Gunmaker held responsible for murder?!?

[Cyberian]

The jury didn't find any liability for Nathanial Brazill, who pulled the trigger.

He probably doesn't have any money, no sense finding him liable.

 

[ScrapSilicon]

Originally posted by: Cyberian

The jury didn't find any liability for Nathanial Brazill, who pulled the trigger.

He probably doesn't have any money, no sense finding him liable.

almost had it..cents

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

There's actually legilation being looked at right now to make gun makers immune from from lawsuits such as this. It would make them (AFAIK) the only protected group in such a situation. Sounds like a good idea, don't see why they should be responsible. But at the same time it may be a little extreme making them immune. Wouldn't be needed if 98% of people weren't complete idiots.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
The sheer stupidity of that jury should earn them all a bullet.

Viper GTS

yes

 

[Moonbeam]

Bruno, saying that 98% of the people are idiots leaves me with only a 2% doubt that you are one.

 

[TNTrulez]

no

 

[tcsenter]

The same stupid people that voted for this voted for Bush.

I think the facts suggest otherwise, which is why the small handful of these judgements against gun manufacturers or distributors, as opposed to thousands of others where gun manufacturers have prevailed, have almost exclusively, if not exclusively, been held in jurisdictions, by no matter of coincidence, where a very particular demographic is found, such as New York City, San Francisco, and now a select demographic in Florida. So no I don't believe its fair or even remotely accurate to say that the same people (jurors) who voted against the gun manufacturers and distributors are the same ones who voted for Bush. They are kind of mutually exclusive, in a generalized sense.

10% reason and 90% emotion. Get used to it; it's how life is. There is wisdon in the voice of the people. Your distaste for this is nothing but an emotional reaction to your so called logical thinking.

There is wisdom in the voice of the people? There can be, some times, depending upon the issue. The mob rules mentality is inconsistent and incompatible with the basis of our republic.

There is this thing we have called "law", and when the deliberation process is allowed to embrace emotion and hyperbole and prejudice and sympathy, to the exclusion of law and reason, then the entire country is worse for it. The base appeal to emotion is the type of thing which lets killers go free and sends innocent men to prison.

I've never actually heard someone defend an emotionally based deliberation process. Interesting.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bruno, saying that 98% of the people are idiots leaves me with only a 2% doubt that you are one.

Don't take things so literally

 

[Moonbeam]

My point, tcsenter, is that what we think is always what is considered logical and untainted by emotion and what the other person thinks is emotional irrationalism.

We know that we have a form of government that tries to walk a knife edge. It is a democratic republic. It acknowledges the voice of the majority and tries to place barriers to instant action based on the majority. It defends the rights of the majority, by constitutionally granted rights that cannot be selectively or easily removed.

You think that suits against gun manufacturers are emotionally based. Somebody kills my kid with a gun, I try to sue the manufacturer, I'm emotional, guns are constitutional. Somebody brings down a building, we decide to attack Iraq preemptively, I say we're reacting emotional, it's against international law.

When enough people have had their children killed by guns people will decide to get rid of them. They will change the law if that's what it takes. They will see that as wisdom because it will feel like wisdom. Enough terrorists attacks and the US will react in God knows what way. International law will be swept away. Might will be right because it feels that way.

The argument that someone is reacting emotionally is not too informative because everything is emotional at some level.

Even the passion for impartiality is based on an inner feeling of recognition of what unbridled emotion can lead to.

Good judgment requires feeling. So does the Golden Rule.

In other words it's hard to establish absolutes that you can trust as the foundation of an argument. Emotionalism is bad. Yes, but what is emotionalism and how do you distinguish it from feeling or passion which are good. And so on. My problem is always with the unexamined assumptions that lie at the heart of many many people's thinking. Pry back the lid and they don't hold water.

 

[SuperTool]

What would have happenned if the kid killed the teacher with a knife? Would the parent then sue the knifesmith for making a knife that didn't have features to stop kids from using it?
How is a gun supposed to know if the person using it is a kid or an adult?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
My point, tcsenter, is that what we think is always what is considered logical and untainted by emotion and what the other person thinks is emotional irrationalism.

We know that we have a form of government that tries to walk a knife edge. It is a democratic republic. It acknowledges the voice of the majority and tries to place barriers to instant action based on the majority. It defends the rights of the majority, by constitutionally granted rights that cannot be selectively or easily removed.

You think that suits against gun manufacturers are emotionally based. Somebody kills my kid with a gun, I try to sue the manufacturer, I'm emotional, guns are constitutional. Somebody brings down a building, we decide to attack Iraq preemptively, I say we're reacting emotional, it's against international law.

When enough people have had their children killed by guns people will decide to get rid of them. They will change the law if that's what it takes. They will see that as wisdom because it will feel like wisdom. Enough terrorists attacks and the US will react in God knows what way. International law will be swept away. Might will be right because it feels that way.

The argument that someone is reacting emotionally is not too informative because everything is emotional at some level.

Even the passion for impartiality is based on an inner feeling of recognition of what unbridled emotion can lead to.

Good judgment requires feeling. So does the Golden Rule.

In other words it's hard to establish absolutes that you can trust as the foundation of an argument. Emotionalism is bad. Yes, but what is emotionalism and how do you distinguish it from feeling or passion which are good. And so on. My problem is always with the unexamined assumptions that lie at the heart of many many people's thinking. Pry back the lid and they don't hold water.

That sounds logical.....Or is it emotional? Now I'm really confused.

 

[sniperbob]

Originally posted by: misle
I see this getting reversed in an appeal.

yea...but how in the world can a lawyer lose the case in the first place? That gun company must have really drop the ball when they hire their trial lawyers.