Bushmaster Pays Money to Victims of Sniper

M

munk

Joined
Mar 22, 2002
Messages
15,742
And So It Begins: The loss of Second Amendment rights due to litigation.

Bushmaster has agreed to pay the victims of the DC snipers 550,000 dollars. The gun shop, Bullseye, which sold the weapon, is paying 2 million dollars. Apparently they sold the weapon to a prohibited person. AS the Federal Government has prosecuted almost no criminals under violation of the back ground check, this seems bizarre and unfair.
Why Bushmaster should do this is beyond me.

I don't have a link- Yahoo pulled the cover story after I read it.


Gun control groups are heralding this as a precedent that will be extended nationwide, and I don't see why not.

We needed Tort Reforum and a ban on silly lawsuits against lawfull manufacture and distribution of firearms; defeated by Feinstein and Kerry and their ilk by hanging onerous provisions onto the bill. This killed it. Nest time someone tells you a Kerry presidency won't hurt lawful firearm ownership don't believe them. One job of a President is to appoint bureacrats in key positions- positions held by anti gunners that can injure the Second by decree rather than Court or Congress.


munk
 
That would be like the Kamis paying out to the misuse of an HI Khukuri. How about Ford paying for the Drunk that kills several people on the road? How about if the murderer wore Levis?

NO ONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS IN NANNY WORLD
by accepting short term financial gain, we give up long term freedoms.

Shame on Bushmaster.


munk
 
I agree with you, but that is why it is so important that we defeat lawyers whenever possible. Tort reform is crucial to maintain affordable healthcare. In my admittedly limited experience if you see costs rising, you can find a lawsuit (or lawsuits) at fault.

I have a co-worker who's SO is an OBGYN, he won't tell me the cost of malpractice insurance, but it would pay his salary with a margin left over, every year.
 
I think the specific law protecting firearms companies is the way to go. I know too many people who have been injured by medical mistakes (and seen plenty more- I'm a medical claims reviewer) to limit a person's right to sue on that issue.

They never should have settled. They should have got some money in from somebody and fought it. On the other hand I have never seen how Bushmaster advertises their gun, and certainly it would have been hard to argue in court that a knock off of a military gun was for sportsmen. I mean a .223 could be a varmint gun, but it's really too hot for most little stuff and not hot enough for most big stuff. Put that in front of 12 people that might not be gun owners and they might have lost.

I think the sporting good shop would be liable if they messed up, but not the manufacturer.

The simple fact is as long as we have people doing this stuff it is gonna make it rougher on all the law abiding people. 99% of the people who buy these things just buy them for fun and never hurt anybody, but it just takes one nut to mess it up for everybody.

You may think you are safe with the GOP but I guarantee you if the next incident is high profile enough to get people saying "there oughta be a law" unfortunately there will be.
 
45-70 said:
I agree with you, but that is why it is so important that we defeat lawyers whenever possible. Tort reform is crucial to maintain affordable healthcare. In my admittedly limited experience if you see costs rising, you can find a lawsuit (or lawsuits) at fault.

I have a co-worker who's SO is an OBGYN, he won't tell me the cost of malpractice insurance, but it would pay his salary with a margin left over, every year.
Click to expand...

My friend that's a doctor's is 120,000 a year. But rather than tort problems the real problem is the insurance companies had so much of their money tied up in the stock market that when it started tanking the only way they had to make up the loss was to jack up premiums. There are some big settlements, but mainly it's just a smokescreen to cover them jacking up rates.
 
WE don't 'think'; we KNOW we are safer with the GOP than with the current Democratic party. The days of the dixiecrats are gone, Hollow- you are a hold out. I assume you are holding out for your own reasons. But the Zell Miller's are leaving the party.

As for 'sporting usefulness" That's a cute phrase not in the Second Amendment. But as this weapon was legal, it met the standards of 'sporting usefulness', and has a legitimate place. ONce you start parcing out good and bad cosmetic features, you've gone down the wrong path. Maybe all guns should be pink rather than black, since black is so sinister.


munk
 
munk said:
WE don't 'think'; we KNOW we are safer with the GOP than with the current Democratic party. The days of the dixiecrats are gone, Hollow- you are a hold out. I assume you are holding out for your own reasons. But the Zell Miller's are leaving the party.

