Sutherland Springs church shooting is Academy's fault?

[MacFromOK]

When they put addictive substances into the blend, they become culpable to a conspiracy to make people addicted to nicotine.
That is the basis for the lawsuit against them.

I'm pretty sure cancer was the basis of the lawsuits, not addiction.

My point is this... it's common knowledge that folks in dwelling and other fires often die of smoke inhalation rather than burns. So why would you intentionally inhale smoke, and then not expect negative results?

Maybe it's just me...

 

[TerryMiller]

It seems like back when this shooting happened, soon after, I heard the guy had slipped through the cracks somehow and shouldn't have passed a background check. Seems like maybe he was discharged from the military and was a woman beater? I could have it all wrong but there was something up.

It might have been in one of those links the OP posted, but you are right. I think he was in the Air Force and had abused his wife/girl friend/whatever and the AF failed to report him. Same with the guy that shot up the workplace in Illinois a while back. He had a felony conviction in Mississippi and they failed to report him as well.

Even here in Oklahoma, there is a way that a person can be arrested, charged, convicted and it not be reported. It is partly because the state cannot apply a crime to that individual's record (or create a record) if that individual's fingerprints are unreadable. Also, courts may not report the disposition of a court case either.

 

[BobbyV]

It might have been in one of those links the OP posted, but you are right. I think he was in the Air Force and had abused his wife/girl friend/whatever and the AF failed to report him. Same with the guy that shot up the workplace in Illinois a while back. He had a felony conviction in Mississippi and they failed to report him as well.

Even here in Oklahoma, there is a way that a person can be arrested, charged, convicted and it not be reported. It is partly because the state cannot apply a crime to that individual's record (or create a record) if that individual's fingerprints are unreadable. Also, courts may not report the disposition of a court case either.

Wait. So you mean trying to require "universal background checks" won't suddenly make the data sharing better and more reliable?

I'm shocked. [emoji2957]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cowcatcher]

Wait. So you mean trying to require "universal background checks" won't suddenly make the data sharing better and more reliable?

I'm shocked. [emoji2957]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hmmmm. It seems the system has flaws so instead of fixing flaws, we should have more background checks going thru the flawed system! Makes sense I guess.

 

[Snattlerake]

It all started with suing tobacco companies for one's own stupidity.

Seriously? Inhaling smoke that makes ya hack, gag, and cough might be bad for ya?

Who knew...

No, it was that damn stupid woman that sued McDonalds because her coffee was hot. That's what started all this chit.

 

[OKNewshawk]

No, it was that damn stupid woman that sued McDonalds because her coffee was hot. That's what started all this chit.

No, it goes back even before that. Lawyers have always used the philosophy of "deepest pockets" in determining who to sue in liability cases. I remember, back in the 1980s, reading about a lawsuit where the family members of a man killed in a motorcycle accident sued Bell Helmets--even though the deceased was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident!

 

[ignerntbend]

I'm pretty sure cancer was the basis of the lawsuits, not addiction.

My point is this... it's common knowledge that folks in dwelling and other fires often die of smoke inhalation rather than burns. So why would you intentionally inhale smoke, and then not expect negative results?

Maybe it's just me...

Addiction had a lot to do with the law suits. You see, the cigarette companies saw no evidence that cigarettes were addictive. Really, they didn't even have a clue. The fact that they were increasing what some people thought were addictive qualities of cigarettes, if you want to call it that, was just a coincidence. They famously testified as much.

Why would anyone smoke? Doctors recommended it. Seven out of eight doctors smoked their own damned insides because it was good for you. It made you virile, fashionable, and smart. It gave you something to do with your hands. It was an appetite suppressant for the fat girls. It gave you all the keys to social success, and it had vitamins in it.
Why would anyone smoke? The real question is: Why wouldn't they?

 

[MacFromOK]

Lol, I stand corrected... even though I'm sitting.

 

[TerryMiller]

Lol, I stand corrected... even though I'm sitting.

Be very careful, Mac. (You're conversing with Iggy.)

 

[ignerntbend]

Speak not of the devil lest he appear.