them much much more than the settlement.. I think Edbert nailed it..Well, except the last sentence he wrote..
-
Originally posted by Edbert MOL
No company, large or small, wants to stand opposed to a crying mother/sister/daughter in court. They'll always settle, and the lawyers from both sides will all get rich. I'm sure it will get better with an ambulance-chaser/trial-lawyer in the white house though.
If I ownwd a corperation..I'd probrably go bankrupt and end up in jail..I couldn't stand up in court and not yell out "BS!" the whole time..not to mention the union gangsters would probrably firebomb my business for refusing to hire union workers..compnaies are bowing down too much these days...sad really
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
Who says victims can't sue their attackers?
Of course we can...
But Bushmaster has alot more money than John Lee Malvo, Does'nt it?
-
Guns are tools. They are designed and built to do one thing. Guns themselves do not kill people. Yes, it is easier with a gun but that's what tools do...make things easier.
Hammers are designed and built to do one thing. I can kill someone with a hammer. That's not what it's desiged to do...
Gun makers shouldn't be held liable for crimes commited with their products. If that's true, we should hold the same reservations for knife makers, car makers, aircraft makers, tool makers, carpenters, grocery stores, etc...
-
Nice post Texace
-
Originally posted by SOB
Either Beet1e is trolling or he can't read. I'm guessing it's a little of both.
Actually, his pets ran off.
-
Originally posted by texace
Guns are tools. They are designed and built to do one thing. Guns themselves do not kill people. Yes, it is easier with a gun but that's what tools do...make things easier.
Hammers are designed and built to do one thing. I can kill someone with a hammer. That's not what it's desiged to do...
Gun makers shouldn't be held liable for crimes commited with their products. If that's true, we should hold the same reservations for knife makers, car makers, aircraft makers, tool makers, carpenters, grocery stores, etc...
OK, so tell me this: Why is there so much hoopla over the "freedom" to own a gun? Why is it that the only tools that are the subject of any constitutional amendment are guns? Was there ever a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right of citizens to own hammers? If not why not?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
OK, so tell me this: Why is there so much hoopla over the "freedom" to own a gun? Why is it that the only tools that are the subject of any constitutional amendment are guns? Was there ever a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right of citizens to own hammers? If not why not?
The British never tried to take away the Colonist's hammers.
-
I'm guessing because guns are designed to kill things while Hammers are not.
-
Originally posted by Muckmaw1
Because we can't...
then posted by Muckmaw1
Of course we can...
I agree with your point, that typically victims sue companies because they typically have more $$$ than criminals. I just disagree with your arguement.
-
It would appear that the guns were held blameless and that their functioning and soundness is not an issue... the company and the shop are settling based on their negligence in the matter of distribution... the shop I believe had a frachise like contract with bushmaster.
The gun itself was not held at fault.... the oppossite of what beetle claims.
If a dealer or manufacture passed out firearms at an insane asylumn or prison the gun would still not be to blame.
lazs
-
Hey bettle ,ah beetlle.ah beetred,ah e1teeb,ah t1ebee,er london where ya been? nOT GNUS again.
Hey I found out whats wrong with ya, turn the page ,it says to protest pools as pools kill more kids in orange county in one year as accidental discharge of firearms have in 20 years.
luck of the Irish to ya.
-
What's the hoopla over owning a gun? Simple...it's one of the few things that can not only strike fear into the heart of men, but also injure or kill someone at a distance.
The hoopla is over self-defense. Americans want guns as self-defense tools that will protect themselves and their family and property. Americans want something that will deter a person from messing with their stuff or familes, and to kill someone who is trying to hurt or kill them. Essentially, Americans think that if guns are banned, it will be like a cat getting its claws removed.
If there weren't any guns, people would still be defending their property and families with other items like pitchforks, hammers, baseball bats, axes, anything that can be used to deliver a blow that will deter an attacker. Guns make that taskeasier and keeps the owner safe from relative harm.
Holding gun manufacturers liable for their products is stupid and quiet narrow-minded. Gun makers make guns to do one thing: shoot a projectile at a very fast speed. They do not design guns to kill, they design guns to shoot. A gun never even has to kill someone...it could be a target rifle or a trap shotgun. It is a matter of who is behind the trigger and what his intention with the gun is.
Remember, anything and everything can be a weapon. I can hurl my computer moniter at someone and hurt them, or smash someone on the head with a can of Coke. It's a matter of who is using it and how they're using it.
A gun isn't designed to kill...it's designed to shoot.
-
Originally posted by texace
What's the hoopla over owning a gun? Simple...it's one of the few things that can not only strike fear into the heart of men, but also injure or kill someone at a distance.
