Where's the brain?
#11
11-05-1999, 09:55 AM
kclayd,
Maybe I was mistaken but I thought 3cross' second post with the sentence, "Because of their ignorance at the child's expense we lose a riding area, Yet the parents walk away with no blame and Deep pockets from lawsuit" insinuated that a lawsuit had been filed. Just my interpretation.
I happen to believe in "assumed risk." If you knowingly participate in a dangerous activity, you should assume the consequences of the risks.
The story, as presented by 3cross, has all the classic elements of a "Shotgun" product liability suit. Let's sue everyone who was slightly involved so we can find someone who is willing to settle. And before you say that this sort of thing doesn't happen, I can give you the phone number of a lawyer in town who would take this case in minute.
Most ethical lawyers (oxymoron?) would not take this case and would tell the parents to get into a 12-step program. But there are lawyers that would take the case. And worse yet, these parents would feel that they are doing the right thing because the ATV was defective.
My point, on which you failed to focus, was for 3cross to do whatever was required to defend his sport. If that is cleaning up a trail, teaching an ATV safety course, or informing a defense attorney of the facts surrounding an accident that involves litigation, we all need to do everything possible to insure that riding areas remain open to responsible ATV riders.
I'll be stepping down from the soap box now. Next!
------------------
Kevin Staton
Y2K Polaris Magnum 325 4x4
<a href="www.korrnet.org/watvclub">Windrock ATV Club</a>
Maybe I was mistaken but I thought 3cross' second post with the sentence, "Because of their ignorance at the child's expense we lose a riding area, Yet the parents walk away with no blame and Deep pockets from lawsuit" insinuated that a lawsuit had been filed. Just my interpretation.
I happen to believe in "assumed risk." If you knowingly participate in a dangerous activity, you should assume the consequences of the risks.
The story, as presented by 3cross, has all the classic elements of a "Shotgun" product liability suit. Let's sue everyone who was slightly involved so we can find someone who is willing to settle. And before you say that this sort of thing doesn't happen, I can give you the phone number of a lawyer in town who would take this case in minute.
Most ethical lawyers (oxymoron?) would not take this case and would tell the parents to get into a 12-step program. But there are lawyers that would take the case. And worse yet, these parents would feel that they are doing the right thing because the ATV was defective.
My point, on which you failed to focus, was for 3cross to do whatever was required to defend his sport. If that is cleaning up a trail, teaching an ATV safety course, or informing a defense attorney of the facts surrounding an accident that involves litigation, we all need to do everything possible to insure that riding areas remain open to responsible ATV riders.
I'll be stepping down from the soap box now. Next!
------------------
Kevin Staton
Y2K Polaris Magnum 325 4x4
<a href="www.korrnet.org/watvclub">Windrock ATV Club</a>
#12
11-05-1999, 05:34 PM
I like POWERFUL companies! They provide us with employment! Why do you feel that it is necessary to bash big business Clay? I know it is common in this day and age but not necessary.
I have been involved in several accidents in my life and settled each case out of court fairly, without the help of an attorney. (Heaven forbid.) I have found that the key to doing this was asking for a reasonable amount of money, I.E.: the ACTUAL amount of damage done to my car. Not actual damages plus money for the “mental trauma”, “anguish” and hurt feelings I suffered when that big, evil cigarette company truck rear ended me.
With the “I’m going to sue” mentality that exists today who can blame the insurance company’s and other businesses for “circling thier wagons” by using the tools provided to them by our legal system in order to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits and insurance claims. Would you expect them to do any less?
I have been involved in several accidents in my life and settled each case out of court fairly, without the help of an attorney. (Heaven forbid.) I have found that the key to doing this was asking for a reasonable amount of money, I.E.: the ACTUAL amount of damage done to my car. Not actual damages plus money for the “mental trauma”, “anguish” and hurt feelings I suffered when that big, evil cigarette company truck rear ended me.
