Gun Maker No Liable

[merphie]

Article

CHARLESTON, W.Virginia (AP) -- The country's largest firearms maker is not liable for the shooting of two police officers by a felon, a judge ruled.

Finally some common sense.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

I agree. If the gun that the felon had, had mis-fired then there'll be a valid case. Obviously the gun worked as designed.

Charlie (arm every baby) Monoxide

 

[merphie]

I agree. If the gun that the felon had, had mis-fired then there'll be a valid case. Obviously the gun worked as designed.

Charlie (arm every baby) Monoxide

Tsk, tsk. If it misfired it would be the ammunition manufacturer's fault. If the slide came off the gun during the cycle and hit the felon in the nose there would be a case.

Note: The felon couldn't buy the gun and paid someone else to do it.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Tsk, tsk. If it misfired it would be the ammunition manufacturer's fault. If the slide came off the gun during the cycle and hit the felon in the nose there would be a case.

Note: The felon couldn't buy the gun and paid someone else to do it.

If the policemen had guns they would have been able to defend themselvs!

 

[merphie]

If the policemen had guns they would have been able to defend themselvs!

Oh boy.

 

[KelvinG]

Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people.

Sorry, had to bring out that tired old cliche before someone else did.

 

[CFLarsen]

Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people.

Yeah, that's an oldie: So, people should be allowed to have guns. As many as they want. Where they want them, e.g. on airplanes, in schools and on the job.

There's a logical flaw in that:

Bombs don't kill people, people kill people. Ergo, people should be allowed to have bombs. As many as they want. Where they want them, e.g. on airplanes, in schools and on the job.

Chemical spills don't kill people, people kill people. Ergo, people should be allowed to have lots of chemicals in their back yard. As many as they want. Where they want them, e.g. on airplanes, in schools and on the job.

Nuclear disasters don't kill people, people kill people. Ergo, people should be allowed to have nuclear plants in their back yard. As many as they want. Where they want them, e.g. on airplanes, in schools and on the job.

I'm curious: Those, who advocate that "guns don't kill people, people kill people, so people should be allowed to have guns", do they similarly advocate that people should have bombs, chemicals, and nuclear plants?

If not, why only guns? Don't come up with this Amendment crap, because the Amendment has nothing to do with what guns and people do - it is only a political decision.

 

[The Don]

I'm curious: Those, who advocate that "guns don't kill people, people kill people, so people should be allowed to have guns", do they similarly advocate that people should have bombs, chemicals, and nuclear plants?

No, most of them don't. Most of them don't want bombs, chemicals or nuclear plants. Rest assured that those who do are probably saying that they are sufficiently responsible to own them.

 

[merphie]

Yeah, that's an oldie: So, people should be allowed to have guns. As many as they want. Where they want them, e.g. on airplanes, in schools and on the job.

There's a logical flaw in that:

Bombs don't kill people, people kill people. Ergo, people should be allowed to have bombs. As many as they want. Where they want them, e.g. on airplanes, in schools and on the job.

Chemical spills don't kill people, people kill people. Ergo, people should be allowed to have lots of chemicals in their back yard. As many as they want. Where they want them, e.g. on airplanes, in schools and on the job.

Nuclear disasters don't kill people, people kill people. Ergo, people should be allowed to have nuclear plants in their back yard. As many as they want. Where they want them, e.g. on airplanes, in schools and on the job.

I'm curious: Those, who advocate that "guns don't kill people, people kill people, so people should be allowed to have guns", do they similarly advocate that people should have bombs, chemicals, and nuclear plants?

If not, why only guns? Don't come up with this Amendment crap, because the Amendment has nothing to do with what guns and people do - it is only a political decision.

That's rehtorical BS. You are talking about Apples and Oranges. Is it the fault of the object If someone uses a car or a knife to kill someone? The desicion to kill is reset firmly with the person operating the object.

A gun by itself will not kill anything. In fact it makes a nice paper weight.

 

[CFLarsen]

That's rehtorical BS. You are talking about Apples and Oranges. Is it the fault of the object If someone uses a car or a knife to kill someone? The desicion to kill is reset firmly with the person operating the object.

A gun by itself will not kill anything. In fact it makes a nice paper weight.