A pattern emerges. On a normal, peaceful day in Dullesville USA, guns can be heralded as the fortification amongst the ranks of God fearing Amurricans against the insidious menace (most probably a figment of their imagination) that lurks unseen in the neighbourhood. But, when something goes wrong, and the rivers of GunToting Utopia turn to poo (eg. Washington sniper, many dead), folks are quick to distance themselves from the potentially lethal effects of their armoury, and dismiss guns as mere tools, along with tyre levers, knives, hammers.....
OK, Gotcha. :aok:cool:
Better check under your beds tonight - or even IN your beds. There might be Commies in there. :lol
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It would appear that the guns were held blameless and that their functioning and soundness is not an issue... the company and the shop are settling based on their negligence in the matter of distribution... the shop I believe had a frachise like contract with bushmaster.
The gun itself was not held at fault.... the oppossite of what beetle claims.
If a dealer or manufacture passed out firearms at an insane asylumn or prison the gun would still not be to blame.
lazs
Really hard to lay the blame on an inanimate object isnt it? :)
-
beetle... it is human nature and math that are causing you the most grief on the gun thing. Plus... you envy American self reliace and are maybe still a little pissed that we threw you guys out so long ago and don't have the proper respect for the rulinjg class.
Human nature, especialy in vibrant countries of ethnic and cultural mixes (not tiny little islands) tends to be extreme in a small minority of the population. This still represents a large number tho if the population is say.... 330 million.
even in dull, stagnat islands there is a certain percentage of the population predisposed to crime.
In the vibrant and self reliant country like the U.S. ... it is somewhat more dangerous with more risk of crime...
Now the math.... in said vibrant and self reliant country... 2-3 million crimes a year are prevented by a simple policy of allowing it's law abiding citizens to defend themselves. The downside is a miniscule accident rate with firearms and.... people that would have been bludeoned or stabbed to death are shot instead. but... even in that... if even a small fraction of the 3 milloon prevented crimes were potentialy leathal... the firearms are a huge net gain in life saving.
so... to be against guns in America is to be for homicide and increased crime.
How I "feel" about the above facts are as irrelevant as how you "feel" about em.
lazs
-
Hey Lazs! What you yelling at me for? All I did was post a link to a news article.
As to the Math - you have a weird way of assessing the size of various countries and/or land masses. You once said America is compossed of 40 tiny little states no bigger than say... england and.... 10 whopping big ones.
I should point out that NZ is the size of CO - America's 8th largest state, and is therefore even larger than two of America's "whopping big" states. And yet you have been known to refer to New Zealand as a "tiny little island". How do you reconcile this somewhat glaring anomaly?
-
geez Beetle.. everywhere I look I see you going out of your way to tell the world what a pretentious and insular jerk you are. Have you not filled your quota for the month? How about giving this glorious campaign a break?
-
Originally posted by texace
Guns are tools. They are designed and built to do one thing. Guns themselves do not kill people. Yes, it is easier with a gun but that's what tools do...make things easier.
Hammers are designed and built to do one thing. I can kill someone with a hammer. That's not what it's desiged to do...
What are guns built to do?
-
Originally posted by hawker238
What are guns built to do?
shoot.
-
beetle... I have no problem with the news article or even people posting a link to it...
The problem is your bizzare and erronious conclussion (seems it WAS the guns fault after all)...
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.
lazs
-
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.
-
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. :D
-
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
-
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
-
So Beetle, you think the gun was at fault?
-
I say we arrest all guns and all alcohol before they kill us all.
-
Go here and read the Response from BushMaster about the settlement. http://www.bushmaster.com/ (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
-
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.
-
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. :rolleyes: 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.
-
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. :rolleyes: 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.
-
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 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/10/wsnipe10.xml).
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
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.
no they wont just "go away" they will however become harder for just anyone to get.
most shootings are done inner city street gangs, using the most readily available guns, just imagine how much more damage they could do if they could walk 2 blocks, and pick up a rpg, ak-47, rpk etc. etc. or if one of them damn depressed loners decide to go on a killing spree, imagine how much more damage they could have done if they had that sort of weapon thats the sort of thing gun control is about,
because as many people have pointed out...psycho serial killers will kill no matter what, and more "professional" criminals will obtain that sort of thing no matter what.
and thats all i really have to say about it. no doubt im completly wrong, and lazs will throw a couple pro gun cliche slogans at me to prove it.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
no they wont just "go away" they will however become harder for just anyone to get.
most shootings are done inner city street gangs, using the most readily available guns, just imagine how much more damage they could do if they could walk 2 blocks, and pick up a rpg, ak-47, rpk etc. etc. or if one of them damn depressed loners decide to go on a killing spree, imagine how much more damage they could have done if they had that sort of weapon thats the sort of thing gun control is about,
because as many people have pointed out...psycho serial killers will kill no matter what, and more "professional" criminals will obtain that sort of thing no matter what.
and thats all i really have to say about it. no doubt im completly wrong, and lazs will throw a couple pro gun cliche slogans at me to prove it.
