I sure hope this law suit will be successful. If the ATF can not control the irresponsible arms dealers, maybe the lawsuits and increased insurance premiums can.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
Search This Blog
Useful Links
YOU CAN HELP NOW !!!
Tell friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, politicians, etc to google give2attain or send them this address now !!!http://give2attain.blogspot.com/ Then I promise to keep posting unique and/or helpful thoughts, and hosting open polite dialogue. Thank You !!!
Trying for Balance
G2A Email and Rules
email: give2get@live.com
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
Blog Archive
About Me
- John
- I am married and we have 3 adult daughters and a dog. We live in Plymouth MN. My interests are learning, communicating, home improvement projects, motorcycling, boating, and other outside activities. Thank you for reading my blog and have a great day !!!
99 comments:
My favorite tactic. People should be held responsible for firearms they put in the stream of commerce.
--Hiram
Silly questions: Why sue #3 instead of #1? Why not sue the ATF for failing to enforce the law? Why not curb the crime that makes all these gun purchases necessary? If the ATF doesn't have enough evidence to close them down, how can the case be made in a civil lawsuit?
Easily. Civil suits are based on different criteria.
All the plaintiff has to show is that the defendant caused financial damage through their actions.
Think of all the tobacco and drug settlements that had no criminal charges.
And they are not suing to shut down the business, just to make them pay the costs of their irresponsible behaviors.
I think this is wonderful. :-)
If you are brazenly willing to sell to straw purchasers to make money, then you can help clean up the mess you enabled.
You sue the person with the deep pockets. There is no point in suing people with no money. Ultimately, I would hold the gun manufacturers liable for the damage caused by the products they use.
--Hiram
So you want to sue a company that is building a legal functional products?
This product is not cigarettes or opioids, no one ever said guns do not harm people. :-O
So you want to sue a company that is building a legal functional products?
I do if they put them in the stream of commerce in ways that result in death or injury. It was the company that voluntarily chose to produce a dangerous product.
--Hiram
Cars and knives can be dangerous...
Maybe we should allow them all to be sued?
Cars and knives can be dangerous...
Cigarettes can be dangerous, and we do hold their manufacturers liable. We deal with the dangers of cars by requiring insurance, and that would be one reasonable thing to do with regard to gunmaker liability.
The answer to "What aboutist" arguments is mostly "I am not addressing that issue now, but if you think that's a problem go ahead and make your case." Each of us has our own priorities, and it's not necessarily a good idea to allow someone else to replace your priorities with his, particularly when that's just a tactic to avoid the issue you want to raise.
--Hiram
[copy here] Why not sue the ATF for failing to enforce the law? Why not curb the crime that makes all these gun purchases necessary? If the ATF doesn't have enough evidence to close them down, how can the case be made in a civil lawsuit?
To file a civil suit, you have to prove somebody knowingly and willingly caused harm. If I sell a car to somebody, and they use that car to commit a crime, how is it that I am liable in any way for that? If the police fail to prevent a crime that I might by some stretch reasonably have foreseen, is that my fault? This is a backhanded attempt to blame someone other than the criminals for the crimes that Chicago is totally incapable of preventing with their ridiculous anti-gun laws.
Hiram,
The cigarette companies because they lied about the deadliness of their product.
No one is going to argue that gun companies claimed their product was safe.
Jerry,
This is why we have civil courts and juries. It seems that the Chicago Gun Laws work well since the guns came from elsewhere.
Not sure why you like to make it easy for criminals to buy guns on the second hand market?
Or why you would want to protect sellers who knowingly support it?
Do you have something against poor mostly minority communities?
The cigarette companies because they lied about the deadliness of their product.
So when people are gunned down by their products, it's okay because the gun companies didn't lie to their victims?
--Hiram
Usually.. As long as the company operated within the law.
So all a plaintiff has to do is find a lie from the gun manufacturers>
--Hiram
Maybe they can find where they said their guns did not shoot things???
Did the guns have warning labels? Should people who are shot with them be given the opportunity to read those labels first?
--Hiram
We have gun violence in this country which has an enormous cost. In fairness, on whom should the burden of that cost fall? What's the argument for putting that burden on the innocent? Children, Fed Ex employees, people at their neighborhood bar. What have they done, precisely, that justifies making them pay for the cost of gun violence? Were they negligent? Did they break the law? Did they disregard warning labels? Did they profit from the manufacture and sale of guns?
