Without getting into the trial-lawyers thing, I'd say the issue is in how the
gun makers promote, distribute, and sell their wares, rather than any other
single issue. The point is that, for one example, the gun makers send enough
guns into the metro Chicago area, where gun ownership is restricted, to equip
every adult in the entire metro area with at least one handgun, yet they never
seem to run out. It's wonderful for their sales, but the Chicago authorities
have gone on record as opposing the practice. Some effort to behave
reasonably, as opposed to making lots of assumptions based on gross violations
of local laws, would probably be appreciated by the Chicago area authorities.
I don't know that trying to make this a supply-side thing is any smarter than
the same effort with respect to drugs. If having a gun on your person when
apprehended in the commission of a crime were, in itself, more likely to get
you a life-standing-on-your-head-in-a-16"-deep-pool-of-goat-feces-sentence
than the crime itself, perhaps people would behave differently. I don't see
why the GOV thinks that they should make the gun makers enforce the law. It's
worth a try, though.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Maslin" <donm(a)cts.com>
To: "Classic Computers" <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: The Future End of Classic Computing
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Chris wrote:
To go back
to the hammer for a moment, if I go out and buy a hammer and
bash somebody's head in with it, then I am guilty of murder. The company
that made the hammer, and the shop that sold it to me, are not. And
that's how it should be.
Scary thing is... here in the US, it doesn't seem to work that logically.
People have been sueing gun manufacturers off and on because they made
the gun that was used to kill someone.
I don't know if anyone has WON a suit, but I do know the suits have been
filed (and win or loose, you are costing the gun maker needless legal
Sueing people has become so much the norm here... that the government has
had to step in and offer insurance backing for the companies cleaning up
the world trade center... because the companies know ALREADY that there
will be lawsuits when they are done, and without insurance, they know
they will be sued into bankruptcy. AND, since it is such a known fact
that they will be sued... no insurance company was willing to insure
them, which meant they weren't willing to do the work... so the
government had to step in and offer backing.
Remember, this is the country that awarded 3 million dollars to a lady
because she put her hot coffee in her lap, and then spilled it... and was
able to sue McDonalds because the coffee was too hot and it burned her
(yes, there is more to that story, but the fact that she was even able to
get to trial is just f-ed up... where is the personal responsibility in
The trial lawyers, in cahoots with their cohorts in the Congress, have
pretty well eliminated it with the `deep pocket' approach in lawsuits,
and class action suits that are `opt out' rather than `opt in' as they
ought to be. It is all part of a very successful program - to make
lawyers rich(er) - at the expense of everyone else.