Tiger in Spain 0 Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 John Kerry promised over the weekend that he would "take on the terrorists" who attacked the U.S. on 9/11 by forcing them to obey America's gun control laws. Link "The 9/11 commission and other reports have shown that al-Qaida wanted to come into America, and in the al-Qaida manual of terror, they were telling people to go out and buy assault weapons," Kerry told a crowd in Missouri.The top Democrat did not explain why the Assault Weapons Ban failed to protect America against the 9/11 attacks, which were executed by al-Qaida operatives armed with small knives. Nor did Kerry say how many terrorists had been arrested and charged with violations under the Assault Weapons Ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,325 Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 John Kerry promised over the weekend that he would "take on the terrorists" who attacked the U.S. on 9/11 by forcing them to obey America's gun control laws.Link "The 9/11 commission and other reports have shown that al-Qaida wanted to come into America, and in the al-Qaida manual of terror, they were telling people to go out and buy assault weapons," Kerry told a crowd in Missouri.The top Democrat did not explain why the Assault Weapons Ban failed to protect America against the 9/11 attacks, which were executed by al-Qaida operatives armed with small knives. Nor did Kerry say how many terrorists had been arrested and charged with violations under the Assault Weapons Ban. He can't say either cause its bogus crap. Like I said before to get the weapons legally that they are so worried about, people have to have a special license. All the other guns on the list are the same as an average every day semi-auto hunting rifle. I'll take on thes guys any day with a pump shotgun and 00 buckshot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexbo 104 Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 And don't forget, the DC sniper's weapon was bought under the assault weapons ban. That law did nothing to make the people of the Washington area safer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 And don't forget, the DC sniper's weapon was bought under the assault weapons ban. That law did nothing to make the people of the Washington area safer... LINK What they did had nothing to do with the ban. They got the rifle illegally. If the dealers are going to break the law, what's the answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny AU-92 0 Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 John Kerry promised over the weekend that he would "take on the terrorists" who attacked the U.S. on 9/11 by forcing them to obey America's gun control laws.Link "The 9/11 commission and other reports have shown that al-Qaida wanted to come into America, and in the al-Qaida manual of terror, they were telling people to go out and buy assault weapons," Kerry told a crowd in Missouri.The top Democrat did not explain why the Assault Weapons Ban failed to protect America against the 9/11 attacks, which were executed by al-Qaida operatives armed with small knives. Nor did Kerry say how many terrorists had been arrested and charged with violations under the Assault Weapons Ban. Since when were box cutters illegal assault weapons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,325 Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 And don't forget, the DC sniper's weapon was bought under the assault weapons ban. That law did nothing to make the people of the Washington area safer... LINK What they did had nothing to do with the ban. They got the rifle illegally. If the dealers are going to break the law, what's the answer? The answer is to make it so devastating on a dealer that knowingly sells an illegal gun, that doing so is not worth it. This is one area that the government could be a little tougher on. The pats on the hands for the dealers is not working. Most of these guys know they are selling illegal guns. At that point I don't find them negligent, I find them criminal. They should lose their business and all capital should be auctioned off, WHILE THEY WATCH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 I think that's what happened here... Victims of the Washington, D.C.-area sniper shootings and their families have settled claims against the maker of the gun used in the spree and its dealer for $2.5 million, an agreement the plaintiffs' lawyer said would change practices in the firearms industry. Though it seems that $550,000 to eight plaintiffs is pretty low considering the gun shop where the rifle was bought by a 17 year old had been investigated many times by ATF because of unaccounted weapons, and the manufacturer, Bushmaster, knew about it but continued to do business with them anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,325 Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 I think that's what happened here...Victims of the Washington, D.C.-area sniper shootings and their families have settled claims against the maker of the gun used in the spree and its dealer for $2.5 million, an agreement the plaintiffs' lawyer said would change practices in the firearms industry. Though it seems that $550,000 to eight plaintiffs is pretty low considering the gun shop where the rifle was bought by a 17 year old had been investigated many times by ATF because of unaccounted weapons, and the manufacturer, Bushmaster, knew about it but continued to do business with them anyway. Not really. Wasn't this a civil settlement? I think the ATF should have had more teeth to shut down this guy long before he had a chance to sell another illegal gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 I think that's what happened here...Victims of the Washington, D.C.-area sniper shootings and their families have settled claims against the maker of the gun used in the spree and its dealer for $2.5 million, an agreement the plaintiffs' lawyer said would change practices in the firearms industry. Though it seems that $550,000 to eight plaintiffs is pretty low considering the gun shop where the rifle was bought by a 17 year old had been investigated many times by ATF because of unaccounted weapons, and the manufacturer, Bushmaster, knew about it but continued to do business with them anyway. Not really. Wasn't this a civil settlement? I think the ATF should have had more teeth to shut down this guy long before he had a chance to sell another illegal gun. Agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,325 Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 I think that's what happened here...Victims of the Washington, D.C.