--Hiram
Cigarettes were widely known as "coffin nails" ever since the 30s, and have had a warning on every pack since 1966. People continue to choose the risk. People who sell bootleg to escape the tax violate the law, and those who sell to minors break the law, but neither go to jail for what the purchasers do with the legal product they sold. And notice who gets the money from the tobacco lawsuits? GOVERNMENT, yet they refuse to simply outlaw the product (if it's as dangerous as they say it is), because they get SO much revenue from it.
There is a case here if the gun store did not follow the law requiring background checks, etc., or if it can be proven the store followed the law but KNEW they were "straw buyers." Otherwise, it is still my opinion that Chicago has the gun crime they do BECAUSE of their strict anti-gun laws, and a lack of law enforcement. So long as they can blame "guns" instead of criminals, they don't have to take responsibility for curbing the rampant crime.
There is a case here if the gun store did not follow the law requiring background checks, etc., or if it can be proven the store followed the law but KNEW they were "straw buyers.
Gun stores know the products they sell are dangerous, so why shouldn't they be held responsible? If Chicago allows guns in their city, why shouldn't the city be held responsible for the damages caused? Why should the burden fall on the innocent?
==Hiram
Such a strange concept... Sue anyone who sells dangerous things?
"stores know the products they sell are dangerous"
Life is going to get real simple without electricity...
Sue anyone who sells dangerous things?
Cars are dangerous things. Isn't that we require those who own and drive them to have insurance?
--Hiram
See G2A Recommended policy #6
"Allow law suits against people who allow their guns to be stolen, especially if they have not reported the theft."
That would encourage folks to buy that insurance, and/or be more careful when giving/selling their gun to others.
I think anyone associated with a stolen gun should be responsible for how it is used, and that includes gun manufacturers. Why should burden of gun violence fall on the victims?
--Hiram
Did you forget the definition of victim...
"one that is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various conditions"
Yes they pay for the choices of our society and freedoms...
Blaming gun manufacturers for the choice of our citizens would be kind of foolish.
The problem is that the law, and the rule of law, only works in a society of moral people. That is, a population which agrees to be bound by the laws. If gun sellers disobey the reasonable gun laws and knowingly sell guns to criminals, the law should be enforced against them. It was not.
If gangs in Chicago choose to shoot each other, contrary to law, the laws should be enforced against them, and it is not. So, what we do is to pass a law saying gangs cannot have guns, or cannot buy them in Indiana and bring them into Chicago. Isn't that rather stupid? We have laws against murder (both God's and Man's). Do you think adding a misdemeanor gun law is a serious deterrent?
The problem is that the law, and the rule of law, only works in a society of moral people.
I largely agree with this. Otherwise, the law becomes a roadmap for dishonesty and corruption and other forms of quasi criminal behavior. In this case, we see the argument from gun sellers that they should not be held responsible for their actions because they followed the law. The law provided a road map allowing them to avoid legal responsibility for their actions in puttng a dangerous commodity in the stream of commerce.
--Hiram
Hiram, that is what is meant by saying the law is only meant for a moral people, and no other. People who have no moral strictures will break the law outright or find ways around it. People violate the severe laws against murder all the time, so how is a law saying you may not murder somebody with a gun going to be better?
that is what is meant by saying the law is only meant for a moral people, and no other.
The law is meant for everyone, but not everyone is in good faith. Gun manufacturers who make the weapons that kill us are able to say that they follow the law in those instances they do. These gaps between the criminal law and common decency can be filled by civil law. There are many theories in civil law that can be used to hold manufacturers of dangerous product for the damages they cause. Theories like negligence, and strict liability. Lots of people who make dangerous products are held liable? Why not gun manufactuers?
==Hiram
Because guns do exactly what they were intended to do, and in proper use are perfectly safe. Just like cars, planes, boats, bathtubs, screwdrivers and electric toasters. You want to use civil law (just like the topic here) to ban products you don't like, not because they are defective or fail through negligence on the part of the manufacturer or seller, but because you don't like them, and want to blame the object for its use by a criminal, in a criminal way. Criminal law should apply to criminals, not the tools they use. And criminals can and maybe should be in civil court, as well. A criminal conviction is a great basis for a civil suit. Like this case, only the opposite.
Because guns do exactly what they were intended to do, and in proper use are perfectly safe
They are intended to kill things. Pardon me if I am not reassured by that. Is the argument for holding cigarette manufacturers liable strengthened by the fact that killing people was just a side effect of their product. No matter what the subjective intent of the gun manufacturers might be, the people their products kill are just as dead.