With the “I’m going to sue” mentality that exists today who can blame the insurance company’s and other businesses for “circling thier wagons” by using the tools provided to them by our legal system in order to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits and insurance claims. Would you expect them to do any less?
#13
11-05-1999, 11:17 PM
Having been walking around this planet for some thirty four years now.And some people I meet just never cease to amaze me.
Having seen every side of the coin you could posibily imagine.It all seems to boil down to this.Either you are responsible person capable of understanding your actions. Or your circling above looking for prey.Or you just gona drown in the shallow end of the jean pool.
3cross-What happened was a tradjady.A accident, No.
Mark-Keep up the good work.
Kclad-I give you a standing two peg salute.Most lawyers morals,That I've met are shaking like a mexican space shuttle.Do you have a card? "Fairy tales meant to scare sleepy minds" That's good!
Sorry-Eric.
God bless that child!
Having seen every side of the coin you could posibily imagine.It all seems to boil down to this.Either you are responsible person capable of understanding your actions. Or your circling above looking for prey.Or you just gona drown in the shallow end of the jean pool.
3cross-What happened was a tradjady.A accident, No.
Mark-Keep up the good work.
Kclad-I give you a standing two peg salute.Most lawyers morals,That I've met are shaking like a mexican space shuttle.Do you have a card? "Fairy tales meant to scare sleepy minds" That's good!
Sorry-Eric.
God bless that child!
#14
11-06-1999, 07:42 PM
Clay, You are assuming that I was injured, I wasn’t. If I had been, I would have handled it the same way. I would have expected the insurance company to cover my medical bills and expenses. (The actual cost.) If they refused, which is unlikely when considering my past experiences, I would have consulted an attorney in order to get what was fair in the eyes of a third party, namely a judge.
If you want to compare this to surgery, then I can further manifest the metaphor. Would you go to the emergency room for a small splinter in your hand? Once there would you expect to see the nations top hand doctor to remove the splinter? Would you request Heroin to quench the pain? I doubt it. Most likely you would simply get a pair of tweezers; some peroxide and take care of the problem. I chose the latter way of handling my problem versus former, as I am sure that you also would do.
I do not think that lawyers are bad or evil or that there are too many of them, they are simply meeting a demand set forth by the people. My problem is the with the way the American people perceive businesses and insurance companies as big, fat piggy banks that are theirs for the breaking, all they need is a big legal hammer to crack it with.
Most of this argument is subjective, what you think is bad I could think of as good and vice versa. For every case of an insurance company sticking it to a customer you give me I can give you 2 cases of a customers sticking it to an insurance company. You are obviously going to tell your side of the story in a way that serves your best interest, after all, it is your lively hood we are talking about. The same could be said for the insurance companies. What gives your story more weight than theirs? Who is to say that that you’re not the one putting out fairy tales meant to scare sleepy minds? No offense to anyone, but the devil can quote scripture for his own reasons. As I wrote, I mean no malice to towards anyone, but different perspectives help extenuate and further our own arguments.
You have offered me no proof that the insurance companies are out to screw their customers. You have only relayed your perspective on the situation. I am only sharing my point of view with you on the subject, and the same goes for the insurance companies.
Trx430ex, If by saying “Sorry-Eric” you are apologizing to me for something; don’t, you haven’t offended me. We should be able to disagree on something without being offended over it.
I also would like to offer my condolences to the family and child.
If you want to compare this to surgery, then I can further manifest the metaphor. Would you go to the emergency room for a small splinter in your hand? Once there would you expect to see the nations top hand doctor to remove the splinter? Would you request Heroin to quench the pain? I doubt it. Most likely you would simply get a pair of tweezers; some peroxide and take care of the problem. I chose the latter way of handling my problem versus former, as I am sure that you also would do.
I do not think that lawyers are bad or evil or that there are too many of them, they are simply meeting a demand set forth by the people. My problem is the with the way the American people perceive businesses and insurance companies as big, fat piggy banks that are theirs for the breaking, all they need is a big legal hammer to crack it with.
