Make Your Next Spree a Stabbing Spree, not a Shooting One, Please.

Phaedrus · Nov 21, 2003

I wonder ... if I were to brutally murder someone with a Ginsu(tm) knife, really work that legendary strong and sharp blade to my maniacal advantage (I'm thinking tendon severing, then toy with the victim a while, etc.) then patch him up with Band-Aid(tm) brand adhesive bandages, give him some painkillers, then get back to work on him, keep it up for as long as possible and record the entire thing on my Sony digital video camera ... could Ginsu, Johnson & Johnson, and Sony all be sued for their *complicity* in the murder?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Appeals court reinstates wrongful death suit against gun industry

By David Kravets
The Associated Press
11/20/03 3:52 PM

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal appeals court Thursday reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit against the gun industry in a decision
expected to re-ignite debate over legislation immunizing gun makers from being sued for crimes committed with their products.

Thirty-three states already have laws exempting gun manufacturers and distributors from such suits. The House in April passed a bill to
extend the prohibition on such suits nationwide and President Bush has said he would sign it. Senate Democrats have threatened to
filibuster the proposal.

The 2-1 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstates a lawsuit filed against gun manufacturers and
distributors whose weapons were used by a white supremacist who shot a Filipino-American ****** worker to death and wounded five people at
a Jewish day care center in a 1999 Los Angeles-area rampage.

A Los Angeles federal judge in 2001 had thrown out the case, filed by families of the victims against Georgia-based Glock Inc., China North
Industries Corp., RSR Management Corp. and RSR Wholesale Guns Seattle Inc. The case was filed under California negligence and wrongful
death statutes.

Messages left with attorneys for the companies were not immediately returned Thursday.

Survivors claimed that several weapons companies produced, distributed and sold more firearms than legal purchasers could buy. In addition, they claimed the industry knowingly participated and facilitated an underground illegal gun market.

"I believe this is the first federal court of appeals decision to sustain a claim like this one," said Peter Nordberg, an attorney for
the plaintiffs.

Since 1998, at least 33 municipalities, counties and states have sued gun makers, many claiming that manufacturers, through irresponsible
marketing, allowed weapons to reach criminals. None of the suits has resulted in a manufacturer or distributor paying any damages.

Private groups, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, also have sued, saying guns "led to
disproportionate numbers of injuries, deaths and other damages" among minorities. That case was thrown out of federal court in July.

The gunman in the 1999 shootings, Buford Furrow, is serving life in prison without parole.

The Senate probably will consider the immunity bill early next year, said Will Hunt, spokesman for Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, a leading
proponent of the legislation. Craig believes he has the votes to force the bill through the Senate despite filibuster threats, Hunt
said.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Phaedrus

Skyweasel · Nov 21, 2003

if they start marketing the Ginsu as a people-slayer, then you'd be where these guys are.

really, I think it's just people fed up with guns-a-plenty and all the killing that we face in highly urbanized environments. I've lived in such an area, although I have to say that 99% of the murders were gang-on-gang. I heard a lot of gunshots but was never fired at myself.

Oceans11 · Nov 21, 2003

A gun is for killing.
It has no other purpose, except to kill.
That is what it is made for, that is its existence.
If I killed someone with a sharpened banana I doubt that a Del Monte lawsuit would be successful.

You can knock nails into wood with a gun, or a hammer, but only one of them was made as a convenient effective and efficient tool for snuffing out life in a fraction of a moment with the absolute minimum of effort.

I do understand your absolute right to bear arms which stems from those early days that involved the birthing of the USA.
I also understand that civilisation has moved forwards a teeny bit over the last 200+ years, and so should all of us.

Lots more risk in Europe, look at the shit us EuroMuppets have dealt with in the last 100 years.

But no big gun culture here...not like what you guys have.
No huge desire to be a glock owner etc etc.
So its definitely a cultural thing.
If I have a gun, its because its wartime, and I am going to kill people and sort out other peoples shit.
I dont want a gun, because it means we're at war, again.

