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.
When is that last time an automobile manufacturer was sued because a person got drunk and/or stoned, then chose to drive their vehicle and kill a family returning home from soccer practice in their minivan?
When was the last time someone sued a baseball bat manufacturer because some psychopath picked up baseball bat and murdered 3 kids they were baby sitting?
When was the last time a cutlery manufacturer was sued because a man knife his wife to death, or a woman severed a mans penis with shears in a fit of rage, or insanity?
When was the last time a cell phone manufacturer was sued because someone lacked the coordination to talk on the phone while driving and kill someone, or step out into traffic because they could not take their eyes off of the screen?
Or social media because their daughter was bullied and committed suicide?
One can go on and on with valid examples.
The gun industry is constantly and unjustly demonized for the irrational, insane and criminal behavior of individuals who commit or threaten violence, or for political gain.
How many of the 20,000+ gun laws currently enacted, prevented the sicko in FL from murdering 17 innocents recently?
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. A person is free to sue an automobile manufacturer was sued because a person got drunk and/or stoned, then chose to drive their vehicle and kill a family returning home from soccer practice in their minivan. The automobile manufacturer, in turn, can defend the lawsuit and, based on the law, one party will prevail.
On the other hand, a person is not free to sue a gun manufacturer and prevail, even if the law would normally impute liability to the gun manufacturer, because they have a special statutory protection.
If a car manufacturer advertised their car as being "the best" for drunk driving, you bet your ass they are going to be sued the first time drunk driving accident occurs. On the other hand, if a gun manufacturer purposefully marketed their guns to emotionally disturbed people, embarked on a campaign to inform emotionally disturbed people on how to lie on gun applications in order to get guns, and promoted their guns to emotionally disturbed people as a means to exact revenge on other people, there is no liability if an emotionally disturbed person then uses the firearm in the exact manner promoted by the manufacturer.
Obviously that is an extreme example, but the point is there.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. A person is free to sue an automobile manufacturer was sued because a person got drunk and/or stoned, then chose to drive their vehicle and kill a family returning home from soccer practice in their minivan. The automobile manufacturer, in turn, can defend the lawsuit and, based on the law, one party will prevail.
On the other hand, a person is not free to sue a gun manufacturer and prevail, even if the law would normally impute liability to the gun manufacturer, because they have a special statutory protection.
If a car manufacturer advertised their car as being "the best" for drunk driving, you bet your ass they are going to be sued the first time drunk driving accident occurs. On the other hand, if a gun manufacturer purposefully marketed their guns to emotionally disturbed people, embarked on a campaign to inform emotionally disturbed people on how to lie on gun applications in order to get guns, and promoted their guns to emotionally disturbed people as a means to exact revenge on other people, there is no liability if an emotionally disturbed person then uses the firearm in the exact manner promoted by the manufacturer.
Obviously that is an extreme example, but the point is there.
If guns are so bad why have they not been sued like the tobacco industry or subject to class action law suits?
Well, those type of actions were being used until Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005. The law shields the gun industry from class action and other legal actions to hold them accountable. There are six exceptions to the law, but they are narrowly defined to product defects.
I believe if this law and other gun immunity laws were repealed the amount of gun violence and school shooting would drop and drop dramatically. Hit anyone in the pocketbook and there will be meaningful corrective action.
If a firearm malfunctions, and is well within the warranty period and is still as designed and sold, the manufacturer should be held liable for repairs and any damages caused.
Setting precedence for auto manufacturers to be sued for every car wreck, is not the grandest idea anyone has ever come up with.
It reeks of authoritarian communism. Guilt by association.
The problem with your argument is that you're so blinded by your gun banning zeal you aren't able to step back and go from step 1 of your argument in the second paragraph to step 2. Which is, because of people like you, this particular industry needs protection from frivolous lawsuits filed by people like you.
So we are back to the narrative that the gun industry is going to get sued out of existence by attorneys who work on a contingency and/or victims paying tens of thousands of dollars out-of-pocket to bring completely meritless lawsuits knowing full well they are flushing money down the toilet because they are blinded by their dislike of firearms? As I said before, that premise is pathetically laughable.
Problem is there is not a constitutional amendment protecting sugary foods and drinks.
I used to be anti gun, even on this forum it was that recent. It was years ago but my eyes got opened during the Obama Presidency how intelligent and wise the Founding Fathers were. And I actually had some good discussions with friends who owned guns and came from families where gun ownership was a generational tradition. It convinced me that they are not the problem and the last thing we want to do is change things for them. They are protected by the constitution as they should be.
I come from what could be considered an anti gun family. My Dad would never allow them in the house. He was a Marine in WWII and I think he just had enough of guns when he was young. Grandpa had guns so this is something my Dad decided. So out of 9 kids not one of us has a gun in our houses to this day.
There are some restrictions I agree with quietly...especially in cities I can see some common sense gun restrictions. Like apartment buildings. It's not really practical in my opinion to use a gun to protect yourself when all you have is sheetrock walls between you and someone else's sleeping children. Things like that.
Maybe apartment building owners already have the right to ban guns on their properties? I guess I just don't know.
You're whistling past the graveyard, Finger. Having the right to possess something is not the same are being free from paying a tax on it. Sales taxes are imposed on gun and ammunition sales right now. What other constitutional right is taxed? Ans: most of them.
I barely remember a case about a rifle that fired inadvertently and killed a few people and it was known by the manufacturer at the time, and yet they ignored it. You would think that there was a legal case her for personal injury/death that they caused because of this, and yet the plaintiffs failed in their lawsuit because of this law (if memory serves, its been many years).
Remember, the NRA owns the GOP wholesale. Whatever they tell them to do, legal or otherwise, they do.
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, until the industry is bankrupted, which was the strategy. 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.
You're whistling past the graveyard, Finger. Having the right to possess something is not the same are being free from paying a tax on it. Sales taxes are imposed on gun and ammunition sales right now. What other constitutional right is taxed? Ans: most of them.
You can't get around the 2A with high taxes, and fees on guns to make them inaccessible to the average, law abiding citizen. You'll have to amend the Constitution, which isn't going to happen.
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.