Most of this argument is subjective, what you think is bad I could think of as good and vice versa. For every case of an insurance company sticking it to a customer you give me I can give you 2 cases of a customers sticking it to an insurance company. You are obviously going to tell your side of the story in a way that serves your best interest, after all, it is your lively hood we are talking about. The same could be said for the insurance companies. What gives your story more weight than theirs? Who is to say that that you’re not the one putting out fairy tales meant to scare sleepy minds? No offense to anyone, but the devil can quote scripture for his own reasons. As I wrote, I mean no malice to towards anyone, but different perspectives help extenuate and further our own arguments.
You have offered me no proof that the insurance companies are out to screw their customers. You have only relayed your perspective on the situation. I am only sharing my point of view with you on the subject, and the same goes for the insurance companies.
Trx430ex, If by saying “Sorry-Eric” you are apologizing to me for something; don’t, you haven’t offended me. We should be able to disagree on something without being offended over it.
I also would like to offer my condolences to the family and child.
#15
11-07-1999, 12:47 AM
"Super heated" coffee?
Since we're discussing facts, what, exactly, is "super heated" coffee? Anything like super-heated steam, pressurized steam contained at temperature in excess of 212 degrees Fahrenheit?
Also, I thought first degree burns were indicated by a redness of the skin; second degree burns by blistering; and third degree burns by blackening/charring of the epidermis. "Super heated" coffee chars skin?
Also, I must confess my sleepy mind has been frightened by fairy tales.
Fairy tale one: Many major US cities have sued the firearms industry for the criminal use by others (not the firearms industry) of legal products, firearms, misuse violating existing laws. I shall be relieved to know this is a fairy tale; so will Detroit and brewers and distillers, next in line.
Fairy tale two: The ATV industry entered into the Consent Decree to avoid lawsuits that would destroy the industry. Apparently, the ATV industry was frigtened by fairy tales of litigation also.
Finally, what, exactly is "Tort Liability Crisis?" Forensic debaters define their terms; without a mutually-agreed definition, argument takes on the "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" character. As an alternative example, the White Abalone Crisis, extending from Point Concepcion to the Mexican Gulf, provides an example of a definable, tangible crisis (I think the resurgence of the sea otter depleted the abalone to at least some extent).
Tree Farmer
Since we're discussing facts, what, exactly, is "super heated" coffee? Anything like super-heated steam, pressurized steam contained at temperature in excess of 212 degrees Fahrenheit?
Also, I thought first degree burns were indicated by a redness of the skin; second degree burns by blistering; and third degree burns by blackening/charring of the epidermis. "Super heated" coffee chars skin?
Also, I must confess my sleepy mind has been frightened by fairy tales.
Fairy tale one: Many major US cities have sued the firearms industry for the criminal use by others (not the firearms industry) of legal products, firearms, misuse violating existing laws. I shall be relieved to know this is a fairy tale; so will Detroit and brewers and distillers, next in line.
Fairy tale two: The ATV industry entered into the Consent Decree to avoid lawsuits that would destroy the industry. Apparently, the ATV industry was frigtened by fairy tales of litigation also.
Finally, what, exactly is "Tort Liability Crisis?" Forensic debaters define their terms; without a mutually-agreed definition, argument takes on the "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" character. As an alternative example, the White Abalone Crisis, extending from Point Concepcion to the Mexican Gulf, provides an example of a definable, tangible crisis (I think the resurgence of the sea otter depleted the abalone to at least some extent).
Tree Farmer
#16
11-07-1999, 03:05 AM
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update..
Wow, I will admit, I'm extremly illiterate when it comes to the law. I got an education from reading the posts. Thanks.
The child is now out of his coma and on his way to recovery. The parents tried to push blame one polaris. It failed. They also tried to go after the landowner. It Failed.
