Without getting into the trial-lawyers thing, I'd say the issue is in how the
gun makers promote, distribute, and sell their wares, rather than any other
single issue. The point is that, for one example, the gun makers send enough
guns into the metro Chicago area, where gun ownership is restricted, to equip
every adult in the entire metro area with at least one handgun, yet they never
seem to run out. It's wonderful for their sales, but the Chicago authorities
have gone on record as opposing the practice. Some effort to behave
reasonably, as opposed to making lots of assumptions based on gross violations
of local laws, would probably be appreciated by the Chicago area authorities.
I don't know that trying to make this a supply-side thing is any smarter than
the same effort with respect to drugs. If having a gun on your person when
apprehended in the commission of a crime were, in itself, more likely to get
you a life-standing-on-your-head-in-a-16"-deep-pool-of-goat-feces-sentence
than the crime itself, perhaps people would behave differently. I don't see
why the GOV thinks that they should make the gun makers enforce the law. It's
worth a try, though.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Maslin" <donm_at_cts.com>
To: "Classic Computers" <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: The Future End of Classic Computing
>
>
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Chris wrote:
>
> > >To go back to the hammer for a moment, if I go out and buy a hammer and
> > >bash somebody's head in with it, then I am guilty of murder. The company
> > >that made the hammer, and the shop that sold it to me, are not. And
> > >that's how it should be.
> >
> > Scary thing is... here in the US, it doesn't seem to work that logically.
> > People have been sueing gun manufacturers off and on because they made
> > the gun that was used to kill someone.
> >
> > I don't know if anyone has WON a suit, but I do know the suits have been
> > filed (and win or loose, you are costing the gun maker needless legal
> > troubles).
> >
> > Sueing people has become so much the norm here... that the government has
> > had to step in and offer insurance backing for the companies cleaning up
> > the world trade center... because the companies know ALREADY that there
> > will be lawsuits when they are done, and without insurance, they know
> > they will be sued into bankruptcy. AND, since it is such a known fact
> > that they will be sued... no insurance company was willing to insure
> > them, which meant they weren't willing to do the work... so the
> > government had to step in and offer backing.
> >
> > F-ing scary!
> >
> > Remember, this is the country that awarded 3 million dollars to a lady
> > because she put her hot coffee in her lap, and then spilled it... and was
> > able to sue McDonalds because the coffee was too hot and it burned her
> > (yes, there is more to that story, but the fact that she was even able to
> > get to trial is just f-ed up... where is the personal responsibility in
> > this country?!?)
> >
> > -chris
> >
> > <http://www.mythtech.net>
>
> The trial lawyers, in cahoots with their cohorts in the Congress, have
> pretty well eliminated it with the `deep pocket' approach in lawsuits,
> and class action suits that are `opt out' rather than `opt in' as they
> ought to be. It is all part of a very successful program - to make
> lawyers rich(er) - at the expense of everyone else.
>
> - don
>
>
>
Received on Thu Apr 04 2002 - 16:26:02 BST