Footnote:
I did come across one place that was gun mad as I made my way around europe.
Yugoslavia had a very macho (serious dudes) culture and lotsa guns.
But apart from when the communists had more and bigger guns than anyone else, the area has always been in a state of flux.

[This message was edited by eek on November 21, 2003 at 04:07 PM.]

Phaedrus · Nov 21, 2003

Both of you guys make a very good point as far as the general purpose of a gun vs. other common implements of murder. I would counter that while guns are designed to cause maximum damage for effort, in a great majority of non-military (but including police) situations where a gun is drawn, it is not actually used for the simple fact that the gun is an excellent deterrent (I have been in such an unfortunate situation before, and my Sig performed admirably despite the fact that the trigger was never pulled.)

Additionally, a gun can make one hell of a wound, and in many cases going for the good wound is by far preferable to actually killing someone.

What I mean by this is, while (some) guns are indeed designed for use on humans as a weapon, it takes a gun in the hands of a person who was probably going to kill you anyway for a gun to kill you (barring accidents of course.) This person could also use a knife, or a nail gun (makes a very nasty weapon) or some other means which would inflict a far slower, more painful death ... and ironically could slide under the minimum sentencing rules applied in many states in the U.S. for gun-related crime.

I seriously doubt that at Smith & Wesson board meetings the directors all eagerly anticipate hearing that deaths by S&W weapons are up x% over the last fiscal quarter compared to previous year's fatality rates. Holding manufacturers liable for misuse of their product by persons who had an obvious tendency towards violence in the first place is a difficult leap for me to make.

Phaedrus

Oceans11 · Nov 21, 2003

--------------------------------------
I would counter that while guns are designed to cause maximum damage for effort, in a great majority of non-military (but including police) situations where a gun is drawn, it is not actually used for the simple fact that the gun is an excellent deterrent (I have been in such an unfortunate situation before, and my Sig performed admirably despite the fact that the trigger was never pulled.)
--------------------------------------

You are relying entirely on the judgement made by the individual, during the moment of decision in a situation as they wave their particular hand held cannon at a target, loaded with its particular grade of ammo.

I am glad to say that my culture has moved beyond this system, and envies you not a jot.

I think this system could be called the 'wild west' system.

When my people have guns, we are at war.

When we are not at war, we get on with the day to day business of life, and with the the exception of a small minority of gun worshippers, we've done ok so far.

The gun thing in my opinion, is power and control.
Even weak pathetic people can be powerful, if they have a gun that they can point at a given situation.
Guns are for war, not human insecurities.

[This message was edited by eek on November 21, 2003 at 05:32 PM.]

Phaedrus · Nov 21, 2003

posted by eek:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
You are relying entirely on the judgement made by the individual, during the moment of decision in a situation as they wave their particular hand held cannon at a target, loaded with its particular grade of ammo.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am making an observation of tendencies in the majority of cases where an assailant of any given type suddenly realises he is facing a would-be victim with a weapon -- in this particular case, guns, although I imagine that the same would be true for other effective tools f self-defence, such as a baseball bat or an Abrams tank or whatever. While it's true that this depends on the self-control of the victim as much as it does the common sense of the attacker, I'm certain that empirical evidence would back up this assertion.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I am glad to say that my culture has moved beyond this system, and envies you not a jot.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

U.K. culture features some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, and about the highest violent crime rate. Australia and Canada, both of which also have near-Nazi levels of gun control, also suffer from exceedingly high crime rates.

(see here, here, here, and here for more information, although I imagine you are already acquainted with it.)