As for 'sporting usefulness" That's a cute phrase not in the Second Amendment. But as this weapon was legal, it met the standards of 'sporting usefulness', and has a legitimate place. ONce you start parcing out good and bad cosmetic features, you've gone down the wrong path. Maybe all guns should be pink rather than black, since black is so sinister.


munk
Click to expand...

All of our reps but one are dems and most have either 100% or close record with NRA.

I agree with you on the cosmetic feature issue, but that doesn't change the fact that stuff like that plays in the court of public opinion(unfortunately)
 
Hey Everyone:

Before commenting too much more on this topic, please go to Bushmaster's web site bushmaster.com and read their reasons for the settlement!!!

It is a shame that any company has to settle lawsuits just because a settlement is less expensive than going to court.

Under the circumstances stated by Bushmaster, I would have to agree they did the best thing for the company and for those of us who own or want to own Bushmaster gear.

Mike in Seattle
 
how many of y'all were living in MD/DC/VA at the time it all happened? ;)



You really have no idea......the paranoia it created was tremendous. I'd be floored if any pro-gun legislation gets passed in the area for the next 10 years.


Anyone else from the east coast want to comment on it?



Mike has it right. Bushmaster acted like everyone else in DC acts - politics first. They fed the bear to keep it happy and back to sleep. Seriously....like I said, you don't know unless you were there.
 
munk said:
WE don't 'think'; we KNOW we are safer with the GOP than with the current Democratic party.
Click to expand...

The Republican stand against gun control has nothing to do with individual rights, although the masses are led to believe that it does. It has to do with corporate rights to sell guns for profit. Your right to buy and own guns are coincidental to that.

This is one of the "Bubba Factors" that gets millions of Americans to vote against their own best interests in the guise of protecting "freedom".
 
We don't know because we weren't there? Since when has the DC area been open to logic about guns? The DC sniper could have used a Sharps Shiloh single shot rifle and been just as effective or more so. What does it being a Plastic fantastic AR 15 type have to do with anything?
If what Dan says is true- then the Second amendment is history. Because it is only a matter of time before everywhere has its own 'assault weapon' incident. Trouble is, they are only used in about 1% of of crimes. Calif banned mean looking semi auto's because of a single AK47 in a school yard once upon a time.
But logic is not the question here- gun control, fear perception and politics, and the ultimate confiscation of firearms in the US is what is happening.

Hollow, how did your Reps vote on the AWB, and what was their stand on the Junk law suit limit proposed and killed recently?

munk
 
I really wish people intending on going on murderous rampages would familiarize themselves with all of the bennifits of lever action rifles. I get so tired of hearing about how evil and deadly AR clones are especially when the folks spouting this wouldn't know the diference between a signle action and a swiss army knife.

Ain't it grand to know that responsibility has gone the way of chivalry and penny candy.
 
The Republican stand against gun control has nothing to do with individual rights, although the masses are led to believe that it does. It has to do with corporate rights to sell guns for profit. Your right to buy and own guns are coincidental to that.

This is one of the "Bubba Factors" that gets millions of Americans to vote against their own best interests in the guise of protecting "freedom >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Benaround

I realize you are an independent thinker, but in this case I honestly believe you've absorbed a bit of leftist socialist dogma.
There is no logic to the AG's declaration of the Second as an individual right under your warped perception. They could have their industrial profit cake and eat it too without opening up a can of worms that could cause nothing but trouble. NO, the vast majority of Republicans either passionately believe in the Second as do I, or simply are practical about it's political expediancy_ but part of a Capitalistic plan? Hogwash.!!

munk
 
munk said:
Hollow, how did your Reps vote on the AWB, and what was their stand on the Junk law suit limit proposed and killed recently?

munk
Click to expand...

Two senators voted for it. House members against(to the best of my memory) I think my particular house member Nick Rahall is #1 recipient of NRA PAC money. He is my perfect representative!

He is extremely pro environment and wilderness. He is extremely pro union and worker rights. He is for national health care. He is anti abortion but I don't care that much about that anyway. He is very pro gun and is Lebanese and is anti Iraq. He's a dem.
 