And last I heard the state??? and or somebody is now investigating the parents.
I don't know all the details. But I do get bits n peices from the local authorities.
There are 4 of us who witnessed the accident.
We've all been called to discuss and tell the story multiple times to many different people. OH!!!
And for those who emailed me, and tried to make me feel guilty by saying,
"what if that was your child!" and or
"Your sport is worth somebody's life"
MY child would have not been on that machine!
MY child would have been wearing a helmet!
MY child would have been supervised!
My sport is something I enjoy. And I know there are thousands others that also partake in it.
Why jeopardize Our freedom, Do to the actions of the ignorance of those parents.
My opinion stands.
Thanks for the responses.
Any more hatemale that I may recieve will be forwarded to atvconnection and or posted openly with that person name attached!
Wow, I will admit, I'm extremly illiterate when it comes to the law. I got an education from reading the posts. Thanks.
The child is now out of his coma and on his way to recovery. The parents tried to push blame one polaris. It failed. They also tried to go after the landowner. It Failed.
And last I heard the state??? and or somebody is now investigating the parents.
I don't know all the details. But I do get bits n peices from the local authorities.
There are 4 of us who witnessed the accident.
We've all been called to discuss and tell the story multiple times to many different people. OH!!!
And for those who emailed me, and tried to make me feel guilty by saying,
"what if that was your child!" and or
"Your sport is worth somebody's life"
MY child would have not been on that machine!
MY child would have been wearing a helmet!
MY child would have been supervised!
My sport is something I enjoy. And I know there are thousands others that also partake in it.
Why jeopardize Our freedom, Do to the actions of the ignorance of those parents.
My opinion stands.
Thanks for the responses.
Any more hatemale that I may recieve will be forwarded to atvconnection and or posted openly with that person name attached!
#18
11-07-1999, 07:49 AM
Kclayd, you put lots of words in my mouth; words I never said! Further, I question some of your "facts."
You really ARE a trial lawyer, aren't you?
"First: Third degree burn" is a term used to describe a burn which destroys all three layers of the
flesh."
"Emergency War Surgery," a medical handbook standard with NATO nations, provides clinical criteria more in line with the definition in my earlier post (p. 20 ff). NATO says the cause of second-degree burns is "hot liquids, flashes of flame," while third-degree burns (recognized by skin colored "dark brown or black; charred; . . .) are caused by "flame, electricity, chemicals." You may confirm the distinction between burn degree easily; just ask any doctor the next time you chase an ambulance or visit the hospital emergency room soliciting clients (I'm kidding!).
"Have you ever heard of being scalded? No, boiling liquids do not char flesh, but they cause the same damage. Why you believe that only fire can burn flesh, I have no idea."
You score multiple trial lawyer points here. Who said anything about "boiling liquids?" Is McDonald's coffee "boiling?" Further, I never said I believed only fire could burn flesh.
"Second: I did not invent the term "tort liability crisis." It was invented by the liberal, sensationalist media (television)."
Again, who said YOU invented the phrase? I merely asked for a definition.
"AND YOU BOUGHT INTO THEIR STORY [McDonalds pays damages to lady burned by coffee spilled from styrofoam cup], AS DID J.C., as evidenced by your refusal to believe that there was "superheated coffee,""
Once again, how do you know what I bought? Rather defensive, aren't you? Consistently, you are incorrect when you say I don't "believe" in "superheated coffee," I asked you, exactly what IS "superheated coffee?" Liquids typically change their state, from liquid to gas, at atmospheric pressure when raised beyond their boiling point (e.g., water to steam). "Superheated" generally refers to liquids at temperatures beyond their boiling point. I merely asked you to define "superheated coffee," e.g., what temperature and presssure identifies this state of matter; I never said I didn't "believe" in superheated coffee; I asked what characteristics define it. You didn't answer, by the way.
