Mass. gun-maker to pay $600K in gun-death lawsuit

[jpak]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/7669693.html


A Massachusetts gun-maker has agreed to pay nearly $600,000 to the families of one man killed and another man wounded in a shooting involving a gun allegedly stolen from the company.

Danny Guzman was slain outside a Worcester nightclub in 1999.

His family and the family of the wounded man filed a wrongful death suit against Kahr Arms. The lawsuit alleged that the gun was stolen and later sold by a Kahr employee with a criminal record.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence announced the settlement in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday. It calls it the largest damages payment ever made by a gun manufacturer accused of negligence leading to the criminal use of a gun.

<more>

[Glassunion]

1. Your point?

[ileus]

3. I suppose it would be if you're hiring (for any postition), never hire a criminal.

[Spoonman]

5. But, but, but,

what about their rights?
Criminals are people too.......
:sarcasm:

[ileus]

2. I'd love to have a Kahr CW40 or CW45....

I was looking at them a few weeks ago over in WV at a dealer there. Nice....I may have to find a backdoor deal like the one in this story.

[Spoonman]

4. You can polish a turd,

but it will still smell like shit.

"Guzman's relatives say Kahr should have done employee-background checks and used metal detectors to prevent gun thefts."

When some shit bag steals your car, and uses it to kill a kid standing at a bus stop, don't even think about pissing and moaning when you get sued.

You should have had an alarm, low jack system, and kill switch.
Your yard should have been fenced and you should have lived in a gated community.
You should have established a neighborhood watch and been actively watching for criminal activity.

A shining example of our (in)justice system at work.

Who's next, the private citizen?

Yup, I know, you would love that!

[TPaine7]

7. I must disagree.

A gun manufacturer hiring a convicted felon, a children's day care center hiring a convicted pedophile, and a dynamite factory hiring a convicted pyromaniac are negligence far removed from a victim of car theft.

If jpak had dared to make a point, I might have been obliged to agree with it.

Whew, that was a close one!

[RSillsbee]

9. Whew, that was a close one!

Not really, it'll never happen anyway

[Spoonman]

14. You disagree, because

like jpak, you are unfamiliar with all the facts.

Hernandez v. Kahr Inc.

http://www.nssf.org/share/legal/litigation/PDF/Private/HernandezvKahr/Hernandez%20MTD.pdf

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/07/26/mass_gun_maker_to_pay_600k_in_gun_death_lawsuit/

The lawsuit alleged that Kahr employee Mark Cronin -- who had a drug problem and a criminal record -- stole the gun before it had a serial number stamped on it and sold it to Robert Jachimczyk for a gram of cocaine. The man charged in the shooting, Edwin Novas, then bought the gun from Jachimczyk for some heroin, according to the lawsuit. Cronin pleaded guilty to the gun theft and was sentenced to two years in prison. Novas was never caught; he is still listed on the Worcester Police Department's website as being wanted in the unresolved killing.


A "criminal record" does not mean "convicted felon".
Shoplifting shows up on your "criminal record".

The employee Mark Cronin had an assault and battery charge.
Most assault and battery charges are reduced to misdemeanor level.

[TPaine7]

19. Not exactly.

It's been years since I read about this case, but my reservations are not based on the thief being a convicted felon, or even having a criminal record.

To my mind, if you are known to be a thief, a habitual user of illegal drugs, a straw purchaser of guns, a member of a terrorist or hate group or a habitual gambler, you should not be employed at a gun manufacturing plant.

This is so even if you have no criminal record whatsoever.

People in these groups have too strong incentives and or proclivities to misuse their access to guns and gun components.

There should be, set up in law, standards of due diligence for background checks and security. The Brady Campaign and others shouldn't be able to sue anyone who meets the standards. This would make the goal of intimidating and bankrupting honest manufacturers impossible. But to my mind, the standard that was set is too all-inclusive and gives gun manufacturers too much protection.

That's my $.02, for what it's worth.

[petronius]

16. I wonder what the thieving employee's criminal record was

I think a reasonable cutoff would be if a person was a prohibited person as far as owning firearms, he shouldn't be working in the firearms factory...

[iverglas]

50. huh

When some shit bag steals your car, and uses it to kill a kid standing at a bus stop, don't even think about pissing and moaning when you get sued.
You should have had an alarm, low jack system, and kill switch.

Where I'm at, it is illegal to a vehicle unattended with the keys in. (I'm tempted to cause general merriment by saying "keys in the transmission" as I once mispoke here, but I'll just mention it in passing for comic relief. ;) )

That's an old rule, and it's only municipal bylaw, I believe. Updated legislation is definitely needed.

The economic cost of vehicle theft to society is not insignificant. But the real danger is the misuse of stolen vehicles just as you suggest. They are involved in events with personal injury and death in numbers far disproportionate to the incidence of vehicle theft.

Some people and societies give a shit about that. So they impose minimally invasive limits on individuals' liberty and some costs on individuals in order to reduce the incidence of such harm.

Brakes, brake lights, turn signals, headlights ... all expensive to equip vehicles with; and imagine, requiring individuals to use them ... just to make it less likely that some kid standing at a bus stop will get killed.


Your yard should have been fenced and you should have lived in a gated community.

Where I'm at, yards with water hazards (swimming pools) must be securely fenced and locked. All that expense and inconvenience, to spare homeowners the nuisance of having somebody else's kid drown in their yard.

Also where I'm at, firearms must be secured in a manner that meets regulatory requirements when not in legal use. All to reduce the annoying habit of innocent bystanders of getting killed by people using stolen firearms.


Damn, I wish I lived in the land of the free and home of the brave, where it's everyone for themself and devil take the hindmost ... instead of a place where people actually give a shit about other members of their society, and in particular those most vulnerable.



typo fixed

[Spoonman]

75. huh

did you say something eh?
Never mind...... could not care any less.

[DonP]

6. So the only thing the gunmaker did wrong was hire an asshole in the first place?

I guess that provides legal precedent for you being responsible for anyone that steals your car, lawnmower, weed whacker, golf clubs or a gun from your home. If they do anything bad with it, it's your fault.

[iverglas]

51. wow

What colour are the unicorns in your universe?

Or by "anyone" did you actually mean "anyone you hire and to whom you give easy access to objects that are in high demand in the criminal underworld for committing crimes, facilitating criminal enterprises and causing injury and death?"

I think that if you permit someone to drive your vehicle, you had better be sure that the person has a valid driver's licence and is not using it to transport contraband or as the getaway vehicle for a robbery, or you'll find yourself in a spot of bother. You sure would where I'm at, anyhow.