Hollow, one of your Senator's in Robert Byrd, isn't he?

You know, most people are pro wildness and pro environment. But we want reasonable and knowledgable solutions, not emotion. Clinton's roadless access burned the National Forests of Montana. Not harvesting timber, and not thinning wiped out So Calif's timber and environment.

We should stick to guns here, though.

munk
 
munk said:
The Republican stand against gun control has nothing to do with individual rights, although the masses are led to believe that it does. It has to do with corporate rights to sell guns for profit. Your right to buy and own guns are coincidental to that.

This is one of the "Bubba Factors" that gets millions of Americans to vote against their own best interests in the guise of protecting "freedom >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Benaround

I realize you are an independent thinker, but in this case I honestly believe you've absorbed a bit of leftist socialist dogma.
There is no logic to the AG's declaration of the Second as an individual right under your warped perception. They could have their industrial profit cake and eat it too without opening up a can of worms that could cause nothing but trouble. NO, the vast majority of Republicans either passionately believe in the Second as do I, or simply are practical about it's political expediancy_ but part of a Capitalistic plan? Hogwash.!!

munk
Click to expand...

Actually the reason the GOP is for the gun owners is #1 the NRA gives them TONS of cash #2 they realize that most people don't want gun control and it's a GREAT way to take votes from the Democrats. I think down the list is the making money thing.

I think the reason a lot of Democrats(that I disagree with) are for it is that a lot are from urban areas where shootings are more common. Therefore the public sentiment that Dan correctly identifies comes into play. Also Reagan is the only Republican ever to be shot. On the dem/progressive side we have Jack Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King.

I like what Howard Dean, said about gun control. Something to the effect that a one size fits all gun control doesn't work and that it should be left up to the states. He said that when somebody in NY hears about gun control they are thinking about gangs with uzi's , but when somebody in Vermont thinks about it they are thinking about somebody taking their hunting rifle. That it penalizes rural people when there are national gun control initiatives.
 
Actually the reason the GOP is for the gun owners is #1 the NRA gives them TONS of cash #2 they realize that most people don't want gun control and it's a GREAT way to take votes from the Democrats. I think down the list is the making money thing.

I think the reason a lot of Democrats(that I disagree with) are for it is that a lot are from urban areas where shootings are more common. Therefore the public sentiment that Dan correctly identifies comes into play. Also Reagan is the only Republican ever to be shot. On the dem/progressive side we have Jack Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King.

I like what Howard Dean, said about gun control. Something to the effect that a one size fits all gun control doesn't work and that it should be left up to the states. He said that when somebody in NY hears about gun control they are thinking about gangs with uzi's , but when somebody in Vermont thinks about it they are thinking about somebody taking their hunting rifle. That it penalizes rural people when there are national gun control initiatives.

>>>>>>>>>>Hollow dweller

Well, I see you busy apologizing for the loss of our rights!! But that's OK. You are entitled to have your opinion. Truth though- 1, before 1968, there really was no Political DC lobby against Gun Control, and since then, the NRA has increased it's efforts as the control attempts mounted. So we have hundreds of years without NRA money, or any lobby money, but that is what motivates the Republicans? Superficial.

2. Shootings more common in urban areas- WHERE THERE IS GUN CONTROL and a direct correlation between restrictive laws and amount of murders. You stated you do not agree with gun control in urban areas, however.

3. Howard Dean and the State's rights idea- Tell me, would it be ok in Georgia if you could speak openly but in New York had to watch what you said or be arrested?

There are practical limits to all the Bill of Rights, including the Second, but they need to be established by the Feds, not California.

as a side note, Howard Dean is a mad man.


cheerfully,
munk
 
There should be no compromise as far as a constitutional right is concerned. The founding fathers believed that gun ownership was a natural right. Guns are the only way we can be guaranteed freedon from foreign AND domestic tyranny. Its absurd that anyone should have to vote in a manner where they give up a little of a right to keep a little bit more.

As far as "assault weapons" go, I think that is precisely what the 2nd ammendment protected. The guns used by colonists during the revolution, were cutting edge technology for their times. The right protects weapons that would be used to protect we the people from an oppressive armed government. If anyone would have suggested that hunting weapons would be taken away, I believe they would have been laughed out of the room.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top