Death before Dishonor
I disagree. If a child is going to be exposed to firearms later in life, then it should be the parents' or guardians' responsibility to educate said youngster the fundamentals of firearms, at an appropriate age of course.Originally Posted by Evans
I also disagree on the basis of how many people actually are responsible with legally owned firearms. Millions. I can't say the same for illegaly purchased guns, because those are the guns that are used in most criminal activity.
~
Looking at how the States are nowadays, every kid should receive firearm education. Quite sad.
Are you trying to say that people who commit crimes try their best to not get caught by leaving a trail that can be followed? Wow. Insightful.
Death before Dishonor
Eh, not sad really but more progressive towards actual gun control rather than pointless gun ban laws.
Wow, what a dick. uhhh....whatever man it's all about words with you!
I got nothin.
I Hate You All
responsibility is taught by the actions of the influential people in your life. you see your mommy win millions for dumping hot coffee on herself, you learn you dont have to be responsible for your own actions. you see your father return a dropped wallet, you learn that the individual is responsible for doing what is legally and morally right
There isn't an acronym to describe how badly I want you to not be here.
Hope and Fate
Even when they lose, they win. Gods bless spin.
Fear and Loathing
Decent idea. Horrible first example.
I Hate You All
werd.
Even when they lose, they win. Gods bless spin.
hypnos, whats wrong with my first example?
There isn't an acronym to describe how badly I want you to not be here.
Hope and Fate
Wait, you're agreeing with me that your example is abyssmal? Or did you just make a typo?
OK, light reading time. Since it's easier for me to summarize:
1. Said burns required seven days in the hospital and skin grafts.
2. McDonalds had received over 700 reports ranging from mild to third degree burns similar to in this case. They had settled several cases already out of court up to $500,000 USD.
3. Her first offer was a request of $20,000, purely to cover medical expenses. This was countered with an offer of $800 and silence. Her attorney then tried for settlements of $90k and $300k to show that they were serious, mentioning that he would have been willing to drop to half that in negotiations. McDonalds refused to negotiate. The neutral mediator recommended $225,000. Again, the same.
4. At the temperatures McDonalds coffee was served at, third degree burns occur in less than three seconds. That is not a lot of time to react, especially when you're a passenger in a parked vehicle with a seatbelt on.
5. The jury decided to award $160,000 to the defendant (assigning part of the fault to her, which reduced it from $200,000). The judge decided that with all the above, McDonalds knew full well what had happened and added punitive damages. These came to the $2.7 million touted.
6. On appeal, as is usual, the admittedly-inflated value above was reduced to $480,000 despite explicit mention by that judge decrying McDonalds' behavior. After this, the woman settled with McDonalds for an undisclosed, but smaller number.
EDIT: First link was flawed.
Last edited by Mistral; 4th-December-2007 at 03:03.
I Hate You All
well, it was the first thing that came to mind when i thought of "frivolous lawsuits". if we wernt in the habit of nit-picking everything to death here, i believe my point would have been made.
There isn't an acronym to describe how badly I want you to not be here.
Cookie Thief
I'd hardly refer to presenting the facts of the case as "nit-picking".
*See Signature
Only if we rename every school in St. Louis "Columbine". The kids there need to stop watching MTV, before they piss someone off.
In serious discussion, not necessarily. Remember, the guns those two used in Columbine were illegally gained, modified, and had broken the Nationa Firearms act and the Gun Control Act of 1968. In fact, most of their guns were purchased for them, by Robyn Anderson and Mark Manes (Manes was later jailed for selling handguns to minors). As early as 1996, Harris and Klebold (the shooters), had created a website with detailed instructions on how to make explosives. In 1997, Harris posted several rants in his blog clearly showing an etreme distaste for society. Harris even made deaths threats, targeting Brooks Brown (fellow student and former friend). He began posting a "hit-list", populated with the names of his teachers and peers. In 1998, both Harris and Klebold were arrested for theft. At the time of the shooting, Harris's website and blog had a list of guns and the amount of pipe-bombs he had built on it, along with the list of names. Harris and Klobold had both been on parole, and Harris's psychologist had prescribed he take anti-depressants, including Zoloft (which Harris said in meetings with his psychologist, gave him suicidal and homicidal thoughts). An autopsy revealed he had a theraputic level of Luvox in his system during the shooting (also an anti-depresant). They also kept paper journals and even made videos with detailed plans on how to escape after the shooting, or how to continue it.
Most of that, particularly the conviction of theft, should have raised a warning flag that said, I'm sorry, SCREAME"HEY! DON'T LET THESE TWO HAVE GUNS/MAKE PIPE BOMBS". Yet, apparently the police of Littleton, Colorado had more pot in their system than Harris had prescribed drugs. With all that, most of it known by friends and law-enforcement, no one thought "maybe we shouldn't let these two have guns". It could have been avoided in so many ways, it blows my mind.
Spreading Fear and Uncertainty since 2004!
*Apparently the above doesn't fit in a custom user title. Bollocks.
Copyright Paladin_Hammer 2007: "Deus ex Imperator". "Dio Dal Genica".
NWO 4 Life!
Funniest Thread EVER
Dreamweaver
Does it really matter how obvious it should have been? I mean, if people are able to obtain guns, it is a trade-off that there will be shootings of some sort. There is no middle road.Most of that, particularly the conviction of theft, should have raised a warning flag that said, I'm sorry, SCREAME
No matter how many restrictions you put on guns, there is bound to be a case of somebody getting a hold of a gun and using it for murderous intent. And, when that does happen, there will be more restrictions placed because of a concept called hindsight bias. In retrospect, it's always easier to see those warning flags.
Now, the restrictions are piling/will pile up until eventually somebody proposes completely removing the right to bear arms.
Society works in a way that everyone must be pleased. But this is an issue which will always result in somebody being pissed off. Whether it's the people who feel their rights are being taken away, or the people who feel that they are threatened by the presence of guns in society. Unfortunately, the world is not a perfect enough place that guns can be owned by the general public in a perfectly safe manner.
All it will take is one case to make people doubt the structure of the current gun laws, no matter how strict they might become. And, no matter what laws are imposed, one more case will almost certainly always happen.
Squiggly Line Squiggly Line Squiggly Line
Member
This thread is absolutely pathetic and goes to show the kind of intellect of those online.
What am I ranting about?
Well in the last 6 pages there is not ONE mention of a certain political candidate who is openly supportive of guns... NOT ONE MENTION?!
Why all this theoretical bullshit?
Why not talk practical?
Why?
Dreamweaver
You can talk about Ron Paul all you want. He won't win. Not that I won't vote for him, for I surely will. Not because he's a bad candidate, he surely is. But, because American's are stupid. Ron Paul doesn't get big media coverage, so he must not be a good candidate.
Besides, the thread up to know has been talking about the issue itself, not presidential candidates who do or do not support gun control.
And besides all that, even if Ron Paul pulls it off for '08, that's what? The next 8 years at most? After he is gone, he will be replaced, and what do you think the odds are that it will be by someone who is as generally awesome as he is? Not very good.
Squiggly Line Squiggly Line Squiggly Line
Fear and Loathing
Hell, he'd still be facing down a congress populated almost entirely by people who are both ideologically opposed to him and have a vested interest in making non-party line candidates into lame ducks. Ron Paul would be getting nothing done. Which might actually be the best of both worlds if no faction can get a supermajority together.
Not that I would actually vote for Ron Paul (if I could. Not being USian and all) since I generally prefer my leaders to have at least a vague grasp of modern economics.
Posting Permissions