Yes, Virginia: permitting someone to handle a firearm and having no protocol/devices in place to prevent removal of the firearm is equivalent to "drive your vehicle" in this instance.

[Kennah]

8. On the bright side, perhaps it now opens up the GOP to being sued as a WMD

[Hoyt]

10. Pray for day when manufacturers pay damages for producing/marketing the dang things.

[gejohnston]

11. does that mean

we can sue bong manufactures and head shops for funding the drug gangs doing drive bys?

[ileus]

13. Maybe sue the Feds for allowing guns to be sold illegally.

[ileus]

12. Faulty design Yes....misuse by operators NO.

[Blown330]

15. By that logical leap...

...we should be able to sue car manufacturers AND beer/wine/liquor makes for drunk driving accidents. A genius you are not.

Also, it's funny that the Brady Campaign has already splashed this across their webpage but not one single word has been posted about the Norway shooting. Powerful set of blinders they must have on.

[Hoyt]

22. Cigarette companies have been successfully sued. Why not gun manufacturers that pander to gunners'

baser instincts?

I agree the shooter -- or gun owner who fucks up and shoots someone accidently, leaves their gun lying around, etc., should be used. But, why not the manufacturer who profited by manufacturing/mnarketing guns in ways that get you guys all excited? How about manufacturers contributing to NRA to proliferate gun sales, promote gun shows, getting their guns in movies to get you guys further excited, etc. Sue the bastards until they close the door is one way to stop this crud. Gun manufacturers sure ain't doing society any good.

[DonP]

23. Too late, Daley and Bloomberg et. al. already tried it

They figured it would be easy to sue gun manufacturers, who are relatively small companies, out of existence and tried to do an end run on the 2nd amendment. They were too cute by half.

Their approach was so vile and vicious that congress, in a bipartisan vote, passed a law in 2005 protecting gun manufacturers from any and all legal suits for the normal use of their products. If a product is faulty from incorrect manufacturing reasons, they are still liable.

But assholes like Daley, Bloomberg and their scummy ilk that can't get the votes to change laws are shit out of luck. All their suits against manufacturers were thrown out of court.

[Blown330]

24. Let me know...

...when you can find a case where a person has successfully defended his- or herself with a pack of Camels. Also, vast majority of lawsuits brought against tobacco companies have been turned down or failed in court. Of the few successful ones, huge punitive damages have been reduced to small fractions of what the jurys imposed. All in all, almost every case has been thrown out because the harm caused was due to the INDIVIDUALS CHOICE to continue smoking. Gun makers are doing society plenty of good. They have provided myself and nearly 2 million others in the US Armed forces with quality weapons. They have provided millions of peace officers with their firearms. They have provided millions of lawful citizens a means to enjoy target shooting and a means to defend themselves against criminals who don't give two shits about any idiotic gun-control law you could fantasize about. Given that tobacco companies no longer have to fear about major lawsuits from their products, it will be a very cool day in hell when your little dream comes to fruition. ProTip: Bloomberg already failed on that note.

[Hoyt]

25. Gun manufacturers are such wonderful corporate entities, pandering to irrational clientele.

[Blown330]

27. Only thing pandering to the irrational...

...is you and yours. Figures since ya'll have been on the losing side of this for a LONG time now.

[DonP]

31. Congress does not care what you think - they know all about people like you ...

... and passed a specific law to prevent people with a twisted and selfish view of the constitution from doing any real damage to firearms manufacturers.

But you can always try and repeal it, like repealing your own state's (Georgia?) CCW laws which you can't do either.

But it's probably just easier to keep whining about gun control here, where no one will ever really expect any real results from you and you can be an integral part of the diminishing chorus of self styled "intellectual elites" that know better than the poor unwashed masses what's best for them.

[Hoyt]

33. Yep, 96% of population does not need to carry in public. They leave home every day w/o a gun.

[DonP]

36. Good for them ... and that means what in terms of the issue under discussion?

Can you struggle and try to be relevant to the topic being discussed for even a minute before you hit "paste" with one of your patent and terminally trite "bumper sticker" responses.

You suggested suing gun manufacturers, indicating that you are really new to the issue and frightfully uninformed, since everyone else knows that was taken care of over 6 years ago by Congress.

Your response when so informed is a typical; "Well, like you know a lot of people don't carry" is utterly irrelevant to the topic of the thread. Either that or you make shit up and lie through your teeth to "make a point" assuming no one will call you on it.

Try to stay focused, back away from the bong and clear your head. It really doesn't make you sound smarter no matter what your stoner friends tell you.

[oneshooter]

39. Yes they do. But you cannot produce on little "cowboy" picture, as promised. n/t

[ileus]

45. 96% non-criminals that is...

[ileus]

44. Legal safe products...what is there to sue over?

[iverglas]

52. try some real logic

The manufacturer was not sued qua manufacturer.

It was sued as the entity that GAVE ACCESS TO THE FIREARM to the individual in question, and FAILED TO TAKE REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS to prevent that individual from taking the firearm.

Manufacture had precisely nothing to do with it. Possession of the firearm and subsequent negligence in dealing with the firearm did.

So no, Virginia, this has nothing to do with vehicle manufacturers selling vehicles to individuals who subsequently use them to facilitate crimes or cause harm.

What it's analogous to is you handing your car keys to a drunk.


On your second "point":

Also, it's funny that the Brady Campaign has already splashed this across their webpage but not one single word has been posted about the Norway shooting. Powerful set of blinders they must have on.

really? It's a news release, so I'll give you the whole thing.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1421/

Brady Campaign Mourns Norway's Shooting Victims And Our Own

Jul 25, 2011

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Dennis Henigan, Acting President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, released the following statement today in response to the bombing and shooting massacre in Norway and the weekend series of mass shootings in the United States.

"The Brady Campaign joins the world in mourning the horrific loss of life in the Norway terrorist attacks. The staggering toll of young lives taken by a gunman at the Utoya youth camp reminds us all, once again, that guns are the enablers of mass killers.

There are some in America who will use this shooting to assert that Norway's strong gun laws don't work or to support the American gun lobby's campaign to make it easier to carry guns in public places. That would be a tragedy. It should not be forgotten that, in a typical year, Norway loses fewer than 10 of its citizens to gun homicide; America loses an average of 12,000.

Since the Norway massacre, there have been at least four mass shootings in the U.S., leaving six dead at a roller rink in Texas, one dead and eight wounded in Stockton, CA, nine teens wounded at a party in Florida, and seven wounded at a Casino in Seattle. Our hearts go out to these victims and their loved ones as well.

