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.
If guns are so bad why have they not been sued like the tobacco industry or subject to class action law suits?
<>
It is foreseeable that the same suits could be brought against any manufacturer whose products are used to kill. Knives and baseball bats would face the same challenge.
The premise that any company should have blanket immunity (even with an exception for manufacturing defects) is abhorrent on its face. What people are advocating is an absence of recourse to aggrieved persons who can otherwise prove liability under the law.
That's why all of these hypotheticals on this thread where people throw out a scenario and conclude "the manufacturer should not be liable under these circumstances" in order to support immunity are off base and irrelevant to the discussion. If, under existing statutory and common law, the manufacturer has noliability, then manufacturer immunity is completely superfluous. If, under the existing statutory and common law, the the manufacturer has liability, then manufacturer immunity denies recourse and compensation to people who are otherwise deserving of it.
Put differently, if an incident happens, gun manufacturers (like everyone else) should have the opportunity to point to reasons based on the fact-pattern as to why they have no liability rather than have politicians inoculate them even before the fact pattern arises.
I'm sorry, that's crazy talk.
First, you're right, immunity is abhorrent on its face. You have to look deeper to see why this is a special case industry, something you refuse to do. The reason why has been answered on this thread more than once.
The second bolded part is just another way of saying that gun manufacturers should have to defend themselves in court every time a frivolous lawsuit is filed. You know as well as I the cost of that would put them out of business, which is your goal.
If guns are so bad why have they not been sued like the tobacco industry or subject to class action law suits?... I believe if this law and other gun immunity laws were repealed the amount of gun violence and school shooting would drop and drop dramatically.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.
annnnnnd when CRIMINALS turn to AK-47's (made overseas) easily available to get into USA (there's STILL no wall),
and ALL law-abiding citizens here are TOTALLY DEFENSELESS to be mowed down,
WHO are you gonna sue???? Who's pocketbook you gonna hit??
Yeah, thats what I thought.
Taking firearms away from LAW ABIDING citizens is, well, STUPID!
(OP, btw, doesn't look like your 'poll' is working out for you very well, even on this liberal-overrun site)
So where's the logic in producing millions of militaristic styled semi-automatic firearms that can be easily converted into automatic rapid fire weapons of war?
Weapons of war that can be easily accessorized with high capacity magazines and silencers.
Why would the NRA NOT advocate for a ban upon all high capacity magazines and silencers?
The answer is simply the fact that the NRA serves as the Paper Puppet Pimp of the gun industry. It pays the prostituting GOP congress to pave the road of profit for the gun industry.
Whenever mass-murders occur, victim's families and friiends cannot directly sue gun companies because they are now protected. However, they can speak disparagingly of the NRA, which I'm certain was set up as design.
The NRA serves as the official defector of all gun complaints, as it continues to both protect and strengthen the gun industry.
So yeah, if you listen and carefully observe, the logic is clearly apparent....
1. they are not militaristic weapons..
2. it is NOT easy to convert them to full auto, you do need some smithing skills
3. it is ILLEGAL to convert them to full auto
4. no such thing as a silencer except in the movies...it is a muffler that reduces SOME of the sound
5. most STANDARD set of magazines are more than 5 or 10 DEPENDING ON ROUND SIZE.....
....example in handguns a 45 mag may only carry 7-8...why the size of the round,,,while a 22 mag may easily FIT 20-30+...... a STANDARD 9mm mag is 15-16..stock...
more people are killed by knives each year than by ANY and all rifles
First, you're right, immunity is abhorrent on its face. You have to look deeper to see why this is a special case industry, something you refuse to do. The reason why has been answered on this thread more than once.
The second bolded part is just another way of saying that gun manufacturers should have to defend themselves in court every time a frivolous lawsuit is filed. You know as well as I the cost of that would put them out of business, which is your goal.
I'm sorry, I must have missed why this particular industry needs a special accommodation and shouldn't have to defend itself in Court (yes, even against frivolous lawsuits) just like every single other industry.
Moreover, the system already has plenty of checks and balances to curtail frivolous litigation. As I mentioned before, the premise that a torrent of individual victims paying tens of thousands of dollars out-of-pocket or contingency-based attorneys advancing expert witness fees and dedicating hours of their time will emerge and bankrupt the multi-billion dollar firearms manufacturing industry with meritless lawsuits without a viable theory of liability is simply absurd.