There is a burden that must be placed here, and we have a choice on whom to place it. What is the argument for placing it on people who have done nothing wrong?
--Hiram
Precisely. Why put the burden on people who want to target shoot, or to protect themselves, or the people who sell or manufacture the guns to allow them to do so? They have done nothing wrong. Those who use guns for criminal purposes are criminals, not "people who have done nothing wrong." Put the burden on them, squarely where it belongs.
In fact, I would argue that someone who has a gun but has /not yet/ used it to commit a crime have, at that point "done nothing wrong," either, unless by law they are prohibited from the mere possession (like a convicted felon). Intent is not built into the gun, it comes from the person with it.
And I submit that guns are NOT intended to kill people, as the anti-gun people would have you believe. Guns do NOT kill people, people kill people, to fall back on cliche'. In fact, studies have shown that defensive "brandishing" of a weapon occurs many times more often than an actual shooting. The intent of the gun is NOT to kill, but to prevent being killed.
And I submit that guns are NOT intended to kill people
They do have an excellent secondary function as paperweights, I suppose. I saw a guy carrying a gun in a grocery store, recently. I am pretty sure he wasn't carrying it kill a deer that might have managed to find it's way to one of the aisles.
==Hiram
You are still pursuing a rank fallacy. Guns are NOT intended to kill people, they have no volition of their own, and the people who make them or sell them or buy then do not do so with the intent that they will kill people. The hope is that they never WILL kill somebody, even though there are certain uncommon situations in which that becomes the unfortunate CHOICE. It is those cases in which the intent IS in the mind of the person with the gun, aka the criminal. You speak as if when I acquire a gun I acquire the intent to kill-- that it is intrinsic to the object itself, and communicable. I can't entertain such a metaphysical argument.
And your guy in the store, did he actually kill anybody with it? So how is that a problem, that he has one? I don't complain when you put on one of your outlandish, unfashionable neckties, do I? Or seek to prohibit its sale?
And your guy in the store, did he actually kill anybody with it?
I think he used it to sort fruit.
You know, this isn't really an
Guns really are intended to kill.
--Hiram
Hiram,
Per Jerry's position, maybe we need to move guns to a different category... Maybe he is thinking of nerf guns?
"Weapon: something (such as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy"
"Weapon: a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage"
"Weapon: any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon."
I liked your idea that we move them into the paper weight category.
Hiram,
I often feel for people who apparently live in fear to the point that they choose to bring a gun to go shopping. I don't even like having to carry mu keys, phone and wallet.
Hiram,
I often feel for people who apparently live in fear to the point that they choose to bring a gun to go shopping. I don't even like having to carry my keys, phone and wallet.
Jerry,
I will never understand why you choose to defend stores that seemingly knowingly sell guns to straw purchasers who then sell them to inner city gang kids.
Often you say you are out to help the poor kids, in this case you seem to be supporting the people who are complicit in their deaths.
Same question I ask all folks like you. We know that all gun manufacturers and first sales are highly regulated. Where do you think criminals in the USA, Canada and Mexico get their weapons?
Source 2
You really should watch this video.
Source 3
"defend stores that seemingly knowingly sell guns to straw purchasers"
That's the crux of the issue. The ATF twice found no or insufficient evidence of "knowingly." Yet here you are simply assuming guilt, something I didn't think we did in this country. And you are complicit in a scheme to let Chicago use the civil courts to deflect attention away from their intolerably bad record on stopping crime in THEIR city, by blaming the out-of-state sellers of a legal, inanimate product.
You would think if they had proof of "knowingly," they would turn it over to the ATF and get the whole business shut down. Do they really have this evidence, and if not, why aren't they frivolously suing the many other gun stores in or near Chicago, in Illinois?
The problem with a "knowingly" standard is that it rewards people who develop strategies for not knowing stuff. Gun manufactuers know just like the rest of us that their products way too often that their products end up in the hands of criminals and murderous psychopaths. But their lawyers have also advised them that if they structure their business models in ways that avoid too specific knowledge of how their product ends up in the hands of evil people, they can avoid civil liability. So many people make money from this process, the manufacurers, the lawyers, the lobbyists, the politicians, the only ones hurt really are the innocent.