"OH MY! OH MY! You cry! The ATV industry must have been FRIGHTENED by the tort liability crisis! IT ENTERED INTO A CONSENT DECREE - GOD FORBID! Did you ever think that it entered into a Consent Decree to protect its interests? Why don't you tell us the terms of the Consent Decree? Could it be because you don't really know what they were? Do you really think the Japanese are FRIGHTENED by American lawyers? If so, maybe we should have threatened to SUE them for Pearl Harbor, instead of sacrificing so many men! Sweet Dreams! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!"
Your brilliant, focused, keenly-honed argument strays somewhat wide of the mark for me in this passage. Thanks for confirming my premise, the Consent Decree DID protect the interest of the ATV industry by deflecting product liability suits brought by you and your colleagues. The strained Pearl Harbor analogy appears what you lawyers might call, "non sequitur." You dishonor the sacrifices and blood shed by our Armed Services defending our "representative republic," as you characterize our nation, by your flippancy.
As a matter of information, I am aware of the terms of the ten-year Consent Decree, an agreement expiring in April 1998. If you want to learn more about the Consent Decree, I refer you to this frightening website: http://consumerlawpage.com/article/atv.shtml
If the website is not part of a "fairy tale," your colleagues, The Alexander Law Firm, solicits clients: parents or guardians of children injured or killed in ATV accidents.
"AND YOU WANT TO BLAME TRIAL LAWYERS FOR THAT [tobacco settlement]!"
I never said even one word about the tobacco settlement, kclayd. You are the only one mentioning anything about trial lawyers being to "blame" for anything, not I. Methinks thou protesteth too much.
"OH NO, YOU SAY! States with American breweries are afraid that they may be hit with the same sort of litigation aimed at North Carolina and Virginia tobacco farmers! Well, Boo Hoo! Why should they be immune from the same sort of litigation directed against us!"
I made no linkage between tobacco and alcohol; you drew that connection, not I. I said instead that law-abiding manufacturers (Detroit, and brewers and distillers) of lawful products (motor vehicles and alcoholic beverages) are vulnerable to tort law, as other law-abiding manufacturers (gun companies) defend themselves from lawsuits holding them responsible for the unlawful uses of their legal products (firearms).
"SOB, SOB! Cities are threatening to sue gun manufacturers for producing Saturday Night Specials and Assault Rifles which have no use but to shoot human beings! Oh, right! They can be used in target shooting, which I hear is very popular in downtown Los Angeles, as well as its freeways."
Again, your "facts" are questionable. Cities aren't merely "threatening" to sue, they've already filed suit. And the firearms manufacturers are not being sued for "assault rifles" and "Saturday night specials" (by the way, I'd be interested in your definition of those two phrases); the firearms manufacturers are being sued for the criminal use by others of ALL firearms, no matter how well-made, safe, or otherwise suitable for sporting purposes. I would think a competent trial lawyer better informed of professional activity in his field. And you accuse other of vulnerability to media propaganda? Looks like you've swallowed a healthy dose yourself.
"I am saddened that so many intelligent people are willing to accept Dan Rather, Barbara Walters, or the like as their messiahs. the real truth is elsewhere."
kclayd, you rather overestimate the evangelistic effectiveness of the media "talent" you mention; further, you may also underestimate the intelligence and discrimination of their audience. But tell me: since the "real truth" is elsewhere, where? From you? Or from another trial lawyer?
I've enjoyed this dialogue with a practicing trial lawyer and bow to your superior knowledge in your professional field. However, in hope of improving communication in future exchanges, I respectfully suggest: Don't misqoute me. Don't infer motive or belief I haven't expressed. Stop asking me, "When did you stop beating your wife?", and get at least a few of your facts straight.
Tree Farmer
P.S. My concern in the White Abalone Crisis IS for my fellow man, not the mollusk as you suggest. I feel the pain of the gourmet denied his thinly-sliced abalone, pounded to tenderize, lightly floured and delicately pan-fried--yum, yum!
T.F.