British culture might have "moved beyond" guns, but British criminals most assuredly have not -- although I imagine they find the social progess of their law-abiding countrymen delightful.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I think this system could be called the 'wild west' system.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all. The connotations associated with the "Wild Wild West" as far as guns go tend to further a completely mythological view of guns in America, as is advanced by such fools as Michael Moore in bereft-of-truth Bowling for Columbine. Americans are not on the whole "obsessed" with guns, we do not have a "gun culture," we are not all packing heat and itching for an excuse to use it. I have a gun in my home for the purpose of defence of my home in the event that such a threat becomes neccessary. I carry a handgun on my person in certain circumstances usually related to my work, which often has me driving around alone with substantially valuable assets such as gemstones, finished jewelry, numismatic coins, etc. Once in a while I practice shooting the weapons. Aside from that, were it not for endless debates on Internet fora over the issue of guns, gun laws, and gun crimes, I'd never even think about them at all. Most people who I know do not have a gun, and most people who I know who do have a gun fit more into the category in which I am in than into the "buckeroo" category -- and I live a good part of my life in the quintessential heart of American gun ubiquity, the rural south.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
When my people have guns, we are at war.

When we are not at war, we get on with the day to day business of life, and with the the exception of a small minority of gun worshippers, we've done ok so far.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And all of those criminals, gun-owning and otherwise, who continue to shit on your principles by robbing and otherwise molesting the citizens of the UK.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
The gun thing in my opinion, is power and control. Even weak pathetic people can be powerful, if they have a gun that they can point at a given situation. Guns are for war, not human insecurities.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sounds more like the "politics thing" than the "gun thing" to me. I cannot think of a single weak, pathetic person of my acquaintance who owns a gun -- most of them recoil from weapons and conflict of any kind and point out how "superior" nations such as the UK have "moved beyond" gun culture.

Phaedrus

angusr · Nov 21, 2003

Phaedrus,

I've got to call you on your claim that Canada has an "exceedingly high crime rate". Here's some actual Government of Canada statistics that would seem to lend support to the idea that forcing people to register their firearms and placing tighter controls on handguns has a real effect on crime rates. What you call Nazi-like, I would just call common sense. What's wrong with having to register a firearm the same way you have to register a car?

HOMICIDE (Table 1)

Rates for all homicides are 3.8 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average homicide rate was 8.8 per 100,000 people in the U.S., compared to 2.3 per 100,000 in Canada.
A much greater proportion of homicides in the United States involve firearms. For 1987-96, 65% of homicides in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 32% for Canada. Handgun homicide data are available for 1989-95. During those years, 52% of homicides in the U.S. involved handguns, compared to 14% in Canada.
Firearm homicide rates in the United States are 8.1 times higher than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average firearm homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.7 per 100,000 in Canada.
Handgun homicide rates in the United States are 15.3 times higher than in Canada. Based on available data for 1989-95, the average handgun homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.3 per 100,000 in Canada.
Between 1987 and 1996, firearm homicide rates increased slightly (+2%) in the United States but decreased (-7%) in Canada. On the other hand, both countries reported a decrease in the overall homicide rate (-11% in the U.S. and -13% in Canada).
ROBBERY (Table 2)

Rates for all robberies are 2.4 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average robbery rate was 238 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 101 per 100,000 in Canada.
A greater proportion of robberies in the United States involve firearms. For 1987-96, 38% of robberies in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 25% in Canada. In addition, the proportion of firearm robberies in Canada continues to decrease while the proportion in the U.S. has been stable in the last few years.
Firearm robbery rates in the United States are 3.5 times higher than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average firearm robbery rate was 91 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 26 per 100,000 in Canada.
Between 1987 and 1996, firearm robbery rates increased significantly (+19%) in the United States but remained unchanged in Canada. However, the overall robbery rates decreased 5% in the U.S. but increased 22% in Canada.

jimbutorac · Nov 21, 2003

My favorite quote all-time on quotes came from Bobcat Goldthwait (of all people), third rate movie star and sometime comic. Said Bobcat,

"Every year, there are like 20 handgun murders in the United Kingdom compared to the thousands across the United States. The UK which out of any country in the world has the most similar society to the Staes differs in one respect: their strict gun contol laws.