--Hiram
I keep trying to understand your belief that it is the gun that causes evil people to do evil things, and not the evil people. Do the makers of kitchen knives KNOW that some black teenager will attempt to murder her "friends" with one of them? How?
"products end up in the hands of..." Were they legally acquired? Or were they stolen, bought through straw purchasers (contrary to law), black market? The "problem" with a "knowingly standard" is that it can be used to protect the perfectly innocent gun maker or seller from government scapegoating.
I keep trying to understand your belief that it is the gun that causes evil people to do evil things
In this context, it's gun manufacturers who are producing the products that are used by evil people to kill people.
Is the manufacturer really less evil because he has searched out and found ways to shield himself from the consequences of his actions?
--Hiram
Hiram,
The vast majority of guns will never be used to harm any human, as with automobiles. I am not sure why you are obsessed with manufactures who follow our laws?
Jerry,
As you are aware, I want to stop all the "bad / irresponsible" folks who make the illegal gun trade function.
- irresponsible owners and stores that do not adequately protect their weapons from theft.
- irresponsible owners and stores that sell or transfer weapons to criminals, psychopaths, etc.
It is strange that you want to protect these folks who are enabling the murders of children.
Hopefully a few big law suits would make the cost of that business too large to justify being in it.
The last sentence belies the first. you do not want to stop the illegal gun trade, you want to cut off all gun sales by anybody.
And I remain forever perplexed at how you want to blame a gun store owner when their store is robbed, despite reasonable precautions? "a few big lawsuits" should have no standing in civil court so long as the ATF repeatedly sees fit not to pursue criminal or administrative penalties. I remain curious as to why this particular gun store is targeted by this specious lawsuit when it is not the largest source of guns used in Chicago crimes, and is almost a minor player in the total? Does Chicago even have standing to sue in Indiana?
"that business" referenced the " the "bad / irresponsible" folks who make the illegal gun trade function".
The folks you seem to support.
.And I remain forever perplexed at how you want to blame a gun store owner when their store is robbed, despite reasonable precautions?
The precautions weren't enough. The job of the gun store owner is to make their stores safe, not reasonably safe.
--Hiram
So explain to me how "unreasonably safe" is reasonable? Or what "unreasonably safe" even looks like? How does one prevent ALL crime from happening? Can the store owner be murdered? We have laws against that, you know, and most of us take every reasonable precaution against it. Yet it happens, day in day out. Seven shot in St. Paul yesterday, out of 140+ shots fired. Lots of laws violated, but the events took place anyway. And St. Paul 90 cops short of what's needed.
Jerry,
We have no desire to stop all crime from happening.
We have desire to starve criminals of easily accessible cheap guns.
Where as you seem to want to keep those guns easily accessible and cheap.
Wouldn't it be nice the criminals had to use knives like in Europe?
"We have no desire to stop all crime from happening."
You don't??? What manner of fools are you? But you can wish the impossible, and do.
You want to keep criminals from getting guns, but why? If criminals aren't going to commit crimes with those guns, what do you care how many they acquire or hold? They're just innocent gun collectors.
I'm sorry, but you live in a fantasy world where criminals don't exist, and you are trying to stop criminals by putting restrictions on law-abiding citizens. Prove that gun shop knowingly violated the existing law, and punish them accordingly. If you cannot, you're a worse criminal than you claim they are, trying to sue them out of business.
What the rest of the 1st world country's know, and Jerry is to stubborn to accept
Therefore innocent children and bystanders continue to die...
We are not every other country, or any other country. We had guns long before we had 150 rounds fired and 7 people shot in St. Paul, in just one night. We used to have a society where such things were unthinkable and certainly not tolerated. So now, rather than blame our own massive moral failings and failed law enforcement, as a whole society, we want to blame some inanimate tool. How comforting. And useless.
You will say it is trite but it is supremely true. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Read a book "More Guns, less crime."
Instead you wish to continue supplying guns to the criminals to avoid a background check... It is so unfortunate for the dead kids.
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
Does that maxim hold true in the countries where there are extremely few guns? Maybe. But then, they also have numbers of gun deaths approaching zero. Strange how that works.
Moose
Moose,
You mean that if fewer people have easy access to guns.
Fewer people will be shot with guns?
What an incredibly complicated concept??? :-)
"Instead you wish to continue supplying guns to the criminals to avoid a background check." Another damnable lie. I suppose that is easier than any sort of rational discernment. I'll say it again: PROVE that this one gun store uniquely (out of a hundred or so) KNOWINGLY sold guns to criminals, in violation of the law. Otherwise, you are just rolling out old, discredited, liberal talking points.