I'm sorry, I must have missed why this particular industry needs a special accommodation and shouldn't have to defend itself in Court (yes, even against frivolous lawsuits) just like every single other industry.
Moreover, the system already has plenty of checks and balances to curtail frivolous litigation. As I mentioned before, the premise that a torrent of individual victims paying tens of thousands of dollars out-of-pocket or contingency-based attorneys advancing expert witness fees and dedicating hours of their time will emerge and bankrupt the multi-billion dollar firearms manufacturing industry with meritless lawsuits without a viable theory of liability is simply absurd.
I do not agree with your opinion on that premise. Neither does congress, the gun industry, and 80+ percent of the voters of this poll.
Maybe you should reevaluate your statement. I have found that when it appears that I am right but the rest of the world is wrong, it is usually me that is wrong.
I do not agree with your opinion on that premise. Neither does congress, the gun industry, and 80+ percent of the voters of this poll.
Maybe you should reevaluate your statement. I have found that when it appears that I am right but the rest of the world is wrong, it is usually me that is wrong.
Can you explain why you think victims would pay tens of thousands of dollars out-of-pocket or contingency-based attorneys would advance expert witness fees and dedicating hours of their time to perpetuate a deluge of meritless lawsuits without a viable theory of liability?
The idea of it is laughable.
Its no surprise, however, that the gun industry or the legislators funded by the gun industry "disagree" with me. Nor that 80% of the people on this thread arguing that repealing this protection is akin to imputing liability do so.
Can you explain why you think victims would pay tens of thousands of dollars out-of-pocket or contingency-based attorneys would advance expert witness fees and dedicating hours of their time to perpetuate a deluge of meritless lawsuits without a viable theory of liability?
The idea of it is laughable.
Its no surprise, however, that the gun industry or the legislators funded by the gun industry "disagree" with me. Nor that 80% of the people on this thread arguing that repealing this protection is akin to imputing liability do so.
There are over 9,000,000 millionaires in this country. It contains a lot more wealth than you give it credit for. Many of them would be of the mindset that if they or any of their relatives were to be harmed by a firearm they would throw a WHOLE LOT more than tens of thousands at the lawsuit, with many eager lawyers ready to take on the gun industry.
It would cost them billions, and needlessly clog up the court system.
The fact you don't know that would be laughable, but I believe you are not from this country anyway, so I'm not surprised you don't know how things work.
There are over 9,000,000 millionaires in this country. It contains a lot more wealth than you give it credit for. Many of them would be of the mindset that if they or any of their relatives were to be harmed by a firearm they would throw a WHOLE LOT more than tens of thousands at the lawsuit, with many eager lawyers ready to take on the gun industry.
It would cost them billions, and needlessly clog up the court system.
The fact you don't know that would be laughable, but I believe you are not from this country anyway, so I'm not surprised you don't know how things work.
Not only am I from this country, but I have decades of firsthand experience with respect to the State and Federal Court system (civil only) and know exactly what I'm talking about as far as the checks and balances on frivolous claims, the overwhelming majority of which are dismissed at the pre-answer stage to the extent that they are even brought.
So tell me again how things work in the legal system and the basis for your knowledge rather than just conclusory assumptions about millionaires.
Not only am I from this country, but I have decades of firsthand experience with respect to the State and Federal Court system (civil only) and know exactly what I'm talking about as far as the checks and balances on frivolous claims, the overwhelming majority of which are dismissed at the pre-answer stage.
So tell me again how things work in the legal system and the basis for your knowledge rather than just conclusory assumptions about millionaires.
If you don't believe there are over 9,000,000 millionaires in this country, look it up.
If you don't believe they would act like everyone else when they or a loved one is harmed or killed by a firearm by striking out against the gun industry, think again. They are operating on pure emotion at that point.
They would not care if the suit is frivolous or not. Their goal would be to harm the gun manufacturer in any way possible, even if it involves them in a costly suit they would have little chance of winning.
Again, I will state, IT WOULD COST THE GUN INDUSTRY BILLIONS PER YEAR, so I am against it. I hope I wasn't unclear.
And just so you know a little more about me, I am a 61 yo who has never fired a gun in his life.
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.