Whereas a mass shooting in Norway is an extraordinary event, it is a regular occurrence in America. Whereas 84 shooting deaths in a single day is a historic event in Norway, described by the nation's prime minister as a 'national disaster,' 84 dead is essentially the everyday toll of fatal gun violence in America. Whereas such a tragedy in Norway likely will lead to determined efforts to further strengthen that nation's gun laws, America has suffered through Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Tucson and too many other similar events with little action to prevent more tragedies of this kind.

The shooting in Norway is neither a reason to condemn Norway's gun laws, nor to celebrate our own."

Pre-emptively:

(a) comparing raw numbers is not the best method, but the US firearms homicide rate is still 60 times Norway's

(b) 84 deaths per day comes to just over 30,000 per year, a figure that would include all forms of firearms deaths; some people consider the accidental deaths and suicides of young people, for instance, to be as tragic as youth homicides.

[Blown330]

61. I saw the Brady...

..."news" release. Funny it took them 3 days to put one out yet only hours to gloat over a gun maker settlement. More proof that the Brady Campaign isn't interested in saving lives as it is pushing its outdated agenda. Which is precisely why people like you are members. Kahr was sued exactly because they were the manufacturer and at the prodding of the family by the Brady's. Kahr already had Federal support for having the case dismissed but choose to settle anyway. In the settlement the company probably didn't have to admit any wrongdoing which means, aside from the cash, the Brady's have nothing to crow about as this means nothing in legal terms to gun manufacturers.

[iverglas]

62. I'd say you astound me

but I stopped being astounded here a decade or so ago.


Funny it took them 3 days to put one out yet only hours to gloat over a gun maker settlement.

One might suspect that they issued a release about the settlement BECAUSE THEY WERE A PARTY TO THE CASE.

One might suspect that they reserved comment on the Norwegian events BECAUSE THEY WERE AWAITING FULL FACTS. As some here might have been wise to do.


Which is precisely why people like you are members.

People like me? Canadians?


Kahr was sued exactly because they were the manufacturer

You can make false statements 'til your head explodes and it won't make them true.

The exact same suit would have been brought against a non-manufacturer gun dealer if the firearm in question had been stolen by the dealer's employee. Who manufactured the firearm was IRRELEVANT. Who had possession and control of it, and was negligent in its possession and control, was the issue.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/07/26/Gun-maker-to-pay-Brady-Center-600000/UPI-73471311726336/

The family of Danny Guzman, who was killed Dec. 24, 1999, with the Kahr gun, alleged the company negligently operated its manufacturing plant without security or inventory controls and failed to screen its employees for drug addiction or criminal background.

Oh, yech. I've just realized what I'm talking to. Game over. Can't stand the taste.

[Blown330]

71. Game over is right...

...you never even got a hit.

but I stopped being astounded here a decade or so ago

Judging by your posts I'd say that puts you around 3 then.


One might suspect that they issued a release about the settlement BECAUSE THEY WERE A PARTY TO THE CASE.

One might suspect that they reserved comment on the Norwegian events BECAUSE THEY WERE AWAITING FULL FACTS. As some here might have been wise to do.

Oh, and never mind that they had a large, animated banner on the front page for the lawsuit yet only a tiny link in the corner for the Norway tragedy. Sorry, the Brady's (like yourself), obviously put more importance on themselves than the victims. I guess it's worth their conscience for a few thousand dollars. I don't buy that "waiting for the full facts" BS for one second. It was known who and what had happened in the first 24 hours and many people where already stating their condolences. Brady's were just waiting to see what kind of spin they could put on it obviously.

The exact same suit would have been brought against a non-manufacturer gun dealer if the firearm in question had been stolen by the dealer's employee. Who manufactured the firearm was IRRELEVANT. Who had possession and control of it, and was negligent in its possession and control, was the issue.

So where are all the lawsuits the Brady's have filed against said dealers? Very obviously such dealers have been broken into, had firearms stolen and subsequently used in crimes.

Something you also failed to note.

http://www.telegram.com/article/20110727/NEWS/107279896/1116

"Once the law was passed and the defendants moved to have the case dismissed in Worcester Superior Court, the U.S. Justice Department filed a brief in support of the dismissal, according to Mr. Pineiro. "


Like I said, much ado over not very much by the anti-gunners. Since this was a settlement, nothing has been done that is legally binding or applicable to the rest of the industry. Kahr was sued as a manufacturer and this given in the complaint which you obviously have not read.



Run along now child.

[iverglas]

73. something I doubt you failed to notice

but interestingly failed to put in your post -- from your link:

http://www.telegram.com/article/20110727/NEWS/107279896/1116

Brady officials noted the arms manufacturer agreed to the payment despite the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, signed into federal law by President George Bush in October 2005. That law was designed to protect arms makers from civil suits over the use of their products even in cases before the law was passed.

Once the law was passed and the defendants moved to have the case dismissed in Worcester Superior Court, the U.S. Justice Department filed a brief in support of the dismissal, according to Mr. Pineiro. Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley signed a brief for the plaintiffs saying the federal government had no right to interfere with the state’s jurisdiction to regulate public safety, he said.

Republicans on one side, Democrats on the other.

And you chose yours.


So where are all the lawsuits the Brady's have filed against said dealers? Very obviously such dealers have been broken into, had firearms stolen and subsequently used in crimes.

Is a break and enter evidence of negligence? In some cases, perhaps indeed. Do you have a case to offer in which there was evidence of such negligence?


Kahr was sued as a manufacturer and this given in the complaint which you obviously have not read.

What a demagogue.

The complaint crashed my Adobe Acrobat. I have read the Justice Dept's memorandum.

The company and the George Bush / Republican Justice Dept attempted to bring the suit under the legislation in question by alleging that it shielded Kahr as a manufacturer against claims for harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firarms products.

That was not the cause of action in the case. It was NOT alleged that Kahr was liable for the criminal acts of a subsequent transferee. It was alleged that Kahr was liable for the damage that resulted from its own negligence. Kahr knew it. As I am quite sure you do.

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kera/news.newsmain/article/0/0/1832559/US/Largest.settlement.against.gun.maker.gun.control.group

The complaint charges, "lack of theft prevention measures or employee background checks," and "careless inventory tracking," amounted to "gross negligence/negligent hiring and supervision" and wrongful death.

Where do you see an allegation of liability based on manufacture there?



Oh, and never mind that they had a large, animated banner on the front page for the lawsuit yet only a tiny link in the corner for the Norway tragedy.

Yeah, and especially never mind that the Brady Campaign is a USAmerican organization whose mission involves firearms policy in the US and has nothing to do with events or policy or anything else in Norway or anywhere else. Eh?



html fixed

[Blown330]

88. You make this too easy...

Republicans on one side, Democrats on the other.

And you chose yours.

