Re: *sigh*



Klaus Hellnick wrote:
> Ken Shaw wrote:
>
>>Klaus Hellnick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ken Shaw wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Klaus Hellnick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ken Shaw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Klaus Hellnick wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ken Shaw wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Klaus Hellnick wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Senate Approves Bill Protecting Gun Businesses
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>By CARL HULSE
>>>>>>>>>>Published: July 30, 2005
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>WASHINGTON, July 29 - The Senate agreed to shield gun manufacturers and
>>>>>>>>>>dealers from liability lawsuits on Friday, as Congress broke for a
>>>>>>>>>>monthlong recess after sending President Bush energy and transportation
>>>>>>>>>>bills that had been years in the making.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Hopefully the house will pass it too. Too bad the damned lawyers making
>>>>>>>>>the frivolous suits can't be counter sued.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Too bad the gun manufacturers that intentionally evade gun laws aren't
>>>>>>>>put out of business when those weapons are used to kill someone.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ken
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Any example of any US gunmaker breaking guns laws and getting them to
>>>>>>>criminals? Anyway, gun manufacturers who are guilty of such crimes are
>>>>>>>still subject to lawsuits and criminal charges. The proposed
>>>>>>>legislation simply tries to put an end to totally baseless nuisance suits.
>>>>>>>Klaus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ever heard of the Iron Pipeline?
>>>>>>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/story/296021p-253438c.html
>>>>>>http://www.gregpalast.com/printerfriendly.cfm?artid=448
>>>>>>
>>>>>>At some point the gun makers have to be held responsible for
>>>>>>facilitating gun running.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ken
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Gee, if you look at the article you linked to, NONE of the gun
>>>>>manufacturers were involved. Is this some kind of creationist logic?
>>>>>Klaus
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>They're not involved? Who exactly is selling all those guns to the
>>>>dealers that are being shipped up I-95? Consider the absurdity of it. A
>>>>gun store in suburban Atlanta sells several guns per customer visit but
>>>>the manufacturers never question the situation or turn over that
>>>>information to the ATF. Are you telling me that no one at the gun
>>>>manufacturer has a suspicion what those gun dealers are doing with their
>>>>products? At some point this becomes being an accessory to gun smuggling.
>>>>
>>>>Ken
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Look, you are totally clueless! Like I said elsewhere, quit getting your
>>>information fron The Runaway Jury!
>>>Manufacturers do not track who the liscensed gun dealer sells it too.
>>>Their responsibility is to make sure the firearms comply with applicable
>>>federal laws, and are shipped to federally liscenced dealers, using
>>>approved shipping. They are not required to track the final customer,
>>>nor should they. As for the I-95 situation , TRY READING YOUR OWN
>>>SOURCE! It states how the guns are acquired (hint, it is a conspiracy
>>>that does not involve the manufacturers, and probably not most of the
>>>storekeepers).
>>>Klaus
>>>
>>
>>
>>The fact is that some stores are selling far more guns than their
>>location justifies. The dealers and the manufacturers are trying to say
>>they don't know what is going on but in many cases that is ridiculous.
>>If a few people are coming in on a regular basis and buying handguns,
>>one at a time or many at a time, it is reasonable to assume that they
>>aren't buying them for themselves. At the very least it calls for a call
>>to the ATF. The same applies to a gun manufacturer selling to a store.
>>If the store is selling dozens of handguns a month and just happens to
>>be in a small town convenient to I-95 the gun manufacturer has a
>>responsibility to contact the authorities to keep their products out of
>>the black market else they are accessories after the fact.
>>
>>BTW since I have never insulted you are made accusations against your
>>credibility I would appreciate you not making spurious claims against me.
>>
>>Ken
>>
>
>
> True, I should not have said "totally" clueless; I have only seen you
> demonstrate cluelessness on this subject. You keep equating
> manufacturers who obey laws to dealers who may or may not be negligent
> to people who illegally purchase firearms for people who use guns to
> commit crimes. As for the I-95 stuff, you still do not seem to
> understand the point that manufacturers do not keep records of firearm
> customers, other than the liscensed dealers they sell to, and people who
> mail in warranty forms.Once again, I ask you to read the article you
> linked to in an attempt to justify your position; no firearm
> MANUFACTURERS or even dealers are alleged to be involved.
> Klaus
>

In those cases both the dealers and manufacturers are being negligent.
The only defense you have for them is that they don't track buyers. Well
that is ridiculous. Manufacturers certainly track volume of sales to
individual stores. Dealers certainly can identify frequent customers
simply by the paperwork they are required to generate. This means that
the responsible store owner or gun manufacturer must report a suspicious
buying pattern to the authorities. It is actually required of them by
their licenses.

What you are arguing is that since these violations are not being
pursued by state or federal law enforcement then these companies and
individuals should be protected from civil liability. I direct your
attention to the tobacco industry which was in a similar situation. They
were engaged in at the very least negligent activities but the law
enforcement authorities were not pursuing them. It took civil action and
the threat of massive losses to goad them into agreeing to reform. Where
would we be if the tobacco industry had received this sort of
protection? Would Joe Camel still be being used to market to kids? Would
magazines aimed at a teen age audience still carry tobacco ads?

Ken

.

Loading