Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should We End Gun Industry Immunity?
Yes 61 30.81%
No 132 66.67%
Maybe 0 0%
Other 5 2.53%
Voters: 198. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-25-2018, 10:34 AM
 
9,254 posts, read 3,582,768 times
Reputation: 4852

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK76 View Post
The point I am making is that prior to the law, the gun industry was repeatedly dragged through the court system unjustifiably and would still be today without it. Also, it does not make them entirely immune, they still can be sued for a defective product, for example, just like any other manufacturer.

Additionally, the product is not at fault, it is the actions of a person at fault as demonstrated by the unintended use of said product. Auto manufacturers do not produce automobile with the intended use of drunk driving and vehicular homicide. Sporting goods manufacturers do not produce baseball bats for the intended use of bashing skulls in, etc.

The gun industry is attacked and demonized out of ignorance and fear mongering, and for political gain.
So, a manufacturer absolutely cannot be held liable if they manufacture a product for an intended use and it is used in some other manner? This is some cutting edge legal precedent that flies in the face of over a century of jurisprudence. Manufacturers rejoice!

Moreover, gun manufacturers get a free pass even if they intend for their weapons to be used to kill children and design and market their weapons to further their intent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-25-2018, 10:35 AM
 
Location: Del Rio, TN
39,861 posts, read 26,482,831 times
Reputation: 25753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado^ View Post
Because of loony libs like yourself.
Ultimately-exactly that.

We don't have laws protecting the auto industry over drunk drivers killing someone by operating their product.

We don't have laws protecting manufacturers of baseball bats from lawsuits over someone beating a victim to death with their product.

We don't have laws protecting knife manufacturers-even though 4x as many people are murdered with knives as rifles every year.

We don't because we don't have stupid people blaming the manufacturer of those legal products when a criminal uses them in a crime, because in those cases we blame the criminal for his actions. We don't uses these deaths for a mindless political agenda to destroy those we disagree with.

When it comes to firearms-the left, particularly those in our media, lack the cognitive ability to reason that out. They use the deaths of children as a tool to attempt to violate the civil rights of American citizens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2018, 10:39 AM
 
Location: Morrison, CO
34,229 posts, read 18,561,496 times
Reputation: 25798
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
So, a manufacturer absolutely cannot be held liable if they manufacture a product for an intended use and it is used in some other manner? This is some cutting edge legal precedent that flies in the face of over a century of jurisprudence. Manufacturers rejoice!

Moreover, gun manufacturers get a free pass even if they intend for their weapons to be used to kill children and design and market their weapons to further their intent.
So instead of trying to amend the Constitution, and repeal or modify the 2A, you want to get rid of guns by bankrupting the companies that make them for what they are designed, and intended to do?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2018, 10:45 AM
 
Location: North Eastern, WA
2,136 posts, read 2,311,014 times
Reputation: 1738
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
So, a manufacturer absolutely cannot be held liable if they manufacture a product for an intended use and it is used in some other manner? This is some cutting edge legal precedent that flies in the face of over a century of jurisprudence. Manufacturers rejoice!

Moreover, gun manufacturers get a free pass even if they intend for their weapons to be used to kill children and design and market their weapons to further their intent.
Your words not mine, not to mention delusional BS, are you really that stupid? I see also that you have "Limey" in your handle, is that a declaration of British citizenry?

If a kid playing with matches unintentionally or ignorantly starts a forest fire, or burns down a building, regardless of the printed warning provided on the packaging of said matches, are you going to sue the manufacturer of the matches?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2018, 10:48 AM
 
Location: On the Chesapeake
45,334 posts, read 60,500,026 times
Reputation: 60918
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
It was a hypothetical to color the argument and prove a point.

What point did you prove?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2018, 10:51 AM
 
9,254 posts, read 3,582,768 times
Reputation: 4852
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK76 View Post
Your words not mine, not to mention delusional BS, are you really that stupid? I see also that you have "Limey" in your handle, is that a declaration of British citizenry?

If a kid playing with matches unintentionally or ignorantly starts a forest fire, or burns down a building, regardless of the printed warning provided on the packaging of said matches, are you going to sue the manufacturer of the matches?
If they have no potential for civil liability, then gun manufacturers should have nothing to worry about, just like every other manufacturer
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2018, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
37,102 posts, read 41,226,282 times
Reputation: 45088
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
If they have no potential for civil liability, then gun manufacturers should have nothing to worry about, just like every other manufacturer
Lack of liability will not prevent lawsuits. Defending against frivolous suits is expensive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2018, 10:56 AM
 
Location: North Eastern, WA
2,136 posts, read 2,311,014 times
Reputation: 1738
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
If they have no potential for civil liability, then gun manufacturers should have nothing to worry about, just like every other manufacturer
You failed to answer all of my questions.

Also, if you read the law, and paid attention to what I posted, they can still be held liable and sued successfully if warranted, under certain circumstances. The gun industry is not completely immune.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2018, 11:01 AM
 
9,254 posts, read 3,582,768 times
Reputation: 4852
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK76 View Post
You failed to answer all of my questions.

Also, if you read the law, and paid attention to what I posted, they can still be held liable and sued successfully if warranted, under certain circumstances. The gun industry is not completely immune.
The law absolves gun manufacturers from liability except from manufacturing and design defects, unlike every other industry.

There are two possibilities: (1) gun manufacturers have no liability a matter of law, so they have nothing to worry about in Court and this statute is superfluous; or (2) gun manufacturers might have some liability and the statute shields them from liability, unlike every other industry. Which is it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2018, 11:20 AM
 
Location: On the Chesapeake
45,334 posts, read 60,500,026 times
Reputation: 60918
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
The law absolves gun manufacturers from liability except from manufacturing and design defects, unlike every other industry.

There are two possibilities: (1) gun manufacturers have no liability a matter of law, so they have nothing to worry about in Court and this statute is superfluous; or (2) gun manufacturers might have some liability and the statute shields them from liability, unlike every other industry. Which is it?
So what you're basically advocating are SLAPP type suits against gun makers in order to force them out of business. Which is the only reason you're advocating them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:27 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top