-area sniper shootings and their families have settled claims against the maker of the gun used in the spree and its dealer for $2.5 million, an agreement the plaintiffs' lawyer said would change practices in the firearms industry. Though it seems that $550,000 to eight plaintiffs is pretty low considering the gun shop where the rifle was bought by a 17 year old had been investigated many times by ATF because of unaccounted weapons, and the manufacturer, Bushmaster, knew about it but continued to do business with them anyway. Not really. Wasn't this a civil settlement? I think the ATF should have had more teeth to shut down this guy long before he had a chance to sell another illegal gun. Agree. Are ther 12 or 13 knots in a noose? I want to make sur I hang myself correctly. TA aggreed with me on s om e t hi n g.......Ca n ' t g o on................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger in Spain 0 Posted September 15, 2004 Author Share Posted September 15, 2004 Victims of the Washington, D.C.-area sniper shootings and their families have settled claims against the maker of the gun used in the spree and its dealer for $2.5 million, an agreement the plaintiffs' lawyer said would change practices in the firearms industry. I'm all for throwing the book at shady gun dealers that blatently ignore the laws by selling guns to minors. Very stiff fines and no less than 5 years in prison should be an immediate sentence in cases like this. As a gun collector and hobbyist, I have very strong concerns about suing the gun makers in these cases. The maker of the gun isn't at fault here, it's the moron that sold the gun to the 17 year old. This goes back to the argument that suing the gun maker for a murder committed by one of their guns is much akin to suing Skillcraft because of ones poor spelling skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weagle98 119 Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 I think that's what happened here...Victims of the Washington, D.C.-area sniper shootings and their families have settled claims against the maker of the gun used in the spree and its dealer for $2.5 million, an agreement the plaintiffs' lawyer said would change practices in the firearms industry. Though it seems that $550,000 to eight plaintiffs is pretty low considering the gun shop where the rifle was bought by a 17 year old had been investigated many times by ATF because of unaccounted weapons, and the manufacturer, Bushmaster, knew about it but continued to do business with them anyway. Not really. Wasn't this a civil settlement? I think the ATF should have had more teeth to shut down this guy long before he had a chance to sell another illegal gun. Agree. Are ther 12 or 13 knots in a noose? I want to make sur I hang myself correctly. TA aggreed with me on s om e t hi n g.......Ca n ' t g o on................... 13.. Glad I could help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 The maker of the gun isn't at fault here, it's the moron that sold the gun to the 17 year old. Normally I would agree with you but the victims were contending that Bushmaster knew that the gun shop was employing some shady practices resulting in missing/unaccounted for weapons and, instead of refusing to sell them more of their products, chose to continue providing them with weapons. In your analogy, I wouldn't hold Skilcraft responsible if my finger was cut off with one of their saws I bought from Sears unless they knew Sears was doing something illegal and potentially dangerous and continued to practice business as usual. In that case, I do think Skilcraft (and Bushmaster) had some liability, although not as much as Sears (and the gun shop). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,325 Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 The maker of the gun isn't at fault here, it's the moron that sold the gun to the 17 year old. Normally I would agree with you but the victims were contending that Bushmaster knew that the gun shop was employing some shady practices resulting in missing/unaccounted for weapons and, instead of refusing to sell them more of their products, chose to continue providing them with weapons. In your analogy, I wouldn't hold Skilcraft responsible if my finger was cut off with one of their saws I bought from Sears unless they knew Sears was doing something illegal and potentially dangerous and continued to practice business as usual. In that case, I do think Skilcraft (and Bushmaster) had some liability, although not as much as Sears (and the gun shop). But Bushmaster was providing guns in a legal manner. Remember, Bushmaster did not admit or were they found guilty. They just settled becasue it was cheaper. But I do believe they would have been exhonerated had they gone to trial. And if the victims would have had to reimburse Bushmaster for some of their expenses, then they wouldn't have thrown the spaghetti. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 The maker of the gun isn't at fault here, it's the moron that sold the gun to the 17 year old. Normally I would agree with you but the victims were contending that Bushmaster knew that the gun shop was employing some shady practices resulting in missing/unaccounted for weapons and, instead of refusing to sell them more of their products, chose to continue providing them with weapons. In your analogy, I wouldn't hold Skilcraft responsible if my finger was cut off with one of their saws I bought from Sears unless they knew Sears was doing something illegal and potentially dangerous and continued to practice business as usual. In that case, I do think Skilcraft (and Bushmaster) had some liability, although not as much as Sears (and the gun shop). But Bushmaster was providing guns in a legal manner. Remember, Bushmaster did not admit or were they found guilty. They just settled becasue it was cheaper. But I do believe they would have been exhonerated had they gone to trial. And if the victims would have had to reimburse Bushmaster for some of their expenses, then they wouldn't have thrown the spaghetti. I know Bushmaster wasn't DOING anything illegal from the standpoint of selling the guns to unauthorized people. But, the Bushmaster salesman alledgedly had knowledge that the gun shop WAS and continued to supply the shop instead of cutting them off. I'm not saying that in a normal circumstance where someone goes in and legally purchases a rifle and then commits a crime that the manufacturer should be held responsible. Maybe some do, but I don't subscribe to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.