Well.. your right.. you are wrong.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
no they wont just "go away" they will however become harder for just anyone to get.
LOL not really. They will just be harder for just anyone to get legally.
Illegally, Well lemme put it this way.
Its goin on 1:30 AM where I am now.
I could leave my house right now and be home by daybreak toting any kind of gun I wish. And I do mean ANY kind.
Its already tons harder to get guns legally then illegally.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
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
OR Crossbows:D
-
vort and beetle... in the case of these snipers they fired ONE shot from a distance of 100 or so yards in each case.
If they (the snipers) would have been limited to single shot or bolt action hunting rifles they would have been just as deadly... in fact... more so. They could have killed from a greater distance. they would have probly killed for a longer time before being caught.
Neither of you is against people owning these more deadly hunting rifles. vort is against people owning "assault rifles" because they.... well... they look bad and his liberal friends told him they were evil and that people used em in gang shootings and stuff all the time. even tho they are probly the least likely weapon to be used in a crime.
if you ban the so called "assault weapons" you don't cure anything but you set a gun banning precedent. Better to have the anti gun nuts whining about harmless "assault rifles" than my Garand and mini 12 and semi auto pistols and revolvers.
They know better than to try to ban too many weapons at once... total brick wall for em every time they try.
Better to convince the naive and foreigners that some guns are worse than others.
lazs
lazs
-
So... maybe we should just throw our hands in the air, and accept that the deaths of the 10 victims is the price that MUST be paid for the right to bear arms. After all, the US economy would collapse in the absence of Bushmaster hunting rifles.
(http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_4_121.gif)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
So... maybe we should just throw our hands in the air, and accept that the deaths of the 10 victims is the price that MUST be paid for the right to bear arms. After all, the US economy would collapse in the absence of Bushmaster hunting rifles.
(http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_4_121.gif)
Yeah, like drunken driving deaths are the price we MUST pay to allow alcohol to freely available to almost everyone. I'm glad you understand now.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
So... maybe we should just throw our hands in the air, and accept that the deaths of the 10 victims is the price that MUST be paid for the right to bear arms. After all, the US economy would collapse in the absence of Bushmaster hunting rifles.
(http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_4_121.gif)
Beetle,
I hearby nominate you for this months "Baghdad Bob" award for your ceaseless campaign against observable fact in order to forward a personal agenda. Can I have a second?
BTW, they could have done this with any rifle. That rifle was stolen, not obtained through legal channels so outlawing it would be pointless.
-
beetle... the U.S. economy would not be affedted in the least by the removal or the bushmaster or even if it were reduced to half price. The numbers of murders in the U.S. would not change if there were no buwshmasters or one in every legal gun owners collection. but...
if guns were outlawed in the U.S. there is a lot of evidense that crime would go up (just as it did on your island) and that with 2-3 million crimes being prevented with firearms every year.... even a tiny fraction of those being homicides... then homicides would go up..
you are asking us to get rid of firearms even tho they prevent crime and homicides.... you are asking us to throw up our hands in despair and let the criminals rule because.... because firearms are evil looking? You don't like em? what?
You are willing to condone higher crime rates and more murders to be able to say that you got rid of guns?
I hear kerrie is meeting with fienstein and boxer and the brady bunch as we speak... they are discussing the lapsing of the assault weapons and magazine ban.
I hope this meeting get's lot's of publicity but it probly won't.
lazs
-
Neither of you is against people owning these more deadly hunting rifles. vort is against people owning "assault rifles" because they.... well... they look bad and his liberal friends told him they were evil and that people used em in gang shootings and stuff all the time. even tho they are probly the least likely weapon to be used in a crime.
nope, i didnt say they are used in gang shootings, i said if gangs could easily and cheaply obtain them, there would be even more deaths from that sort of gang violence.
ive never said "ban all guns" and ive never said crime rates would fall if they were, or if incredibly massive limitations were put on owning them. ive always said that that the harder it is for a criminal to obtain an assault rifle or automatic weapon, the more likely they are to use something else, and the easier it will be for citizens like yourself or the police to stop them.
-
it is already illegal for felons to own firearms. How about enforcing existing laws instead of passing more?
-
but vort... everyu study ever done on the subject shows that the ban did had absolutely no effect on crime or homicides.
What is it that you would like to see exactly? and... what are your reasons?
lazs
-
The dealer's shop that had to pay the $$$ is about 3-4 miles from my house(lol).
:(
-
Lazs said "you are asking us to get rid of firearms" No, I never said that. You didn't read part of my post above ^ which was:
Originally posted by beet1e
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.
-
beetle.. Ok, so what is it... you feel that without a bushmaster the snipers would have never existed. "seems it was the guns fault"....
I claim that the snipers would have been better served with a more conventional hunting rifle. Would you have felt better if they would have had a more effiecient tool and been able to kill more people at longer range?
what guns do you feel I shouldn't be able to own and for what reasons?
lazs