So does a bomb.

It still applies to bombs, chemical spills and nuclear disasters as well. It is only when it goes wrong, that it becomes a problem.

So, why can't I have a bomb?

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

So does a bomb.

It still applies to bombs, chemical spills and nuclear disasters as well. It is only when it goes wrong, that it becomes a problem.

So, why can't I have a bomb?

Can I have a flame-thrower? No one would mess with me and I would feel very safe. On the other hand with the local forest fire warnings at "extreme" where I live, I don't imagine I'll be too welcome.

Charlie (can I light your cigarette?) Monoxide

 

[KelvinG]

So does a bomb.

It still applies to bombs, chemical spills and nuclear disasters as well. It is only when it goes wrong, that it becomes a problem.

So, why can't I have a bomb?

Yah, I want a bomb too. But just for hunting of course.

 

[merphie]

So does a bomb.

It still applies to bombs, chemical spills and nuclear disasters as well. It is only when it goes wrong, that it becomes a problem.

So, why can't I have a bomb?

Those items can not be used to personal defense. They do not apply in this situation.

The only thing in common is they all require someone at the controls.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Let's keep the topic to guns. No one is fighting for the right to have bombs and chemical weapons.

 

[ingoa]

Bombs, Claymores and mines are quite handy to protect your lawn. They CAN be used for defense. Ask any infantry soldier. Almost everything can be used for defense.

And if the US constitution is allowing to be armed then the discrimination against explosives is highlt non-PC. Why discriminate agaist poor little explosives and their manufacturers?

I want my backyard minefield! An intruder would we just as dead whether I shoot him or I blow him up.

The fine philosophical distinction between a gun and an anti-personnel mine escapes me.

And a minefield would be even more effective than a gun. A gun you can counter with a bigger gun and greater ruthlessness. But a minefield? Do you know how long it takes to clear a path through a minefield?

 

[Drooper]

That's rehtorical BS. You are talking about Apples and Oranges. Is it the fault of the object If someone uses a car or a knife to kill someone? The desicion to kill is reset firmly with the person operating the object.

A gun by itself will not kill anything. In fact it makes a nice paper weight.

I normall avoid these debate like the plague. But against my better judgement.


When used for purpose for which it was intended, a gun will kill, mame etc.

You cannot say that about cars, or domestic knives.

 

[merphie]

Bombs, Claymores and mines are quite handy to protect your lawn. They CAN be used for defense. Ask any infantry soldier. Almost everything can be used for defense.

Agreed. They are useful in a war situation. They are not good for defense on my lawn because I would probably take out my neighbors dog (Not a bad thing), the mail man, damage to my house, or damage to the neighbors house. They are not pratical for home defense.

I could take them hunting, but then I probably won't have much left to eat.

Actually back in the day Farmers used bombs all the time. They clear trees and stumps really well.

And if the US constitution is allowing to be armed then the discrimination against explosives is highlt non-PC. Why discriminate agaist poor little explosives and their manufacturers?

The constitution doesn't discriminate. Explosisves are regulated. Why not sue McDonalds for giving someone hot coffee? Why not sue Ford for killing someone in a traffic accident?

I want my backyard minefield! An intruder would we just as dead whether I shoot him or I blow him up.

The fine philosophical distinction between a gun and an anti-personnel mine escapes me.

If you can't see the difference I won't even try. It would be a waste of time.

And a minefield would be even more effective than a gun. A gun you can counter with a bigger gun and greater ruthlessness. But a minefield? Do you know how long it takes to clear a path through a minefield?

 

[merphie]

When used for purpose for which it was intended, a gun will kill, mame etc.

You cannot say that about cars, or domestic knives.

The important factor is still what the gun is being used for. If you are going to narrow the category for Cars and knives then you must apply it to guns.

Guns are not meant to harm innoncent people. So you can not say it about guns.

 

[AWPrime]

The primary function of a gun is to inflict lethal force to a living being.

A cars primary function is on the other hand to transport living beings and/or cargo.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The primary function of a gun is to inflict lethal force to a living being.

A cars primary function is on the other hand to transport living beings and/or cargo.

And both are sometimes used to assuage certain Freudian feelings.