If we can’t legislate sensible solutions to our gun crisis, then I am glad to see the judicial system effectively used to force action. Too many of our children are being harmed because criminals, radicals, and others get their hands on these instruments of crime far too easily.
There isn’t a “gun crisis.” There is a mental health crisis and a “govt replacing the role of the father” crisis. Firearms are one of the most highly regulated consumer products on the market and it takes a background check, sometimes a waiting period, sometimes a registration card, to even buy one.
More children are killed in swimming pool and car accidents each year than in gun accidents. Do you plan to outlaw them as well to save the children?
So, punishing an insurance company that insured a now defunct pawn shop does something to protect children?
I have to agree with Wayne. There will always be loop holes, not to mention the black market. Regulations don’t change the fact that these people had mental health issues that were not addressed before they snapped. We need to stop blaming the gun manufacturers, pawn shops, gun stores, parents who owned the guns, etcetera.
The only issue of mental health would be the brain voltage of the pawn shop sales person. Kansas law was quite clear tht gun sellers owe the highest degree of care when selling a weapon and the evidence clearly indicated the girlfriend was a straw buyer, one with absolutely no knowledge about guns. The liability insurer cheerfully paid its $2 million policy limits, which was obviously far short of compensating the 14 inocent victims/families of proper compensation.
What evidence was there that showed the pawn shop knew or should have known the girlfriend was a straw buyer? I was researching the article but have been unable to find anything out other than the initial information from after the shooting and the information regarding the settlement. My question isn’t meant to be sarcastic, I actually am curious with regards to this information.
“Should have known”…..how pathetic. That’s the argument you go to when you got nothing else at all period. If it weren’t for the costs involved, I’m sure the insurance company would have fought, and won, this case.
And that, boys and girls, is what we call “Legal Extortion”.
Some plaintiff attorneys estimate the costs of defending such cases and ask for a similar or slightly higher settlement AFTER demanding a huge initial amount; i.e. a gambit play by court-system-gaming attorneys.
If we can’t legislate sensible solutions to our gun crisis, then I am glad to see the judicial system effectively used to force action. Too many of our children are being harmed because criminals, radicals, and others get their hands on these instruments of crime far too easily.
We MUST save our children.
There isn’t a “gun crisis.” There is a mental health crisis and a “govt replacing the role of the father” crisis. Firearms are one of the most highly regulated consumer products on the market and it takes a background check, sometimes a waiting period, sometimes a registration card, to even buy one.
More children are killed in swimming pool and car accidents each year than in gun accidents. Do you plan to outlaw them as well to save the children?
So, punishing an insurance company that insured a now defunct pawn shop does something to protect children?
You guys DO realize that Rosie is a “parody account”, right? She’s been posting for years.
Rob, who in the heck cares about Rosie being a parody account?
the point is that Rosie posts stuff that people take seriously when it’s a parody account. Her comments are meant in jest, Perp.
Rob, in modern day nomenclature, we calling that “trolling.”
I have to agree with Wayne. There will always be loop holes, not to mention the black market. Regulations don’t change the fact that these people had mental health issues that were not addressed before they snapped. We need to stop blaming the gun manufacturers, pawn shops, gun stores, parents who owned the guns, etcetera.
The only issue of mental health would be the brain voltage of the pawn shop sales person. Kansas law was quite clear tht gun sellers owe the highest degree of care when selling a weapon and the evidence clearly indicated the girlfriend was a straw buyer, one with absolutely no knowledge about guns. The liability insurer cheerfully paid its $2 million policy limits, which was obviously far short of compensating the 14 inocent victims/families of proper compensation.
What evidence was there that showed the pawn shop knew or should have known the girlfriend was a straw buyer? I was researching the article but have been unable to find anything out other than the initial information from after the shooting and the information regarding the settlement. My question isn’t meant to be sarcastic, I actually am curious with regards to this information.
The fault lies with the girlfriend and the shooter. “Should have known”, ridiculous.
“Should have known”…..how pathetic. That’s the argument you go to when you got nothing else at all period. If it weren’t for the costs involved, I’m sure the insurance company would have fought, and won, this case.
And that, boys and girls, is what we call “Legal Extortion”.
Some plaintiff attorneys estimate the costs of defending such cases and ask for a similar or slightly higher settlement AFTER demanding a huge initial amount; i.e. a gambit play by court-system-gaming attorneys.