Some lawyers are going to be buying 2nd and 3rd cottages on Lake Muskoka once this is settled

Forum Sponsor
miggs said:
So now as a criminal I just continue to smuggle/steal/buy/sell older guns with no "technology" in them.

How you going to go and retrofit the tens of MILLIONS of guns already privately owned in the US and Canada?

...and to all the folks on here that hate guns have you ever shot one?

Since there are lots of us on here that are legal firearms owners maybe we should arrange a GTAMoto range day get together and some of you can try target shooting.

Might change your minds.
Click to expand...

There is no need to retrofit at all, and it will of course never happen (forced retrofit). Did bicycle manufactures go out and retrofit every bicycle sold with lawyer lips on the forks? Did the automakers go out and retrofit every car with window pinch sensors? Can you still buy lawn darts on the "black market"....? etc.....

At some point in time there will be a new norm....just the way life works. I am not saying in anyway I agree one way or another, but lawsuits like this will result in some change somehow (to avoid the cost of the lawsuits), it is lawyer driven engineering. Gun makers will listen to their lawyers and make a change to avoid new lawsuits, that will be the new norm going forward. Then the marketing guys will work hard to convince new gun buyers they are idiots for not buying the latest biometric electronic (or whatever) gun... There will be people (some say blowhards) that will scream that they will never buy the new fangdangled but at some point in the future that is all they make.

Will it stop mass shootings short term, of course not. Will it stop gun crime in the short term, of course not. Will it reduce the maker's exposure to lawsuits like this, yes--that is ALL they will care about. As a plus (for them) they may also charge more and make more money for the new feature... Long term (decades out) the first two might be reduced as supply of the old style starts to dwindle...

Again, not saying this is the right course of action, it is just how lawsuits like this impact engineering and product design and packaging and... It won't be right away, or just becuase of this suit but trust me this is already being discussed in the boardrooms.
 
backmarkerducati said:
There will be people (some say blowhards) that will scream that they will never buy the new fangdangled but at some point in the future that is all they make...
Click to expand...

You obviously have never met any "1911" guys...
?
 
* keeps sharpening his sword on his rocking chair *
 
There was estimate of a couple hundred thousand firearms in Canada in the media. i have no idea how they guessed at that , a retrofit would never happen and I'll guess a mandated "add the tech" to sell in canada would never happen either.

Smith & Wesson will first bleed the suit filers for about three years with legal hours , then settle out of court for a fraction. Business as usual.

There are lots of examples of lawyers seeing opportunity, this is just yet another. Cottage in Muskoka and a new condo in Miami for a few...
 
miggs said:
So now as a criminal I just continue to smuggle/steal/buy/sell older guns with no "technology" in them.

How you going to go and retrofit the tens of MILLIONS of guns already privately owned in the US and Canada?

...and to all the folks on here that hate guns have you ever shot one?

Since there are lots of us on here that are legal firearms owners maybe we should arrange a GTAMoto range day get together and some of you can try target shooting.

Might change your minds.
Click to expand...

I have never owned a gun and have no desire to do so. I have fired some small bore ones including a pistol and I think I heard a chuckle from the direction of Annie Oakley's grave.

What percentage of the gun deaths in Canada are linked to legally owned weapons? I suspect the number is fairly low so the problem is not new laws but rather the enforcement of the existing ones.

Since I own kitchen knives I'm more concerned with biometric devices having to be added to them and they can't be switchblades as they are already illegal. It obviously means moving parts so cleaning becomes a problem. Health Canada will have to hire a bunch of bureaucrats to oversee that. Where does it end?
 
They are called party and party costs if awarded and usually amount to $0.25 on the $1.00 if and when you ever collect it.

You will spend $$$ to have what the amount eligible is. And if the losing party refuses to participate or even pay the amount you have to pay more to get a court order which they can also ignore unless you want to pay a sheriff to seize assets.
 
crankcall said:
There was estimate of a couple hundred thousand firearms in Canada in the media. i have no idea how they guessed at that , a retrofit would never happen and I'll guess a mandated "add the tech" to sell in canada would never happen either.

Smith & Wesson will first bleed the suit filers for about three years with legal hours , then settle out of court for a fraction. Business as usual.

There are lots of examples of lawyers seeing opportunity, this is just yet another. Cottage in Muskoka and a new condo in Miami for a few...
Click to expand...

A couple hundred thousand.. is a really bad estimate.
There are about a million handguns registered in Canada...
and there was over 7 million rifles when they killed the registry in 2012.
 
It's a lawsuit for headlines.. they know it will probably fail, however the Canadian Government is current pushing hard for yet more severe firearms restrictions, and this headline feeds into the overall narrative and strengthens the populations desire to "see something done.. anything".... even if it's actually the "wrong" thing..

It's hard to actually stop criminals from committing crime, and anyway.. if you catch them it costs $$$... so to actually be seen to "do something" they go after legal owners and legal companies selling legal items (which btw the govt takes it's $ cut of via HST).

So lawyers and courts will spend money in dead end lawsuits, government will spend money confiscating legal firearms, and neither will actually stop any crime... but hey, it sure LOOKS GOOD.
 
Gnu said:
Gotta love families that try to profit from their kid's death.
Click to expand...

I've wondered about that and the Muzzo DUI thing. Imagine taking a bundle and saying in effect the mansion you're living in cost your three kids.

On the other hand if the money was offered one might as well try to rebuild a life. Tough choice.
 
nobbie48 said:
I've wondered about that and the Muzzo DUI thing. Imagine taking a bundle and saying in effect the mansion you're living in cost your three kids.

On the other hand if the money was offered one might as well try to rebuild a life. Tough choice.
Click to expand...
It would be amazing if the settlement money in these type of suits ended up in a charitable trust. That allows the money to be used in the victims memory to improve the world and eliminates the perception of the survivors trying to profit from a tragedy.

I think this particular suit is idiotic but also understand why settlements should be so large. The settlement has to be large enough to inflict substantial pain on the offending party. Often, this figure is a ridiculous amount of money for the victims family to receive and completely disproportionate to the economic loss.
 
The figures often asked are enormous, and they often barter down to a more realistic number. Realistic being a relative term... there is no economic loss in the death of a canadian child (horrible as that sounds) , its a plus. You dont spend twenty years feeding them and sending them to university, you save tens of thousands. Remember the school insurance policies? life insurance for a kid is beyond dumb.
These suits are the direct result of Lawyers behaving badly, using the leverage of grief. Its an industry
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom