Court rules that gun company can be sued for Newtown shooting. (gasoline, illegal immigration)
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.
It doesn't matter if people get killed in cars (I mean, their lives obviously do matter, but I'm speaking to the "cars as weapons" argument). Car manufacturers work daily to ensure that fewer people who drive and ride in cars are killed in accidents because cars are a necessity for travel in a good many places.
It matters that gun manufacturers take responsibility for the fact that they create machines designed to kill. Yes, you can use them for other purposes, but they are designed to KILL.
People. Animals. They are designed to kill them.
So, advertising and safety protocols are of paramount importance. I would like to see the day that guns are imprinted to the hand(s) of the owner(s) so they won't even fire without the right person's hand on them.
That would be a huge safety improvement and worth the money.
How would that stop mass shootings? Most shooters didn't steal their guns.
When I heard about the lawsuit I shook my head. Newtown was a heartbreaking, tragic and horrific event. Another lawsuit that IMO has no merit. We have become a society that needs to sue everyone and anything. People kill. Do we sue knife manufacturers if someone is stabbed? Rope manufacturers because someone hung themselves? Car manufacturers because someone decided to drive off a cliff? When does this sue society learn that blame isn't realistic.
No it doesn't mean you can enact your examples and then sue. Nice try at whatever you are attempting but no cigar.
Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled the suit could go forward under that state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, a statute aimed at harmful marketing, in this case marketing not of the weapon itself but the use of the weapon as a potential tool for “offensive military style combat” by civilians, which is illegal.
They busted the tobacco-pushers. Start holding companies responsible for their contributions to death and destruction.
And about the 'car' example? Automakers are actually held to extremely high safety standards and are sued big-time when they don't. The NRA assists the gunmakers in literally getting away with murder.
It doesn't matter if people get killed in cars (I mean, their lives obviously do matter, but I'm speaking to the "cars as weapons" argument). Car manufacturers work daily to ensure that fewer people who drive and ride in cars are killed in accidents because cars are a necessity for travel in a good many places.
It matters that gun manufacturers take responsibility for the fact that they create machines designed to kill. Yes, you can use them for other purposes, but they are designed to KILL.
People. Animals. They are designed to kill them.
So, advertising and safety protocols are of paramount importance. I would like to see the day that guns are imprinted to the hand(s) of the owner(s) so they won't even fire without the right person's hand on them.
That would be a huge safety improvement and worth the money.
No, they are designed to propel a projectile at high velocities. That’s what their design is for. It’s up to the end user on how it’s employed.
They busted the tobacco-pushers. Start holding companies responsible for their contributions to death and destruction.
And about the 'car' example? Automakers are actually held to extremely high safety standards and are sued big-time when they don't. The NRA assists the gunmakers in literally getting away with murder.
Tobacco is different. They have adulterated their products and engineered their products to make them addictive to consumers, despite knowing they are inherently harmful and that there is no safe way to use the products. That's the tort.
Guns are not an analogy...there are perfectly lawful uses of guns that result in zero harm to the consumer, which is btw what the statute is for - protecting consumers. Harmful marketing means "harmful to the purchaser/consumer" of the product, not "having the potential for harm if improperly used". Product liability laws already cover that, that's where warning labels come from.
Tobacco is different. They purposely lied and were sued what amounts to legal use of the product which was harmful, but more than harmful, purposely engineered in secret from the consumer.
Holding a company liable for the illegal use of a product is crazy, insane actually. That means when a car runs a pedestrian stop and hits me, not only do i sue the driver and insurance, I sue the auto company as well because it is their product.
When a Benz goes racing down the road and slams into my car, same, I sue the driver and the company, because after all, they show commercials of a Benz racing around and maneuvering through things like a race car.
If someone can show advertising which a gun company or any company advocates the illegal use of a firearm, so be it, all fine with suing them. But I have not ever seen it.
Oh, guns are made to kill people? No kidding, and under self defense and other situations, it is perfectly legal to kill someone.
I disagree. Our government can prop up manufacturing of guns that they need. We could have an actual, federal gun manufacturing plant if we needed one.
Now, I am fine with there being multiple manufacturers. I am not remotely anti-gun. I am just anti- the notion that gun manufacturers should accept zero responsibility for the death machines they manufacture.
And, guns are weapons intended to kill. That's just reality.
You are partially right. Gun manufacturers are responsible for malfunctioning or faulty guns. Beyond that, gun manufacturers know what the Constitution means.
This is America where anyone can sue anyone for anything.
I once ready a story about a burglar who fell through a woman’s roof while trying to break into her home and sued the woman for having a faulty roof and won. The judicial system in this country is an embarrassment.
No it doesn't mean you can enact your examples and then sue. Nice try at whatever you are attempting but no cigar.
Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled the suit could go forward under that state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, a statute aimed at harmful marketing, in this case marketing not of the weapon itself but the use of the weapon as a potential tool for “offensive military style combat” by civilians, which is illegal.
They market them as home security and let's be honest... most people (unlike Betsy DeVos) are securing their homes from... OTHER PEOPLE... not from grizzly bears.
But isn't that a good thing? Should we sue ADT for advertising their system as for home security?
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.