I support a law I think is good regardless of which side it came from. You see, I have an education that allows me to be objective and see the large picture. You apparently have tunnel vision.


The complaint crashed my Adobe Acrobat. I have read the Justice Dept's memorandum.

What an amateur. Update your computer and read the complaint. In in you'll find charges specify liability of all "corporate defendants" in relation to the entire operation, including the manufacturing.

Yeah, and especially never mind that the Brady Campaign is a USAmerican organization whose mission involves firearms policy in the US and has nothing to do with events or policy or anything else in Norway or anywhere else. Eh?

Is that why they also support, and are supported by, international organizations that share similar gun-control ideals? Your ignorance is astounding.

[iverglas]

91. you really don't have a clue, do you?

What an amateur. Update your computer and read the complaint. In in you'll find charges specify liability of all "corporate defendants" in relation to the entire operation, including the manufacturing.

Actually, I needed to restart my Firefox. I tend to have about 200 tabs open at a time. Also, my ISP was interfering in access all evening. Oh well.

To the matter at hand.

What was the cause of action? Do I need to explain what that means?

Is that why they also support, and are supported by, international organizations that share similar gun-control ideals? Your ignorance is astounding.

Your tapdancing is vaguely amusing. Very vaguely.

[Blown330]

94. Sounds like you have issues.

Actually, I needed to restart my Firefox. I tend to have about 200 tabs open at a time.

Sure sign of ADD which goes far in explaining your rants here and in other threads.

Your tapdancing is vaguely amusing. Very vaguely.

You ignorance is amusing. Come back when you've done your homework on the Brady's and their work with IANSA.

[iverglas]

95. you're so funny

Well, not really, but hey, if you don't laugh you cry.

Sure sign of ADD which goes far in explaining your rants here and in other threads.

Actually, it is a sign of a few things.

One is a demanding, research-intensive occupation. For a day's work, I may have to consult 100 or considerably more websites.

Another is a very pleasant and often rewarding hobby: family history/genealogy. A couple of times a week I manage to reunite individuals with long-lost siblings or parents or cousins. And more often, I find people's mysterious ancestors hiding in the records and databases. You need a good, oh, three or four dozen tabs open at a time for this endeavour, unless you want to open each database search site every time you want it.

And a third is ... procrastination. Open a tab, use it, move on, don't bother closing it ... because you might need it again before the job is done, too, of course. But maybe it's just a census document for a search you're putting off ...

ADD? Ha, not hardly. Absolutely amazing powers of concentration and focus. Wouldn't be the hotshot I am and make the big loonies I do otherwise!

In case you're wondering, the govt of Canada generally goes dormant in July, and this year, after weeks of election campaigning and a sorry three weeks of session, the House is pretty much playing dead, and the rest of the various branches of government I do work for has followed suit. I still have to be available, but I'm on idle. So here I am.


You ignorance is amusing. Come back when you've done your homework on the Brady's and their work with IANSA.

Fer fuck's sake, to whom do you really imagine you're talking to? I get paid to know things like this.

Come back when you have some reasonable explanation of why being involved in international policy activities and organizations makes it imperative that an organization issue a public statement on a tragic event in another country w/in 24 hours?

The NRA (I presume the NRA-ILA) has been quite active in training up their acolytes in Canada. And hell, LaPierre was just addressing the UN recently, wasn't he? Quite the jetsetting outfit. And yet I'm not seeing anything about Breivik or the events on their websites:
http://www.nraila.org/
http://www.nra.org/
Nope, nothing but a bunch of hate-mongering against Democratic policies, President, etc.

Oh my. What is the "outrage of the week"?

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7006

This week’s outrage comes to us from Baltimore, Maryland, where mayoral candidate Otis Rolley is proposing a $1.00 per bullet tax be levied on all ammunition purchases in the city of Baltimore as part of his “crime plan.”

For shame. Oh, well, that was actually last week. Maybe on Friday they'll get around to making the mass murder in Norway the outrage of the week.

:rofl:

Ta. I do enjoy the little tangents you people send me off on.

And you wonder why I'd have 200 tabs open ...

[iverglas]

92. well here we go

http://www.nssf.org/share/legal/litigation/pdf/private/hernandezvkahr/complaint.pdf

This is a wrongful death action arising from the corporate defendants’ negligence in operating a firearm manufacturing business.

... 25. Jurisdiction against the corporate defendants is based on the Massachusetts Long Arm Statute.

... LACK OF THEFT PREVENTION MEASURES OR EMPLOYEE BACKGROUND CHECKS

... CARELESS INVENTORY TRACKING AT KAHR ARMS

... COUNT I – KAHR INC., D/B/A, KAHR ARMS, INC. or KAHR AUTO ORDNANCE
GROSS NEGLIGENCE/ NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION/
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR/WRONGFUL DEATH, G.L. c.229, Section 2

... COUNT II – SAEILO, INC.
GROSS NEGLIGENCE/ NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION/
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR/WRONGFUL DEATH, G.L. c.229, Section 2

... COUNT XIII - KAHR INC., D/B/A, KAHR ARMS, INC. or KAHR AUTO ORDNANCE and SAEILO, INC.
PUBLIC NUISANCE

134. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 133 into this count.

135. Kahr Arms’ utter lack of security and lax practices have caused injury to the public, and specific injury to decedent Daniel Guzman and the plaintiffs by providing the criminal market with difficult-to-trace guns, knowing stolen guns would likely be used in the commission of crimes.

136. Kahr Arms’ behavior constitutes an unreasonable interference with a public right, because the aforementioned conduct involves a significant interference with the public health, the public safety, the public peace, the public comfort, the public convenience, and the safety of the plaintiff and thus by definition amounts to a public nuisance.

COUNT XIV – KAHR INC., D/B/A, KAHR ARMS, INC. or KAHR AUTO ORDNANCE and SAEILO, INC.
PRIVATE NUISANCE

137. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 136 into this count.

138. Kahr Arms has used its land in such a way that it unreasonably interferes with the safety of persons on property in the surrounding area, and causing specific injury to the decedent Daniel Guzman and the plaintiffs by making guns increasingly available to local criminals, and in fact one weapon was eventually found in a yard by an infant child, and such behavior constitutes a private nuisance.

Kahr IS a firearms manufacturer.

Kahr's MANUFACTURE of firearms had nothing to do with the cause of action.

Kahr's alleged liability was based on its HANDLING of its firearms (and its use of its property): lack of theft prevention measures and employee background checks, careless inventory tracking, etc.

There was NO allegation of liability based on its MANUFACTURE of firearms. NONE.