Thus, it follows that, gun control laws are effective in curbing murder or ...

The British can't hit the broad side of a barn yard."

Seriously, I do not advocate abolition of all guns. But no reason or need for any citezenry to have automatic weapons - no need. I'm all for responsible hunters being able to go deer hunting, whatever, after passing screening and getting licensed.

As many Marine veterans like myself can attest, even in boot camp, you don't show up one day and the DI says, "Here boys, here's some live ammo and weapons, have a good time".

Instead you study the weapon and practice safety for weeks on end before you even get to fire live rounds under the strictest supervision. Don't take my word, ask the General.

Point is this: If the US Military, with over 200 years of experience as the finest military force in the history of the world feels such measures are necessary, why wouldn't licensing and education be applicable to civilian population?

The idea that anybody in the USA can go to a gun show and purchase an automatic weapon with no background check is absurd.

The people that holler 2nd Amendment Rights as soon as any kind of gun legislation is proposed are no different than child pornographers that claim refuge under the "free speech" of the first amendment, IMO. Just a bunch of shrill alarmists with an agenda generally motivated by profit.

Phaedrus · Nov 21, 2003

posted by Angus Ontario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I've got to call you on your claim that Canada has an "exceedingly high crime rate".
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My mistake.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
What's wrong with having to register a firearm the same way you have to register a car?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Government-required registration of automobiles is also wrong. But this is a tangent for another time.

posted by Mudbone:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
The people that holler 2nd Amendment Rights as soon as any kind of gun legislation is proposed are no different than child pornographers that claim refuge under the "free speech" of the first amendment, IMO. Just a bunch of shrill alarmists with an agenda generally motivated by profit.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a former Marine with an apparently moderate view towards the issue of gun control, I'm sure you do not mean to say that people a little over-sensitive about their Second Amendment rights are comparable to exploiters and molesters of children?

You'll notice that I in fact do not go on and on about the Second Amendment. How I always end up being the "gun nut" in any given thread baffles me, given that I am far from any such thing. The Second Amendment is a very clearly-worded piece of legislation which guarantees the right of Americans to protect themselves against future impositions of tyranny. Such tyranny is very unlikely to occur in the forseeable future in the United States -- politicians have backslid in intelligence and talent just as the rest of the country has, and it is just not feasible that the likes of W., Ashcroft et al. could pull such a thing off. On the off-chance that they did, they would be dead in the streets relatively quickly and we would work on getting back to business. The Second Amendment, while often cited as the primary source of the right to own firearms, says absolutely nothing about such issues as defence of one's home from intruders, protection of bling-bling from carjackers, etc.

While I did not intend for this thread to become focused on gun control, I will repeat the very basic arguments against it which I have in the past. First off, prohibition laws of any kind simply do not work. Is there any rational reason for a person to buy himself a chain-fed M-60? Of course not. And in fact, the majority of Americans do not own, rent or lease a chain-fed M-60. What a legal prohibition does, is officially prevent people who would otherwise have no inteest in owning or using a given thing, from owning or using it. It is little more than fluff used to gather political capital.

Outside of the military, there are only two categories of individuals who are likely to purchase any form of automatic weapon: those with more money than they can constructively use, and those who wish to use the weapon to further the commission of a crime. Neither of these categories of gun consumer are likely to be dissuaded by the fact of automatic weapons being illegal.

Gun crime laws, on the other hand, make a reasonable amount of sense, if laws are your thing. In the state of Florida for example, it is an automatic minimum 10 years in prison if you brandish a firearm in the act of committing a crime -- even if no one is hurt. It is an automatic 20 years if you actually shoot someone , except in clear cases of self-defence or extremely rare cases which would fall under a "Samaritan" argument. It is an automatic life in prison if you kill someone with a firearm, barring the previously-mentioned exceptions. Laws centered around gun crime, rather than idiotic laws aimed at controlling the consumption of non-consumers, actually help the problem of gun crime by narrowing the scope of those who would commit such crimes to that small percentage of people who are just going to do stupid, violent things with guns no matter what.