[This message has been edited by Tree Farmer (edited 11-07-1999).]
You really ARE a trial lawyer, aren't you?
"First: Third degree burn" is a term used to describe a burn which destroys all three layers of the
flesh."
"Emergency War Surgery," a medical handbook standard with NATO nations, provides clinical criteria more in line with the definition in my earlier post (p. 20 ff). NATO says the cause of second-degree burns is "hot liquids, flashes of flame," while third-degree burns (recognized by skin colored "dark brown or black; charred; . . .) are caused by "flame, electricity, chemicals." You may confirm the distinction between burn degree easily; just ask any doctor the next time you chase an ambulance or visit the hospital emergency room soliciting clients (I'm kidding!).
"Have you ever heard of being scalded? No, boiling liquids do not char flesh, but they cause the same damage. Why you believe that only fire can burn flesh, I have no idea."
You score multiple trial lawyer points here. Who said anything about "boiling liquids?" Is McDonald's coffee "boiling?" Further, I never said I believed only fire could burn flesh.
"Second: I did not invent the term "tort liability crisis." It was invented by the liberal, sensationalist media (television)."
Again, who said YOU invented the phrase? I merely asked for a definition.
"AND YOU BOUGHT INTO THEIR STORY [McDonalds pays damages to lady burned by coffee spilled from styrofoam cup], AS DID J.C., as evidenced by your refusal to believe that there was "superheated coffee,""
Once again, how do you know what I bought? Rather defensive, aren't you? Consistently, you are incorrect when you say I don't "believe" in "superheated coffee," I asked you, exactly what IS "superheated coffee?" Liquids typically change their state, from liquid to gas, at atmospheric pressure when raised beyond their boiling point (e.g., water to steam). "Superheated" generally refers to liquids at temperatures beyond their boiling point. I merely asked you to define "superheated coffee," e.g., what temperature and presssure identifies this state of matter; I never said I didn't "believe" in superheated coffee; I asked what characteristics define it. You didn't answer, by the way.
"OH MY! OH MY! You cry! The ATV industry must have been FRIGHTENED by the tort liability crisis! IT ENTERED INTO A CONSENT DECREE - GOD FORBID! Did you ever think that it entered into a Consent Decree to protect its interests? Why don't you tell us the terms of the Consent Decree? Could it be because you don't really know what they were? Do you really think the Japanese are FRIGHTENED by American lawyers? If so, maybe we should have threatened to SUE them for Pearl Harbor, instead of sacrificing so many men! Sweet Dreams! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!"
Your brilliant, focused, keenly-honed argument strays somewhat wide of the mark for me in this passage. Thanks for confirming my premise, the Consent Decree DID protect the interest of the ATV industry by deflecting product liability suits brought by you and your colleagues. The strained Pearl Harbor analogy appears what you lawyers might call, "non sequitur." You dishonor the sacrifices and blood shed by our Armed Services defending our "representative republic," as you characterize our nation, by your flippancy.
As a matter of information, I am aware of the terms of the ten-year Consent Decree, an agreement expiring in April 1998. If you want to learn more about the Consent Decree, I refer you to this frightening website: http://consumerlawpage.com/article/atv.shtml
If the website is not part of a "fairy tale," your colleagues, The Alexander Law Firm, solicits clients: parents or guardians of children injured or killed in ATV accidents.
"AND YOU WANT TO BLAME TRIAL LAWYERS FOR THAT [tobacco settlement]!"
I never said even one word about the tobacco settlement, kclayd. You are the only one mentioning anything about trial lawyers being to "blame" for anything, not I. Methinks thou protesteth too much.
"OH NO, YOU SAY! States with American breweries are afraid that they may be hit with the same sort of litigation aimed at North Carolina and Virginia tobacco farmers! Well, Boo Hoo! Why should they be immune from the same sort of litigation directed against us!"
