Discussion in 'The Dungeon' started by Handicapped Racer, Mar 15, 2019.
I thought I was clear on that. Chill.
Maybe I just missed the point of your post...
'twas a dig at the legal profession.
Ok if not them then which victims? I mean what is the entire point of allowing law suits against gun manufacturers if not for the victims to make them "pay"?
I would guess most are not. However the ones I have seen pushing this particular end of things - they absolutely are (as well as the lawyers of course). It happens all the time, just because people have a viable reason for grief doesn't automatically make them good people. Not sure why people treat them with kid gloves when they start doing stupid stuff.
XFBO, I don't quite understand what you're asking in the first question.
On the 2nd question, my comment is directed at the silliness of the comment "hey, look at me, my baby died". I think we can all agree that the parents, and typically most family members who've lost someone after one of these massacres wants to effect change. That's probably as far as any agreement exists, but they want change.
Now, how do you you go about getting change? In the US, on one of the top 5 most divisive issues in the current political climate, there isn't going to be much agreement on strategy, tactics, intentions or really much of anything. Anti-gun folks are going to try to effect change by whatever means they can dream up (overturn 2nd amendment, ban guns, ban ammo, taxes, background checks, lawsuits, etc.) - it's all up for grabs.
I wouldn't have bothered responding to the original post if it just said "suing gun manufactures is moronic". But it didn't say that.
Got it. I probably wouldn't have said much to that position in the first place.
I get annoyed by those people who use a relatives death to further themselves or an agenda as well as those who forgive anything because they had a family member die. And that doesn't remotely touch on the law firms who push people to use all of that to do nothing more than make themselves and the opposition lawyers richer. Like the latest craze in lawyer ads - over so and so many billions recovered! Like that shit was lost in the first place. No, it was all spread out in the general publics pockets until your stilly shit lawsuit that made the losing company do nothing more than raise their prices.
I was replying to exactly the sentiment you relayed, "Sorry, if you think the parents and family members of Sandy Hook victims are " hey, look at me, my baby died" money grubbers, you have more than a single screw loose upstairs."
In the history of victim families civilly suing Law Enforcement, and/or companies they deem culpable, have they donated said assets to their causes??? I don't have a definitive answer for that either but I'm leaning towards, NO! Should they? I'm not really saying they should or should not BUT to assume they're not doing it for $$$$ is suspect at best.
IMHO, the Ct. Superior Courts are setting a really bad precedent with this one, I don't suspect it'll hold up but man, talk about slippery slopes.
Separate names with a comma.