I once successfully obtained the eviction of a gaggle of drug dealers and pimps by threatening to sue the property owner in nuisance if he did not either force them to cease the activities that were interfering in my peaceful enjoyment of my property or put them out. The fact that the property owner was an incorporated auto body shop located in the same building was absolutely irrelevant to its liability for its property rental activities. The fact that Kahr manufactured the firearms that it then HANDLED negligently was equally irrelevant. As the complaint shows: NO claim based on manufacture of the firearms.

I hope this has helped you.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

68. I can't post links to things you've said on the internet??

People here post links to things I've said all the time ...

Is there another Blown330 posting on the net? You might want to investigate, if so, because some of the things that imposter is saying are truly ugly.

[krispos42]

20. Yeah, that's reasonable.

Little Bobby killed himself. I get to sue Ruger for producing the gun he shot himself with, Federal for producing the cartridge that blew out his brains, and Bed Bath and Beyond for the sheets he messed up when he bled on them. Oh, and Behr paint, for the shade of blue on the walls, and StainMaster for the carpet. Maybe I can sue Old Navy, Levi's, BVD, and Nike, too.

[spin]

30. Does that mean we can sue car manufacturers for accidents ...

caused by poor or inebriated drivers?

[Hoyt]

34. Nope, transporation is good for society (less oil consumption would be better). Guns aren't.

Admittedly guns give a small percentage of people the courage to leave home, but we can deal with phobias in other ways.

[X_Digger]

35. When are you going to turn yours in, Hoyt? n/t

[TPaine7]

43. Is it possible to be an anti-gun fanatic and NOT be a hypocrite? n/t

[gejohnston]

37. How about

car companies that make gas guzzlers like Hummers for increased asthma and other heath related problems from increased hydro carbons?

[Hoyt]

47. I think that was in my post. But, good point- we can turn people against guns, just like Hummers.

[gejohnston]

64. the futures speculators and banksters most people against Hummers

especially Hummer owners watching the rent money go up in air pollution, not the same thing. Besides, the typical good ole boy or gal did not own them. So, not exactly. If it were up to me, we would have rural mass transit with stops near the gun ranges, hiking trails etc.

[oneshooter]

40. Tell us, how do you deal with your phobias? n/t

[spin]

42. My daughter would disagree with you ...

she once used a handgun to stop an intruder breaking into our home. He was forcing the sliding glass door of our kitchen open when my daughter pointed a .45 caliber S&W Model 25-2 at him. The view of a 5'2" girl pointing a handgun the same size as Dirty Harry's .44 magnum at him convinced the intruder that he would be wise to run. No shots were fired.

Of course, you probably will probably find it difficult to admit that the fact that she quite possibly saved her life or avoided being raped was a positive outcome.

I also doubt that you would agree that my mother's use of a handgun in the 1920s was worthwhile. While walking home from work after getting off a bus, she was attacked by a man who had been lurking behind some bushes. She was able to draw her .22 caliber S&W Ladysmith revolver. She fired two shots over his head and he also decided to run.

It is a possibility that if my mother would not have had a handgun in her purse that night, I would not be here and neither would my daughter or my two grandsons. It is also quite conceivable that had my daughter not had access to a handgun that night in Tampa, that I would have lost my only child and not had two grandsons to enjoy.

You seem to view firearms and especially those that licensed civilians carry concealed as evil and unnecessary. You also continue to attempt to accuse those who do carry concealed as lacking the courage to leave home without their weapon.

I have never met a person with a carry permit who felt it was necessary for him to carry because he feared being attacked, although I would imagine that some people have good reason to believe that it is quite possible. The people I know who legally carry do so because they prefer to be prepared for the small chance that they might have to defend their life against an attacker who intends to inflict serious injury or kill them.

Many of the people I know who carry are retired police or ex-military. Many have martial arts training. They don't fear an attack but they realize that many criminals use a weapon such as a gun or a knife. Even a skilled martial artist realizes that he will probably get cut (possibly quite seriously) in a confrontation with a man armed with a knife even if he is able to use his skills to disarm the attacker. There are excellent techniques to disarm a person with a handgun at close range. If, however, the person is not extremely close to his victim it becomes far more difficult to take a gun away from him and as the distance increases the chances go down. Real life is not like TV or the movies.

I once got some training in Jujitsu from one of the best instructors in the country. He was the Black Belt Hall of Fame 1980 judo instructor of the year and is a 8th degree black belt in Judo and holds belts in Karate, and Jujitsu.

He once said to my class, "I may be a 8th Degree red and white belt in judo, but an attacker with a .45 auto is a 9th degree."

I doubt if I will ever have to use my concealed weapon for legitimate self defense and I admit that the chances of my being attacked on a given day are almost as low as the chances that I will win the Florida lotto tonight. In order to have a chance win the lotto, I need to have at least one ticket and I do for the drawing tonight. I only buy one ticket for each drawing.

In the very unlikely possibility that I will be attacked, I want to have all options available. That includes my concealed handgun. Perhaps I can handle the attack by using non lethal force which would be preferable to having to draw my revolver. However if I seriously believe that my choices are to use my handgun for self defense or end up in the hospital or six feet under, I will chose to attempt to stop the attack with my handgun.

When I leave the house, I don't stop to consider if I need to carry my revolver. I have no ability to predict with certainty that I will not be involved in a traffic accident, although the chances are very slim. Therefore, when I get in the car, I put on my seat belt. I also lack the ability to predict if or when I might find myself in a situation were a firearm might prove to be a lifesaver. If I ever am, I don't want to realize that I foolishly left it behind in the safe.

[Hoyt]

46. I don't have anything against guns in home, but public is too much. Leave em at home.

Your jujitsu instructor sounds like a paranoid fool (or "tool"). He needs to try counseling.

[spin]

49. Why am I not surprised that you would feel a martial arts instructor ia a paranoid fool?

You often feel other people who legally carry firearms should get counseling and now you have escalated your advise to include a very respected individual who is one of the highest ranked judo experts in this nation. Do you believe that everybody who studies the martial arts should get counseling?

I suspect you post such foolishness for fun and I don't mind replying. However, if you are at all serious, it might be a good idea for you to consider seeking some counseling yourself.

[Hoyt]

58. Martial arts, carrying guns, etc. -- yep, paranoid and insecure. Probably showers with one or two.

[oneshooter]

67. No Hoyt, wasn't it you who said that people should learn

to defend themselves without firearms? Martial Arts is just what you wanted people to use, isn't it? No firearms, knives, or clubs.

