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 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.
That is a wrong analysis. Car makers have been sued because their cars are unsafe or defective; beer sellers can be sued for negligence under dram shop laws and even knife makes can be sued for making a faulty product.
Not even close, you have proven what I'm saying is correct. The car is "unsafe" I 100% agree with you, I'll look up the "Dram law" never heard of it.....and again you say the knife is "faulty." Nothing you've provided has anything to do with someone knowingly picking up a gun and killing someone.
I believe Remington was sued for a FAULTY gun action, and many people won.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeBeard
What separates these industries from the gun industry?
Do you understand the difference in something being faulty (as you stated above) and someone killing someone because they want to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeBeard
They don't have blanket immunity.
No company has "blanket immunity" for what you are stating above. You are trying to say that because someone picks up a gun and kills someone, that's the same as a faulty automobile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeBeard
There is plenty the gun industry can do to make their guns safer. Believe me, once you make gun manufacturers, dealers, sellers and resellers civilly liable watch gun deaths drop and drop like a rock.
Then you need to do the same for everything that is made, cars, knives, ice cream makers, coffee pots, ladders, and the list goes on and on....
Maybe we should also include when a child pulls a TV off the stand and kills themselves, it's the TV manufactures fault, not the child's...
And gun makers can be, and have been, sued for unsafe or defective or defective products. This is all a red herring. All this is is a back door to gun bans and confiscation.
While gun manufacturers can be sued for a detective product, they or dealers or sellers can't be sued or failing to make their guns safer, can't be sued for their marketing techniques, can't be sued for making their weapons into higher functioning killing machines, can't be sued for negligence, etc. Why are they immune. Why not leave it to a jury?
The whole gun confiscation argument is the greatest red herring of them all.
That is a wrong analysis. Car makers have been sued because their cars are unsafe or defective; beer sellers can be sued for negligence under dram shop laws and even knife makes can be sued for making a faulty product.
What separates these industries from the gun industry?
They don't have blanket immunity.
There is plenty the gun industry can do to make their guns safer. Believe me, once you make gun manufacturers, dealers, sellers and resellers civilly liable watch gun deaths drop and drop like a rock.
So, I just looked up the dram shop laws....and you are really equating the overselling of someone who is completely drunk, and the bartender continues to sell him beer/liquor to someone who goes out, buys a gun and kills someone?
That has to be one of the stupidest argument I've ever heard. And BTW, you do make some good arguments in other threads, I'd be ashamed to have even posted what you did.
While gun manufacturers can be sued for a detective product, they or dealers or sellers can't be sued or failing to make their guns safer, can't be sued for their marketing techniques, can't be sued for making their weapons into higher functioning killing machines, can't be sued for negligence, etc. Why are they immune. Why not leave it to a jury?
The whole gun confiscation argument is the greatest red herring of them all.
Then everyone who upgrades an engine and kills someone, its the OEMs fault? If someone goes out and modifies the weapon to make it illegal, it's the fault of the manufacture?
Not even close, you have proven what I'm saying is correct. The car is "unsafe" I 100% agree with you, I'll look up the "Dram law" never heard of it.....and again you say the knife is "faulty." Nothing you've provided has anything to do with someone knowingly picking up a gun and killing someone.
I believe Remington was sued for a FAULTY gun action, and many people won.
Do you understand the difference in something being faulty (as you stated above) and someone killing someone because they want to?
No company has "blanket immunity" for what you are stating above. You are trying to say that because someone picks up a gun and kills someone, that's the same as a faulty automobile.
Then you need to do the same for everything that is made, cars, knives, ice cream makers, coffee pots, ladders, and the list goes on and on....
Maybe we should also include when a child pulls a TV off the stand and kills themselves, it's the TV manufactures fault, not the child's...
While gun manufacturers can be sued for a detective product, they or dealers or sellers can't be sued or failing to make their guns safer, can't be sued for their marketing techniques, can't be sued for making their weapons into higher functioning killing machines, can't be sued for negligence, etc. Why are they immune.
Auto manufacturers are not sued for not making their automobiles safer. For instance, no manufacturer has been sued (or can be sued) for not putting self-braking systems into every model they manufacture.
They certainly can't be sued for "marketing techniques."
Nor can they be sued for building high powered vehicles that take extraordinary skill to drive or vehicles that can go beyond all legal American speed limits.
So, I just looked up the dram shop laws....and you are really equating the overselling of someone who is completely drunk, and the bartender continues to sell him beer/liquor to someone who goes out, buys a gun and kills someone?
That has to be one of the stupidest argument I've ever heard. And BTW, you do make some good arguments in other threads, I'd be ashamed to have even posted what you did.
The analogy with dram shop laws is not with the manufacturers but the dealer. Right now the dealer has no responsibility for selling a gun to anyone that comes through the door, provided they meet the state minimum requirements and checks.
Why isn't there liability if The Seller knows this person will be using this weapon for illegal activities?
Listen, these are very hard cases to prove even if you lift gun industry immunity.
Why give the gun industry special protection that did not even exist until 2005?
Auto manufacturers are not sued for not making their automobiles safer. For instance, no manufacturer has been sued (or can be sued) for not putting self-braking systems into every model they manufacture.
They certainly can't be sued for "marketing techniques."
Nor can they be sued for building high powered vehicles that take extraordinary skill to drive or vehicles that can go beyond all legal American speed limits.
I had the tobacco industry in mind when I mentioned marketing techniques.
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.