If fewer CRIMINALS have access to guns, many fewer people will be shot by guns, is that what you meant to say? If so, in what fantasy world can you make 300 million guns disappear, starting with those in the possession of criminals who actually NEED them for their criminal occupation?
We don't need to make them disappear...
We need them all registered and if they are used in a crime...
The registered owner is held accountable along with the criminal...
That would likely encourage owners to ensure they were secured properly, not transferred to disreputable people without the proper paperwork or turned in to be destroyed.
However you prefer to let the undocumented transfer of guns continue. Poor kids...
"undocumented"? Why must I be the face of your boogeyman? In fact, all of these guns were sold to people whom we must assume passed a background check, as required by law, otherwise the ATF would be putting them out of business.
And this idea of gun registration is the classic totalitarian ruse. Once you are registered, gun confiscation can begin. Besides, you are once again using a hammer to swat a mosquito. A few facts
"Most gun-related crimes are carried out with illegally owned firearms—as much as 80 percent according to some estimates." "90% among convicted gun criminals."
"Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed."
"Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime."
Of course, there is support for your ideas in general:
"For instance, 10 states plus the District of Columbia have laws in place requiring gun owners to report the theft or loss of firearms to law enforcement, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a group that advocates for stronger firearm regulations. But in the majority of states, no such law is in place.
Additionally, past research has demonstrated that a small fraction of gun dealers are responsible for the majority of guns used in crimes in the United States. A 2000 report from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms found that in 1998, more than 85 percent of gun dealers had no guns used in crimes trace back to them. By contrast, 1 percent of dealers accounted for nearly 6 in 10 crime gun traces that year."
So a law requiring a report of "theft" would be a good idea. Especially if you cannot stop "straw purchasers" with the federal law against it. Color it ineffective.
And if this shop is one of those 1% (totally unproven), then the ATF should have penalized them in some fashion. But it's a criminal matter, not civil.
Jerry,
I understand that that you are ok with the status quo.
"Guns sold, Guns Transferred / Stolen, Guns Used to Kill...
Repeat over and over and over.
Unfortunately our country's children and innocent by standers are not.
Again, absolutely no discernment. To you, every gun is intended and used to murder some "innocent," sooner or later. Yet, even in this particular gun store, only 850 guns sold ended up used in /some sort/ of crime. Out of how many they sold, over the years? Can you discern that difference?
You are willing to accept a gross miscarriage of justice, target a single potentially innocent business for destruction, all in service to this preposterous myth that every gun is a killer, needing no human agent. But of course seeing the myth would be discernment, again.
Why don't you go look up the total number of guns in the US, the number of gun murders per year, the number of murders of "innocent children" within that, and then justify your totally disproportionate characterization of the "problem."
How many dead children and by standers would you require to justify mandatory gun registration, background checks and legal liability?
1, 10, 100, 1000, More?
There is no number high enough, John. Living with the possibility of getting gunned down when you go out of your house is simply the price of "freedom".
Moose
OK, how many dead children and "innocent" bystanders do you want to be killed BECAUSE of "gun registration, background checks" and other "feel-good" anti-gun laws? Because defensive uses of guns FAR outweighs their use by criminals. Why do you want to disarm law-abiding citizens and leave them easy prey to criminals?
Have you noticed that not a single convenience store or liquor store has suffered an armed robbery since those "no guns allowed on these premises" signs went up?
Moose,
It is amazing how hard Jerry works to deny his promotion of gun trafficking and the death of innocents.
Jerry,
Let me repeat...
How many dead children and by standers would you require to justify mandatory gun registration, background checks and legal liability?
1, 10, 100, 1000, More?
No where is gun removal proposed.
"Why do you want to disarm law-abiding citizens and leave them easy prey to criminals?"
This is uniquely American and one of the reasons we are not the great country we say we are. Countries that have few guns don't even have to consider this.
Moose
Moose,
I was going to ask Jerry for a source regarding this...
"Because defensive uses of guns FAR outweighs their use by criminals."
But I knew it was pointless. :-)
I mean if someone were to point a gun at me and demand my wallet. I would happily give it to them and cancel my cards. You want my car, knock yourself out...
I often wonder who these scared people are who think they need a gun to feel safe?
"But I knew it was pointless. :-)" You KNOW it is pointless, yet you have made ZERO effort to find the many obvious sources of that information. You simply deny they exist. I guess that is a good way to never have your prejudices challenged.