Have you got the "cowboy with two hanging out" picture yet. Or did you lie to us?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Hoyt]

89. Martial arts is fine. Martial arts and a gun are two indicate a lunatic.

[spin]

69. Next you will say that people that carry pepper spray are paranoid. (n/t)

[Hoyt]

70. Wrong again -- pepper spray is much more rational than a gun or two. Just doesn't thrill you guys.

[spin]

72. I carry pepper spray ...

and have actually given pepper spray to several people for self defense.

Our discussion reminded me that I have to reorder some. My current container is due to be replaced.

I ordered one canister for me and one for my daughter.



http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000UVTDLG?qid=1311818881&ref_=sr_1_3&sr=8-3

If you don't have any, I suggest you order some.

[Hoyt]

80. Few people have a problem with that -- not even the most ardent "grabber.".

[spin]

87. We finally agree on something...

But we have entirely different views on the subject of carrying a firearm for self defense.

To me, in the unlikely event that I will ever find myself in a situation where I might have to defend myself, I want to have a number of options available.

In my lifetime I have found myself in several situations that were "dicey". I was always able to defuse the situation without resorting to violence. That is in no way a guarantee that I can talk my way out of every hazardous encounter. Still that's my first choice. I am more than willing to walk away from an argument even if it makes me look like a coward.

As I have said, I did get some martial arts training in jujitsu. I am now much older and in far worse physical condition then I was at that time which was twenty years ago.

If I faced an unarmed attack, I might use some of the "tricks" I learned. Jujitsu is often referred to as "street fighting". It's nasty and dirty but effective. Twenty years ago I would have had a better chance of success but the techniques are simple and do not require a lot of strength.

If you were within arms reach and pointing a gun at me, I have confidence that I could disarm you. If you attacked me with a knife, I might be able to disarm you but the chances are high that I would be cut.

Given the opportunity to use pepper spray against an attacker with a knife, I would try it.

If I faced an attacker with a firearm at close range I would be hesitant to employ pepper spray. That could easily result in my being shot. Pepper spray can be effective but it can take a couple of seconds to work and it can really piss your opponent off. Some people are not instantly incapacitated by pepper spray.

If I honestly felt that the less lethal tactics would fail, I would not hesitate to use my concealed snub nosed revolver to attempt to stop the attack. To me that's the last option.

I prefer to have a number of options available.

You constantly accuse people who carry a concealed firearm of being afraid of leaving their homes without their weapon. What you fail to realize is that some people are not afraid as they are prepared to handle whatever they encounter.

That, in no way, means that I go looking for trouble. If you do it will find you.

Strangely enough I have found that the people who are prepared rarely get attacked. It could easily be because they practice situational awareness and do not do stupid things like walking down a dark street with a cell phone glued to their ear.

But I have also heard many people say that they really felt that nothing could ever happen to them and then it did.

I seriously hope that that doesn't end up to describe you. At a minimum buy the pepper spray as I suggested and carry it.

[ileus]

54. How rude of your daughter pulling a pistol on an innocent visitor.

[ileus]

55. This thread alone makes me want to buy a Kahr to show my support.

[spin]

56. Excellent idea! (n/t)

[Hoopla Phil]

66. Not a bad idea.

[Hoyt]

90. You guys are always looking for new justification to buy another gun for another irrational reason.

[iverglas]

57. makes no sense

If someone does not fear something, they feel no need to take measures to prevent it happening.

I put on my seatbelt precisely because I do fear that I will be in a car crash and suffering injury or death. Who would not be afraid of such an eventuality? I could deal with it by not traveling in vehicles, to eliminate the risk of being in a car crash, but I choose to take measures that lessen the risk of harm and probably the harm itself if the risk of a car crash materializes.

I might also be afraid that someone will try to mug me on the street. There are all sorts of things I could do to reduce the likelihood of that happening. Not walking on streets is one; walking only in predictably safe areas is another; taking a large vicious dog along, not looking worth mugging ... . To reduce the risk of harm in the event that the risk of mugging materializes, I could carry a firearm with me at all times.

There's a singular difference between wearing a seatbelt and carrying a firearm. There is no risk of harm to anyone else when I put on my seatbelt.

When you carry a firearm, there is a risk of various kinds of harms to other people. There is a risk that you will mistake the intentions of someone you perceive as a threat and kill them. There is a risk that you will attempt to use your firearm against someone you perceive as a threat and shoot someone else. There is a risk that you will cause the violence in a situation to escalate when your firearm is perceived by someone else, involved or not, as a threat, and you or someone else will suffer harm.

None of these risks arise when I put on my seatbelt, or pack a fire extinguisher in my trunk, or build a fence around my property, or do any of the other totally non-analogous things that fools hereabouts keep trying to pass off as analogous. None of the things that people do to protect themselves against personal injury in vehicles or against fire or against trespass create risks to other people. And if they do -- like laying boobytraps on property to prevent trespassers from reaching one's home -- they are illegal.

Carrying a firearm in public is way more analogous to booby-trapping one's property than it is to wearing a seatbelt. The booby-trap just sits there, harming no one, until it harms someone. And the person it harms could be the neighbour's kid chasing a baseball, just as the person harmed by the firearm you carry could be a bystander or someone whose actions you misinterpreted.

Speaking of kids ...

What if the intruder your daughter scared off had been a teenager engaging in a little B&E for fun and profit, with no plan to commit murder or mayhem upon the occupant of the dwelling. A few adolescent buddies, too much beer, too much testerone, too much bravado ... and an ever so well thought out plan to go get some more beer from that house over there, and maybe the stereo while we're there. The one delegated for the task pries open the patio door, and has a little too much bravado and too little sense to back off when your daughter brandishes her handgun, and keeps coming in and putting up that bravado front. What does she do?

There are many stories in the naked city. I didn't have to look far to find one to show that my scenario is not as fanciful as I'm sure some here would have leapt to say it was. This is the first one google found for me when I searched for teenager shot breaking house (there's a photo of the boy there, lest anyone try saying that some 12-yr-olds are big bad guys):

http://www.news4jax.com/news/23745268/detail.html

Family Says Boy Shot Breaking Into Home
Brunswick Boy's Family Says He Was Shot, Killed By Homeowner
POSTED: Monday, May 31, 2010

BRUNSWICK, Ga. -- The family of a 12-year-old said he was shot and killed breaking into a home.

... Ratliff said she though her son was at the pool. Instead, he and two friends were trying to break into a house.

"They was being kids ... doing things they didn't have no business doing," said Devron's mother, Monique Ratliff.

... A man and woman were in the home at the time, and the man came downstairs with a gun. The other two boys ran, but Devron did not. His parents said he got a bullet in the back.

... The parents said they were speaking out to help convince other young men that bad decisions can have tragic consequences.

Teenagers make bad decisions. It's the nature of the beast. Not many merit the death penalty.

