The Washington snipers used a Bushmaster rifle to kill 10 people in a 3 week period - how come the relatives of the victims can succesfully sue the company and the retailer who sold the weapon? I am sure it wasn't sold with that intent! Do the police make any checks before issuing a licence to own weapons?
Applying this priciple, does this means that we can sue companies for selling the cars that kill thousands of people every week on the roads?
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Pff this is rediculous!!
That means we can do anything we want, and just blame it on the company's?
Same blaming TV or music for murders.
That means we can do anything we want, and just blame it on the company's?
Same blaming TV or music for murders.
No more rediculous than people suing fast food restaurants because eating their food made them fat, or because drinking their hot coffee burned them (actually, holding a cup of their hot coffee between their legs while driving in a bumpy parking lot), or suing the tobacco company because smoking cigarettes gave them lung cancer.
People in America will find any excuse to sue, just because they can. It's an easy and almost guaranteed way to make a lot of money.
Like the man who successfully sued some people whose dog bit him...even though he was on their property at the time shooting air pellets at the dog.
Like the man who successfully sued some people whose dog bit him...even though he was on their property at the time shooting air pellets at the dog.
..............and that woman who got cancer who sued the tobacco company!
Americans have a God-given constitutional right to sue. Vote for the ambulence chasers, Kerry & Edwards, for president.
Calling edwards an ambulance chaser isn't quite accurate.
Our nation has a fine legal system. Part of that is allowing folks to let the courts decide disagreements. It ain't perfect, but it's what we got.
They're suing because the gun shop sold the weapon to people that legally had no right to own the weapon. This is negligence. You can also sue an automotive manufacturer if you can show that they were negligent in following safety procedures or cutting corners.
The manufacturer was being sued because they continued to stock this store with these weapons, even though audits of this store by the government showed HUNDREDS of weapons unaccounted for.
Are the gun shop owners directly to blame for the shootings? No. Should we not force some sort of checks and balances on the system to prevent future illegal sales of deadly weapons? Personally, I think so.
Our nation has a fine legal system. Part of that is allowing folks to let the courts decide disagreements. It ain't perfect, but it's what we got.
They're suing because the gun shop sold the weapon to people that legally had no right to own the weapon. This is negligence. You can also sue an automotive manufacturer if you can show that they were negligent in following safety procedures or cutting corners.
The manufacturer was being sued because they continued to stock this store with these weapons, even though audits of this store by the government showed HUNDREDS of weapons unaccounted for.
Are the gun shop owners directly to blame for the shootings? No. Should we not force some sort of checks and balances on the system to prevent future illegal sales of deadly weapons? Personally, I think so.
For a simple analogy, take a liquor store that knowingly sells liquor to some 15 year olds.
Is this liquor store responsible in any way for any alcohol related deaths/accidents that may happen to those teenagers?
Is this liquor store responsible in any way for any alcohol related deaths/accidents that may happen to those teenagers?
BTW, bull, I don't think it was God that gave us the right to use the courts. ;o)
Cheers joeyjojo - we only get half the story this side of the pond.
Bob, well, we usually get less than half the story over here too. ;o)
Sadly, in this day in age, one needs to work at getting even something close to resembling the complete story ;o)
Sadly, in this day in age, one needs to work at getting even something close to resembling the complete story ;o)
Well said Joey!!!
A thread with a happy ending!!
I'm gonna cry!!!
Bob--Rush shirt *cough* RUSH SHIRT!!
:)
A thread with a happy ending!!
I'm gonna cry!!!
Bob--Rush shirt *cough* RUSH SHIRT!!
:)
Here is another question for you guys along the same lines.
Why is it that abotion is legal. I know it's choice. And freedom of choice. So, when some one kills a pregnant woman, it is a double homicide. The abortion rights people believe that the fetus is not 'alive' until birth. So why is that? I can legaly get an abortion, yet I can't kill someone pregnant and not get a double homicide charge. Isn't that a double standard?
My view of abortion is I think it's not what I would choose. But that is beside the piont. (and not relevant to voting).
Why is it that abotion is legal. I know it's choice. And freedom of choice. So, when some one kills a pregnant woman, it is a double homicide. The abortion rights people believe that the fetus is not 'alive' until birth. So why is that? I can legaly get an abortion, yet I can't kill someone pregnant and not get a double homicide charge. Isn't that a double standard?
My view of abortion is I think it's not what I would choose. But that is beside the piont. (and not relevant to voting).
Very good point Matt. I dunno. I guess it does boil down to choice. It's legal bc you are choosing to do it for your own reasons and by your own will maybe? Also it might be that the law makers don't consider abortion murder. In regards to the double homicide maybe that is viewed as when another person kills someone else and that person who happens to be pregnant, didn't choose to be killed that is murder and murder is illegal. I guess it boils down to what your definition of murder is.
I'm thinking that the law makers don't consider abortion to be murder bc the fetus or embryo is not capable of living on its own without the mother, so its not alive???? And I guess therefore can't be murdered???? But again, its contradictory about the double homicide law. Is that law in effect in all states? If I'm not mistaken I think some states still outlaw abortion don't they? I could be wrong. I'm wondering if maybe the states that have the double homicide law also have abortion outlawed?
Sounds like to me its all about what your definition of murder is. Very gray this area is.
Good debate thread.
I'm thinking that the law makers don't consider abortion to be murder bc the fetus or embryo is not capable of living on its own without the mother, so its not alive???? And I guess therefore can't be murdered???? But again, its contradictory about the double homicide law. Is that law in effect in all states? If I'm not mistaken I think some states still outlaw abortion don't they? I could be wrong. I'm wondering if maybe the states that have the double homicide law also have abortion outlawed?
Sounds like to me its all about what your definition of murder is. Very gray this area is.
Good debate thread.
"Why is it that abotion is legal."
Hooboy...abortion...let's save that for another thread. ;o)
Hooboy...abortion...let's save that for another thread. ;o)