I made no linkage between tobacco and alcohol; you drew that connection, not I. I said instead that law-abiding manufacturers (Detroit, and brewers and distillers) of lawful products (motor vehicles and alcoholic beverages) are vulnerable to tort law, as other law-abiding manufacturers (gun companies) defend themselves from lawsuits holding them responsible for the unlawful uses of their legal products (firearms).
"SOB, SOB! Cities are threatening to sue gun manufacturers for producing Saturday Night Specials and Assault Rifles which have no use but to shoot human beings! Oh, right! They can be used in target shooting, which I hear is very popular in downtown Los Angeles, as well as its freeways."
Again, your "facts" are questionable. Cities aren't merely "threatening" to sue, they've already filed suit. And the firearms manufacturers are not being sued for "assault rifles" and "Saturday night specials" (by the way, I'd be interested in your definition of those two phrases); the firearms manufacturers are being sued for the criminal use by others of ALL firearms, no matter how well-made, safe, or otherwise suitable for sporting purposes. I would think a competent trial lawyer better informed of professional activity in his field. And you accuse other of vulnerability to media propaganda? Looks like you've swallowed a healthy dose yourself.
"I am saddened that so many intelligent people are willing to accept Dan Rather, Barbara Walters, or the like as their messiahs. the real truth is elsewhere."
kclayd, you rather overestimate the evangelistic effectiveness of the media "talent" you mention; further, you may also underestimate the intelligence and discrimination of their audience. But tell me: since the "real truth" is elsewhere, where? From you? Or from another trial lawyer?
I've enjoyed this dialogue with a practicing trial lawyer and bow to your superior knowledge in your professional field. However, in hope of improving communication in future exchanges, I respectfully suggest: Don't misqoute me. Don't infer motive or belief I haven't expressed. Stop asking me, "When did you stop beating your wife?", and get at least a few of your facts straight.
Tree Farmer
P.S. My concern in the White Abalone Crisis IS for my fellow man, not the mollusk as you suggest. I feel the pain of the gourmet denied his thinly-sliced abalone, pounded to tenderize, lightly floured and delicately pan-fried--yum, yum!
T.F.
[This message has been edited by Tree Farmer (edited 11-07-1999).]
#19
11-07-1999, 08:13 AM
kclayd,
Not wanting to get off her subject here, but describe to me how firearms themselves are dangerous. Firearms (or ATVs) do not go around by themselves hurting people. Leave a firearm or an ATV in a room for a million years and it will hurt no one. Let one idiot into that room, and all hell will break loose.
Also I would like your definitions of "Assualt Weapons" and "Saturday Night Specials". How are these different from a "Three Wheeler" or "Sport Quad"? According to the media, they are all no good (thank goodness I pay no attention to the media).
The ideal person, according to the media, is a person who does nothing but sit at home and watches television. You see when you go out and get a life, it cuts out the amount of advertising you are exposed to. Believe it or not they don't even want you on the computer (the dreaded EVIL internet). Hardly a day goes by when they don't talk about Internet stalking and pornography clouding the minds of our younger generation. Yeah, not like they won't see sex or violence on network TV.
In conclusion, please know your subject before you post. I personally know of 10,000 people who use your so called "Assualt Weapons" at Camp Perry each year for legitimate purposes. Personally, my "Assualt Weapons" have killed less people than Ted Kennedys car has and I've never killed or injured myself yet on my "Sport Quad".
------------------
Mike Chero 97 Polaris Sport 400L/ 97 Polaris Trailblazer 250ES
<A HREF="http://users.penn.com/~hal9000/mikeetta.html">MIKE & CELESTE'S ATV PAGE </A>
Not wanting to get off her subject here, but describe to me how firearms themselves are dangerous. Firearms (or ATVs) do not go around by themselves hurting people. Leave a firearm or an ATV in a room for a million years and it will hurt no one. Let one idiot into that room, and all hell will break loose.