Suppose someone points a gun at you, demands your wallet, you give it to him, and then he shoots you just for fun? Are you OK with that, too? If I happen by, armed, and interfere with that psycho's "fun," are you going to condemn ME for saving your life, because I used a gun to do it?
I am dismayed by the obvious sacrifice of common sense to ideology.
Imagine a scenario where that psycho never had access to a gun.
That's what happens in the civilized world.
Moose
That is what happens in the IDEALIZED world, the one in which psychos do not exist. And in which only liberals live, in their minds. "A liberal is just a conservative that hasn't been mugged yet."
So you are willing to sacrifice children and innocent by standers to death...
So that you can maybe someday play Dirty Harry?
Assuming you are in the right place, at the right time, have your gun with you and are willing to pull the trigger.
And again... No where do I say you can not do this... I just say your gun must be registered.
Of course you do not say. Neither can you say that gun registration (leading to confiscation and don't say it can't happen) or this silly lawsuit will prevent anybody-- innocent or otherwise-- from being shot by a criminal with a gun, illegally or otherwise obtained.
And that's a scurrilous and unserious question. I am not willing to "sacrifice" anybody. It's like asking you if you can prevent every single murder in the US by suing this one gun store out of business. Murders happen, and gun laws do not matter. Just ask one of the 800 murder victims in strict-gun-laws Chicago this year. Oh, that's right, you can't.
"That is what happens in the IDEALIZED world, the one in which psychos do not exist."
Is your reading comprehension that bad, or did you intentionally create your strawman? Nowhere did I suggest that psychos don't exist in the civilized world. I said that access to guns doesn't exist in the civilized world.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country
It won't let me post a hyperlink. Purple countries are the civilized ones.
Moose
So, if a drive-by shooting targets a rival gang member, and accidentally hits an innocent bystander, is that the mark of a civilized country? Would removing all legal guns from the population change that? How about just disarming the police? I think you are confusing "civilization" with "utopia."
your link
Jerry,
It unfortunate that you live with so much fear... :-(
The fear that someone is going to rob and kill you.
The fear that registered guns may be seized by our elected government.
But it is even more unfortunate that innocent children and bystanders must pay for your fears.
Oh well.
Moose's Link
How casually you dismiss the fact that 90+% of guns are illegally obtained, and most of those go on to be used in crimes, while those you target-- those who legally acquire and use them-- are essentially 0% of the problem. The fear is that some ninny nanny-state doofus will disarm the innocent and allow the criminals to rob and kill at will. Many studies show that occupied burglaries decline markedly when homeowners might have a gun. What you want to do is assure the criminals that there are no guns to deter their evil ways.
How unfortunate that millions could be victimized because people like you believe the utter nonsense about guns and crime. Again, strict gun laws in Chicago make it the (nearly?) murder capital of the US.
"So, if a drive-by shooting..."
Drive-by shootings rarely if ever happen in the civilized countries. There are few guns to be had by criminals.
Moose
Jerry,
All I hear is fear, fear, fear...
Like voters will allow their government to take their legally registered guns...
In civilized countries you don't have drive-by shootings because you don't have drive-by shooters, who need a gun to carry out their evil activity. The Russians would call us "Nye Kulturny"-- uncivilized-- and to some extent they are correct. What is the total membership of MS-13 in, say, France?
Only a fool does not fear those who are deranged or depraved, OR well-intentioned government. "Voters" might not allow gun confiscation, but that doesn't seem to stop the politicians from trying. And if a dozen well-armed SWAT officers show up and demand your guns, are you going to fight?
Maybe drive by shooters in civilized countries use arrows?
I think you missed the numbers that explained the civilized countries have criminals, gangs, smugglers, etc. They just do not have as many guns, and their not as much gun violence.
Yes, I missed the numbers. By definition, though, civilized countries do not have criminals, or at least have very effective law enforcement that prevents the vast majority of crimes. And I missed the comparison between the number of guns legally held in those countries, with the number of guns used in crimes, then compared to the US. You keep insisting guns are the problem and I contend the number of guns which kill people is astonishingly small.
And you have yet to fully explain the magic by which suing this one little Indiana gun store out of existence ends the massive criminal carnage in Chicago. Didn't Chicago file that information with the court, as justification for its suit?
Then you should read the sources I provide.