But when there's somebody with a gun there, they may get it anyway. The really bad decision in this case was the decision of an individual to shoot a 12-year-old in the back. In my humble opinion. (Anybody been here long enough to remember the Boca Raton Hallowe'en prank homicide? Just google my name and "boca raton" if not.)


You'll find the Devron Farrell story on stormfront and fellow traveller websites. I've been unable to find an update regarding whether any charges were laid, for example.

[spin]

79. You are making an assumption that people who legally carry are fearful ...

I never lived in fear before I got my concealed weapons permit and I don't now.

I don't fear being in a car crash but I do wear a seat belt as experience has taught me their value. I was a passenger in a Volkswagen Beetle when the driver fell asleep and glanced off the rear end of a car. We ALMOST hit a telephone pole. This incident happened before seat belts were required in cars which dates me.

I took the windshield of the Volkswagen out with my face. My face looked like shit for a week or two but I suffered no serious injury.

I still drive and I have to admit that I am a professional speeder (one that doesn't get caught often). In fact I have only had two tickets for speeding in 49 years of driving. One was during a tropical storm in Tampa when I was driving a Volkswagen diesel and didn't realize that the wind speed had pushed me above the limit. (That vehicle had a LOUD engine and I usually could judge how fast I was going by the noise.) The other time was when I was pulled over by an unmarked police car while I was testing my vehicle after my wife had told me that it was stumbling on acceleration. I noticed the car in my rear view mirror but discounted it as a police vehicle as it was a very old and decrepit Pontiac. When I was pulled over by the female police officer she asked me why I was dropping to 40 mph and then accelerating to 65. I explained the situation and I learned that talking your way out of a ticket when a female officer is involved is difficult.

You commented:

When you carry a firearm, there is a risk of various kinds of harms to other people. There is a risk that you will mistake the intentions of someone you perceive as a threat and kill them. There is a risk that you will attempt to use your firearm against someone you perceive as a threat and shoot someone else. There is a risk that you will cause the violence in a situation to escalate when your firearm is perceived by someone else, involved or not, as a threat, and you or someone else will suffer harm.

None of these risks arise when I put on my seatbelt, or pack a fire extinguisher in my trunk, or build a fence around my property, or do any of the other totally non-analogous things that fools hereabouts keep trying to pass off as analogous. None of the things that people do to protect themselves against personal injury in vehicles or against fire or against trespass create risks to other people. And if they do -- like laying boobytraps on property to prevent trespassers from reaching one's home -- they are illegal.

Carrying a firearm in public is way more analogous to booby-trapping one's property than it is to wearing a seatbelt. The booby-trap just sits there, harming no one, until it harms someone. And the person it harms could be the neighbor's kid chasing a baseball, just as the person harmed by the firearm you carry could be a bystander or someone whose actions you misinterpreted.

I understand that since you live in Canada where legal concealed carry is extremely rare it would be logical to assume that people would often mistake the intentions of others and shoot them. It just makes commonsense. Surprisingly this is an extremely rare occurrence in the United States where as many as 10 million citizens have concealed carry licenses. If it was common, "shall issue" concealed carry would have been revoked in many of the states that currently allow it.

It is true that if I use a handgun in self defense I may miss my target and hit an innocent bystander. Again this is commonsense. Again very few incidents of such mishaps have occurred in the U.S. I don't intend to shoot at long distances nor should I ever have any reason to do so. Most self defense shootings happen in 21 feet or less and the majority occur in arms reach. I personally carry a snub nosed revolver which is often referred to as a belly gun for good reason. I can easily place a tight group in the kill zone of a target at 30 feet with my weapon but in reality that's long distance shooting for a real life or death encounter. If I were a police officer, I might have to make shots at much greater distance, but I am NOT a cop.

You said:

What if the intruder your daughter scared off had been a teenager engaging in a little B&E for fun and profit, with no plan to commit murder or mayhem upon the occupant of the dwelling. A few adolescent buddies, too much beer, too much testerone, too much bravado ... and an ever so well thought out plan to go get some more beer from that house over there, and maybe the stereo while we're there. The one delegated for the task pries open the patio door, and has a little too much bravado and too little sense to back off when your daughter brandishes her handgun, and keeps coming in and putting up that bravado front. What does she do?

In my daughter's situation, there was a burglar alarm sounding, which is why she walked into the kitchen. Initially the intruder didn't realize she had a large caliber revolver as she had it at her side and a counter blocked his view. She remembers distinctly that he said, "I'm going to rape you."

She then drew down on him and he ran.

She described the intruder as a Hispanic male in his twenties. She may have been wrong, who can say. Before you rush to judgment and claim racism, allow me to point out that in our neighborhood there were very few Anglo families. Most people were immigrants from Cuba, Puerto Rico, Columbia, El Salvador or the Dominican Republic. It's not at all surprising that the intruder was Hispanic.

Also be aware that while I do not speak Spanish and had to use one of my neighbor's children as an interpreter when talking to my his parents, I found these people to be good hard working people who loved the opportunity of living in the United States. My daughter also had Hispanic boy friends.

It was fortunate that my daughter did not shoot the intruder. One thing that most responsible gun owners never wish for is to have to use a gun in self defense and to shoot or kill an attacker. It's not something to be proud of and it often leads to serious psychological problems.

I did ask why my daughter did not shoot the intruder.

She replied, "Dad, you told me to never shoot anyone unless they were in the house. He was only halfway in."

I thank God that I told her that. All's well that ends without someone being shot.

[PavePusher]

53. And yet, you still haven't volunteered to ensure the security of others.

Or given a reasonable alternative for them, to replace your hoped-for restrictions.

[iverglas]

93. if the car manufacturer

allowed a drug-addicted employee with a criminal record to steal one of the cars and s/he then traded it for a gram of cocaine to someone who used it to intentionally run down a pedestrian ... I'd say take a shot.

However, since there are no restrictions on vehicle ownership, and the operator could have obtained a vehicle legally, you probably wouldn't be able to make the analogy successfully, eh?

Kahr allowed someone to acquire the firearm when it had a duty to prevent that.

Does a car manufacturer/dealer have a duty to the public or any individual to prevent anyone from acquiring one of its cars?

Not that I'm aware of.

[DissedByBush]

48. Sue car manufacturers for hit-and-runs too!

Yes, that's how absurd your idea is.

But I agree with this suit. It was not about their manufacturing a perfectly legal product that was misused.

It was about their employee putting the company's gun into the hands of a criminal.

It was the company being responsible for the illegal action of its employee.

[SteveM]

17. Employee acting in official capacity, no surprise. But GOP/Brady...

outfit likes to think they can do this to any gun maker merely because the company made it. They can't.