Also I would like your definitions of "Assualt Weapons" and "Saturday Night Specials". How are these different from a "Three Wheeler" or "Sport Quad"? According to the media, they are all no good (thank goodness I pay no attention to the media).
The ideal person, according to the media, is a person who does nothing but sit at home and watches television. You see when you go out and get a life, it cuts out the amount of advertising you are exposed to. Believe it or not they don't even want you on the computer (the dreaded EVIL internet). Hardly a day goes by when they don't talk about Internet stalking and pornography clouding the minds of our younger generation. Yeah, not like they won't see sex or violence on network TV.
In conclusion, please know your subject before you post. I personally know of 10,000 people who use your so called "Assualt Weapons" at Camp Perry each year for legitimate purposes. Personally, my "Assualt Weapons" have killed less people than Ted Kennedys car has and I've never killed or injured myself yet on my "Sport Quad".
------------------
Mike Chero 97 Polaris Sport 400L/ 97 Polaris Trailblazer 250ES
<A HREF="http://users.penn.com/~hal9000/mikeetta.html">MIKE & CELESTE'S ATV PAGE </A>
#20
11-07-1999, 01:39 PM
Kclayd, you continue misquoting me and distorting my posts.
I merely asked you for a definition of the phrase, "Tort Liability Crisis." You claim I ". . . wanted to know how there could be no "tort liability crisis" if cities and
States were contemplating lawsuits against gun manufacturers and, God forbid, breweries."
In point of fact, I specifically said I was incompetent to argue the point whether "Tort Liability Crisis" existed or not, because,
without definition, I don't even know what "Tort Liability Crisis" means.
I thought careful reading was a requirement in law school.
You responded to Mike; I'm disappointed you haven't answered my post preceding his. In my post (which must somehow not appear on your computer screen), I mention 1) cities not only CONTEMPLATE filing lawsuits agains firearms companies, they've already filed them, and 2) the suits are not for manufacturing "assault weapons" and "Saturday night specials," whatever your liberal definition of these phrases may be, but for criminal activity using ANY firearms, no matter how well-made, safe, or appropriate for sporting purposes they may othewise be.
If a law-abiding manufacturer can be successfully sued for criminal misuse of a legal product, as in the case of firearms manufacturers and firearms, cannot other manufacturers (Detroit, brewers and distillers) be sued for criminal misuse of their legal products (automobiles and alcoholic beverages)?
(I hope you won't bill me for your legal opinion, using the Rose Law Firm Webster Hubbell Memorial Scale!)
If you have difficulty retrieving my previous post, I'll gladly E-mail you a copy.
Tree Farmer
I merely asked you for a definition of the phrase, "Tort Liability Crisis." You claim I ". . . wanted to know how there could be no "tort liability crisis" if cities and
States were contemplating lawsuits against gun manufacturers and, God forbid, breweries."
In point of fact, I specifically said I was incompetent to argue the point whether "Tort Liability Crisis" existed or not, because,
without definition, I don't even know what "Tort Liability Crisis" means.
I thought careful reading was a requirement in law school.
You responded to Mike; I'm disappointed you haven't answered my post preceding his. In my post (which must somehow not appear on your computer screen), I mention 1) cities not only CONTEMPLATE filing lawsuits agains firearms companies, they've already filed them, and 2) the suits are not for manufacturing "assault weapons" and "Saturday night specials," whatever your liberal definition of these phrases may be, but for criminal activity using ANY firearms, no matter how well-made, safe, or appropriate for sporting purposes they may othewise be.
If a law-abiding manufacturer can be successfully sued for criminal misuse of a legal product, as in the case of firearms manufacturers and firearms, cannot other manufacturers (Detroit, brewers and distillers) be sued for criminal misuse of their legal products (automobiles and alcoholic beverages)?
(I hope you won't bill me for your legal opinion, using the Rose Law Firm Webster Hubbell Memorial Scale!)
If you have difficulty retrieving my previous post, I'll gladly E-mail you a copy.
Tree Farmer