The dream is to stop the flow of guns into the illegal market from the legal market. Just as we would hold drug dealers accountable, we will prosecute and sue gun suppliers. It would be nice if Chicago's criminals only had easy access to knives.
"...civilized countries do not have criminals..."
Such a place does not exist. Therefore, humanity is not civilized.
Sounds about right.
Moose
Why should I read the sources you provide? Either you have missed the relevant sources to refute your claims, misinterpreted the sources you do see, or otherwise failed to gather all the relevant information. And when I try to point it out, you basically insult me for knowing what I know.
You won't even answer fundamental questions, or simply ignore them. Like this one: "And you have yet to fully explain the magic by which suing this one little Indiana gun store out of existence ends the massive criminal carnage in Chicago. Didn't Chicago file that information with the court, as justification for its suit?"
More data
Just a minute. We have a criminal charged with making "straw purchases," that is, knowingly buying a gun LEGALLY except it is for someone who cannot, essentially committing fraud on the gun dealer. So now the gun dealer, the VICTIM in this crime, is being sued for being victimized? And the dozens of other gun shops in the area are not?
Knowingly selling 10 guns at a time to suspect customers apparently was too egregious to ignore.
I can't wait to see what the jurors think?
"suspect customers"? That is the fundamental question. On what basis did the gun dealer KNOW this guy was "suspect"? Did he SAY he was buying for somebody else?
I don't think the jury should ever hear the case. There is no cause for action here unless criminality can be proven. Since the ATF has twice cleared the dealer of charges, I don't see where they have a leg to stand on. Not to mention that Indiana is not in Chicago's jurisdiction. Why not sue a /Chicago/ gun store?
Same guy buying in lots of 10. Yep suspicious...
Maybe selling over the border helps their case...
From my original link.
"The lawsuit alleges that a review of federal prosecutions from December 2014 to April 2021 for illegal gun purchases in the Northern District of Indiana revealed approximately 44% of the cases involved sales at Westforth Sports. The documents, according to the lawsuit, show Westforth Sports is known to have sold at least 180 guns to at least 40 people later charged with federal crimes in connection with the purchases.
One man, 24-year-old Darryl Ivery Jr., purchased 19 handguns from Westforth Sports over the course of seven months in 2020, according to the lawsuit. Ivery purchased ten guns in multiple sale transactions, and nine others at intervals designed to avoid federal reporting requirements. All but one was sold to buyers in Chicago, according to the lawsuit.
One gun sold to another buyer was recovered by Chicago police just a month after the purchase at Westforth, according to the lawsuit. In a separate incident, law enforcement recovered two guns just a day after Westforth sold them, according to the lawsuit. More than 40% of the Westforth crime guns recovered in Chicago between 2009 and 2016 had a time-to-crime of less than three years, according to the lawsuit.
"These eye-popping numbers are not the result of bad luck or coincidence or location," the complaint says. "They are the natural and predictable outcome of a business model that ignores the federal laws and regulations that are intended to keep the public safe.""
So tell me again. This store allegedly "ignores federal laws and regulations" on a substantial scale, and yet federal law and administrative enforcement consistently finds no grounds for prosecution. So how does that make Chicago eligible to enforce federal law on an interstate "crime"?
Oh come now, do not play naïve.
Apparently the ATF is over worked and has little power to punish gun shops.
And the law suit is in civil court, meaning very different rules and punishments.
Likely a jury of the gun shop owner's peers will get to determine if the shop knowingly supported the trafficking of weapons. As it should be...
Oh come, now. Don't pretend you are interested in any real justice here. You have already made up your mind that this gun shop should be put out of business for the simple (but flawed) reasons that a) they sell guns, and b)criminals use guns. Your own citation says that ATF mounted numerous actions against CRIMINALS, but saw no crime at the gun shop. Now YOU want to be judge, jury and executioner to help Chicago deflect attention from its abysmal law enforcement record.
Likely a jury of the gun shop owner's peers will get to determine if the shop knowingly supported the trafficking of weapons. As it should be...
gun shop owners' peers? I doubt that such estimable citizens would ever sit on a civil jury. And to me it is a travesty of justice that such a spurious case would ever see the inside of a court of law. So why are you pushing it as ultimate justice?
For better or worse, citizens / businesses can be held accountable for their bad choices and actions through our tort system.
The better question is why do you fear having jurors hear the facts and make the call?
I'll never understand folks who prefer to enable untracked gun transfers?
Post a Comment