Again, I did not mean for this to blossom into a nother debate on gun control -- I am merely straddling amusement and nausea at the idea that the fact that some assholes do bad things with guns lead the public to decide that suing the gun industry is the way to go about solving the problem.

Phaedrus

GringoinCR · Nov 22, 2003

The funny part is how I'm often sitting around with people that are bashing gun owners. Sometimes it is even family members. All the while they have no idea I've been carrying for many years.

That is the case more often than not. You have no idea who around you has a CCW. That is the way it should be. Out of sight, out of mind.

Phaedrus · Aug 16, 2004

"Make Your Next Spree a Stabbing Spree, not a Shooting One, Please."

Hehehehehehehehe.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Police see surge in gang attacks using machetes

(Boston.com)

Police say they are seeing a surge in the number of gang-related attacks involving machetes, the huge knives that are a ubiquitous tool in rural Latin America, with blades as thick as an axe and nearly as long as a sword.

The troubling trend has led some departments to crack down on machetes, and not just in urban areas. Some suburban communities have also enacted new laws to ban the knives.

Last month, during a sweep of gang members in Boston, Lynn, Revere, Chelsea, Everett and Somerville, police seized not just machetes, but more exotic weapons, including Chinese throwing stars and a Japanese metal chain whip.

But machetes, which can be easily obtained at garden stores or over the Internet, are by far the most popular of the alternative weapons.

The surge in machete attacks has gained less attention than recent gun-related homicides in Boston parks, despite a spate of attacks that have left at least four Massachusetts men hospitalized this spring and summer from machete wounds.

"It seems to be that machetes are the weapon of choice," Detective Brian Kyes, a spokesman for the Chelsea Police, told The Boston Globe. "In the past couple of years, we've confiscated at least 50 machetes that have been used in crimes in the city."

Some Hispanic community leaders say the use of machetes in crime has tarnished the image of a useful tool used to cut sugarcane or clear underbrush.

"For people in El Salvador, the machete is not looked at as a weapon," said Luis Morales, who grew up in El Salvador. He is now the pastor at the Vida Real Evangelical Center in Somerville.

Members of Boston's Hispanic community often hang machetes on living room walls as a reminder of home or gardening.

Some say they are dismayed that the machete is increasing being seen a weapon.

"What about baseball bats? They are also used in gang-related attacks. Even a shoe can be considered a weapon if someone uses it to hit someone else," Morales said.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In other threads on gun control, I have pointed out that someone planning a violent crime is going to commit it, regardless of whether or not a gun is used. Sucks to be right.

In case anyone is wondering, the "Japanese chain whip" to which this reporter so ignorantly refers is called a manriki gusari. Lots of fun to hit with, no fun at all to get hit by. Like many other traditional Japanese weapons, the manriki gusari was developed in response to the Shimazu ban on swords in 17th century Okinawa.

Funny how history repeats itself.

See a nice pic of the manriki gusari here.

See some of its other contemporaries here

Conspicuous in its absence from that page is the bakahatsugama, which was basically a double-bladed axe with a three-foot weighted chain coming out of the end of the handle. When you absolutely, positively want to convey just the right message about your tolerance for bullshit, carry a bakahatsugama

Phaedrus

Marco · Aug 16, 2004

In response to the initial topic of this thread...I cannot see charging a gun manufacturer with a wrongful death suit anymore than I could see charging a car company because someone used one of thier cars to run somebody over in a homicidal rage...

I could see charging a gun manufacturer in a case where the gun was of faulty construction, wounding someone because the gun exploded when the trigger was pulled....this would be more of a case of negligence on the gun makers part....

