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.
The only ones who would be all up in arms over this will be the people who hate guns anyway, and so these retailers aren't like to lose all that much business over it.
Besides, in a way, the retailers will be eating the cost, because they have vowed to donate every red cent collected to gun rights groups like the NRA.....
Of course Lucky Gunner talks about it in the article above in the context that the Brady Campaign will be paying the settlement, not these parents. Something is definitely amiss. With the dirty tricks played by anti-gun activists, I wouldn't be surprised if the Brady Campaign put them up to going to the media with a sob story of how they're going bankrupt because of the mean old gun companies and how they are being forced to give up all their "wordly goods" all the while the Brady Center will be the ones actually paying the settlement.
The only ones who would be all up in arms over this will be the people who hate guns anyway, and so these retailers aren't like to lose all that much business over it.
Besides, in a way, the retailers will be eating the cost, because they have vowed to donate every red cent collected to gun rights groups like the NRA.....
You're right, when it comes to gun manufacturers there really is no such thing as bad publicity. Normally when a product does some damage it is very bad publicity like defective air bags, but not when it comes to guns and ammo.
You're right, when it comes to gun manufacturers there really is no such thing as bad publicity. Normally when a product does some damage it is very bad publicity like defective air bags, but not when it comes to guns and ammo.
Of course there is bad publicity for gun manufacturers.
You're right, when it comes to gun manufacturers there really is no such thing as bad publicity. Normally when a product does some damage it is very bad publicity like defective air bags, but not when it comes to guns and ammo.
Key word = "defective"
When a gun manufacturer makes a defective product, like for instance, a gun that blows up in the shooters hand, then that would be a valid comparison ( and btw, manufacturers CAN be held liable for that ) and would get bad publicity.
However, if some drunk took a Ford and ran it in to a group of people standing on a sidewalk, should Ford get bad publicity for that? Should Ford be held liable in court for that?
I saw them on the news last night and this is sad no matter which side of the issue you fall. Colorado and Federal laws shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits and the odds were miniscule that they would succeed but this is how they addressed their grief.
These companies can sell several thousand rounds of ammunition to anyone online with no consequences, meanwhile there are plenty of other manufacturers that are sued and lack the same protection. Cigarettes cannot be sold online but ammo is alright, but with 30,000 people killed by guns per year it would pretty much tie up the courts.
Seems like the prudent solution would be background checks and some due diligence for buyers.
The U.K. presently has a reputation for more violence among so-called 'developed' countries.
The prudent solution would be to address why so many of those people are on prescriptions with black box warnings like this:
"Warning: Suicidality and Antidepressants
See full prescribing information for complete boxed warning. Increased risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in children, adolescents, and young adults taking antidepressants for major depressive disorder and other psychiatric disorders."
First off, I feel very sorry for these people and the grief they must be experiencing right now. That said, they are 100% in the wrong on this issue.
These people set out to make a political point and they lost. You can't sue companies for not following a law that doesn't exist.
If we can sue gun manufacturers for the actions of third party criminals, then why shouldn't we be allowed to sue Ford when a drunk uses their product to kill someone? Or a cutlery company when someone uses their product negligently or criminally?
I personally think these grieving parents should sue the Brady Campaign because they are the ones who filed the lawsuit knowing full well they would lose based on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005. The strategy seems to be to accomplish through litigation what they can't through legislation. If they can't pass tougher gun laws legislatively, they'll bury manufacturers in lawsuits and bankrupt them, or make the prospect of doing legitimate business too risky.
I also think these same standards should be applied to all forms of lawsuits; you bring a frivolous lawsuit and lose, you pay the price.
I seriously doubt I could have said it better, myself.
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.
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.
I seriously doubt I could have said it better, myself.