You know, 6pak? This is the first time we can use this truthfully:

GOP Fail

Yup.

[ileus]

18. Once again a gun receives the blame for a shooting....

Kahr a gun and two people suffered the ill effects of drug use and criminal activity.

[iverglas]

59. has the gun declared bankruptcy to avoid paying the settlement?

Oh look. The gun wasn't sued. The gun isn't paying anything in settlement.

But poor gun. Somebody is blaming it for something.

Who is that, again?

And if they blamed it, why didn't they sue it????

[Hangingon]

21. Too bad Kahr settled.

I'd like to see this litigated and appealed. The gun was a "lunch box gun", one assembled from stolen parts. The thief was charged and plead. He had sold the gun to a drug dealer who then sold it to the alleged killer, still a fugitive. A Massachusetts case.

[Hoyt]

26. Sounds like lawyers said settle. Hell, NRA probably pleaded with them to do same.

Such publicity might not be good for the "virtuous" gun manufacturers and their marketing tricks.

[Blown330]

28. Not familiar with how the courts work....

...are you? Cheaper to settle for a relative pittance than pay more to defend the case. They weren't concerned about being successful, they already had Federal laws on their side, it just would have cost them more. It's hilarious to see the Brady twits patting themselves on the back acting like they've set some legal precedence. Apparently they are as clueless to how settlements work as you are.

[Hoyt]

32. Ha, if it were that sure a case -- the NRA and others would have joined in on the defense.

Until some manufacturers close their doors and stop feeding folks their guns, there will be no victory.

[Blown330]

38. Too bad for you...

...more manufacturers are opening their doors, expanding, or introducing new products. You are right, there will be no victory for your ilk...ever.

[gejohnston]

29. let me rephrase that for you

Sounds like lawyers said settle. Hell, their insurance company probably pleaded with them to do same. A civil trial in MA could be bad if they manage to find 12 Brady/VPC members to make up the jury.

[oneshooter]

41. Or even a couple of hoyts.

[iverglas]

60. exactly

Not just publicity -- precedent.

An adverse judgment would have boded very badly for some.

[gejohnston]

81. Given that

the employee was violating federal law by holding one, Kahr apparently either did a half assed background check or not at all. Their security seems questionable (never been to the plant, so I am guessing). Add that with a "preponderance of the evidence" as a burden of proof (US civil cases), Kahr most likely would have lost even in Arizona. I don't think it would set any precedent. An adverse judgement would have been bad for the Moonies but would be a boon for the security industry.

[iverglas]

65. you sure don't have to look hard or far

for the underlying misogyny of the gun industry and its acolytes.

http://www.kahr.com/




Yup, women are objects for the use of corporations in peddling their wares to men (what, somebody thought this ad was directed at women?), and explicitly promoting misogynist stereotypes of women is just ... coincidental.

I gather that "booth bimbos" are common at gun shows ...


Oh, good fucking dog.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahr_Arms

Kahr Arms is an American small arms manufacturer founded by Kook Jin "Justin" Moon (son of Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon), who currently serves as CEO and President. It is owned by the Saeilo Corporation (pronounced say-low), a subsidiary of Tongil Group, a South Korean business group (chaebol) associated with the Unification Church. (“Tongil” is Korean for “unification,” the name of the Unification Church in Korean is “Tongilgyo.”) Tongil's other business lines include: Ginseng and related products, building materials, machine parts including munitions for the South Korean military, pharmaceuticals, tourism, and publishing.

Ah, the bedfellows, the bedfellows.

You just can't shake 'em, can you?

:rofl:

[gejohnston]

74. Thanks for mentioning that

Kahr Arms is an American small arms manufacturer founded by Kook Jin "Justin" Moon (son of Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon), who currently serves as CEO and President. It is owned by the Saeilo Corporation (pronounced say-low), a subsidiary of Tongil Group, a South Korean business group (chaebol) associated with the Unification Church. (“Tongil” is Korean for “unification,” the name of the Unification Church in Korean is “Tongilgyo.”) Tongil's other business lines include: Ginseng and related products, building materials, machine parts including munitions for the South Korean military, pharmaceuticals, tourism, and publishing.

The sins of the father should not fall to the offspring (unless they commit the same sins)
Kahr is the only gun company I have ever seen using such ads. I like the traditional "outdoorsy" ones better. That said, I was pondering between a Kahr and another Walther. You pointing out ad helped me decide to go with the Walther.



:thumbsup:

[iverglas]

76. er, glad to be of assistance ;)

but do note that the sone is merely the CEO and President ... the company is owned by the business group associated with the father's "church". ;)

[gejohnston]

77. All the more reason to go with the Walter

Now is it the P380P or classic PPK?

[iverglas]

82. hmm

Now is it the P380P or classic PPK?

Is there a "diet"?

[-..__...]

78. And what exactley does your opinion of Khar Arms advertising....

have to do with the settlement or the situation that led up to it?


Kahr Arms is an American small arms manufacturer founded by Kook Jin "Justin" Moon (son of Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon), who currently serves as CEO and President. It is owned by the Saeilo Corporation (pronounced say-low), a subsidiary of Tongil Group, a South Korean business group (chaebol) associated with the Unification Church. (“Tongil” is Korean for “unification,” the name of the Unification Church in Korean is “Tongilgyo.”) Tongil's other business lines include: Ginseng and related products, building materials, machine parts including munitions for the South Korean military, pharmaceuticals, tourism, and publishing.

Ah, the bedfellows, the bedfellows.

You just can't shake 'em, can you?

Yeah... so the Moonies own Khar Arms... what does that have to with the settlement or the situation that led up to it?

[iverglas]

83. aw

Was I not sympathetic enough to the poor widdle gun company?

Sniff.

[-..__...]

84. LOL... send your sympathies to Kahr....

if it makes you feel any better, I'm sure they'll be attentive and concerned about your hurt "widdle" feelings regarding their T&A advertising.

Bottom line is that they're still in business.

I guess they're not feeling so "widdle" after all.

[iverglas]

85. yes indeed

The Moonies are still raking in the profits from the fools who buy their products, without a care in the world for how those profits are used.

Glad this makes you happy!

[-..__...]

86. Moonies... Schmoonies.

What's the problem with their advertising that hasn't been repeated elsewhere for generations that would prompt you to point it out?

BTW... I couldn't help but notice you HotLinked to the offending ad rather than hosting it on a personal account.

Why did you do that?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's against DU rules too (HotLinking).

I'm only mentioning it because I know how anal and stickler for the rules you are.

[friendly_iconoclast]

96. Because we are supposed to assume the worst concerning gun manufacturers.

But not armed robbers, apparently:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x440356