If manufacturers are going to be held responsible for the misuse of thier products, then a whole can of worms is going to be opened up on a whole variety of items of public use...

People look at these issues from a less than practical viewpoint....take the case of that guy that shot up that McDonald's a few years back, I believe it was in California....shortly after that, there were laws enacted banning assault rifles or more or less guns that "looked evil" or "looked like weapons of war".....that was the mentality...

If they were looking at that with practical sense, they would have realized that nothing had really changed, since they didn't enact the laws that were already on the books. People couldn't legally own a machine gun then, and they still can't....I don't remember if the guy had an automatic, I believe he didn't...but they got all emotional over a issue that didn't need more laws, just enforcing of the ones they already had. All what happened was a judgement was now being made, that if a gun looked evil or warlike, it was banned.

What happened to judging a weapon on the rate of fire? Now if it looks evil it can be banned?

Mudbone makes a point that I agree with, that guns can be picked up way too easy at gun shows....why is it retail stores have stricter regulations on gun sales than if I was to just buy one at what amounts to a garage sale? Obviously no standard there?

Also agree with him that the average citizen has no need for an automatic weapon...

As far as registering weapons, I would also agree....I think owning a gun is a privilege and not a guaranteed right, that one's misuse of such a right is grounds for taking away the misuser's right to own weapons...as in the case of certain felonies or mental imbalance....

UncleMoneybags · Aug 16, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Mudbone makes a point that I agree with, that guns can be picked up way too easy at gun shows <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why does everyone keep saying this? Maybe it's my area (Midwest) but I had to fill out the background check form when I went to gun shows and wanted to buy firearms. That is the same practice at retail stores. I can only guess that others have to wait 2 weeks for their background checks to come back.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>As far as registering weapons, I would also agree....I think owning a gun is a privilege and not a guaranteed right <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All U.S. citizens are entitled to every right stated in the Constitution. That doesn't mean much anymore, unfortunately.

Marco · Aug 16, 2004

Maybe the regulations of the retail stores are catching up to the gun shows....as some think they should be....

I will agree with you when you say that "All U.S. citizens are entitled to every right stated in the Constitution."......

....some people tend to lose thier rights through felony prosecution, and in the case of guns, rightfully so...if someone is just going to use guns for a life of crime, then that person should be denied that right.

UncleMoneybags · Aug 16, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>if someone is just going to use guns for a life of crime, then that person should be denied that right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly! Only...

Mr NJ Sports · Aug 17, 2004

Even if people were required to register their guns would that stop criminals from getting them illegally and using them to bust caps in peoples asses?

Marco · Aug 17, 2004

NJ....I will agree with you that criminals will find ways to gain possession of weapons....

...I just don't want to see a system where anyone can go into a pawn shop or sporting goods store and slap down a c-note or two and walk out the front door 30 seconds later, without showing any ID, without documenting any serial numbers....

....I don't want to make it easy....

Oceans11 · Aug 17, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> ....I don't want to make it easy.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then you are on the road to Socialist enlightenment my son.

And when its REALLY hard, hardly anyone will have a gun, so that when one gets used you have more coppers flying about than you thought possible.

Try and imagine a gun user being regarded with the same disdain by society that a drunk driver receives.

Marco · Aug 17, 2004

eek.....there's a pretty wide line between "don't want to make it too easy" and "Socialist enlightenment".....

...if I'm reading your tone correctly....

I would like to see a system where the irresponsible gun user and the habitual drunk driver are both stripped of thier ability to offend in thier chosen fields....

Oceans11 · Aug 17, 2004

only mulling...

I'm saying that anyone who 'wants' a gun is regarded as a social misfit, like a drink driver.

Just glad I don't live in a 'gun culture', (no-one ever talks about them over here).

If your constitution had a 'right to bear a samaurai sword' then I would be glad that my culture had rejected that 'right' as a social norm.