The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity

[Rustic]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

Because a gun is a tool that doesn't kill on its own.

Since guns are explicitly designed to KILL - they should be highly regulated.

Na, not really.
People kill... Guns can't on their own.
Washington redskin

 

[Rustic]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

For the same reason we don't hold car makers responsible for drunk drivers.

We would if car makers funneled booze to drivers like the NRA gunrunners facilitate funneling guns to criminals and assorted mental nuts.

Actually the NRA has long been a leader in trying to stop that. And the NRA doesn't make guns.Try again.

The NRA was once a fine outfit and I was a proud member for several years - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977 and turned to shit.

The Suprising Unknown History of the NRA

Washington redskin,
Save your sob story for clueless, the NRA didn't change. Our country is being pussyfied with the stupidity of political correctness... Hope and Change?? To hell with the warm and fuzzies...

...and control freaks like progressives, thought police anyone

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Firearms are the only consumer product the federal government does not regulate for health and safety," VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand said in a press release. "Meanwhile, science-based regulations have dramatically reduced deaths from motor vehicles in recent decades. It’s well past time that we regulate firearms for health and safety just like all other consumer products."
More: Gun Deaths Are Now Outpacing Traffic Deaths In 21 States, And Counting
This is dangerous, sad, and just wrong.

And a lie.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

For the same reason we don't hold car makers responsible for drunk drivers.

We would if car makers funneled booze to drivers like the NRA gunrunners facilitate funneling guns to criminals and assorted mental nuts.

And... another lie.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

Because a gun is a tool that doesn't kill on its own.

Since guns are explicitly designed to KILL....

And... yet another lie.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

For the same reason we don't hold car makers responsible for drunk drivers.

We would if car makers funneled booze to drivers like the NRA gunrunners facilitate funneling guns to criminals and assorted mental nuts.

Actually the NRA has long been a leader in trying to stop that. And the NRA doesn't make guns.Try again.

The NRA was once a fine outfit and I was a proud member for several years

What's that? Another lie?
Who would have guessed.

 

[Katzndogz]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

They are. When the product is defective. Their products aren't defective.

 

[TooTall]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

Car manufacturers are held liable for defects in their cars, but not in the defects of the drivers that cause wrecks and kill people.

Drug manufacturers are held responsible for defective drugs, but not for the person that exceeds the prescribed dosage and dies as a result.

Gun manufacturers would be held responsible if the gun is defective and explodes in the hands of the owner, but not if the owner shoots another person.

I know this is very basic, but it has to be for those that think a gun kills on it's own.

 

[Stephanie]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

Car manufacturers are held liable for defects in their cars, but not in the defects of the drivers that cause wrecks and kill people.

Drug manufacturers are held responsible for defective drugs, but not for the person that exceeds the prescribed dosage and dies as a result.

Gun manufacturers would be held responsible if the gun is defective and explodes in the hands of the owner, but not if the owner shoots another person.

I know this is very basic, but it has to be for those that think a gun kills on it's own.

that might be too simple for them. I hope not, but. sheesh these people today would sit back and ALLOW this government take everyone of our freedoms.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Firearms are the only consumer product the federal government does not regulate for health and safety," VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand said in a press release. "Meanwhile, science-based regulations have dramatically reduced deaths from motor vehicles in recent decades. It’s well past time that we regulate firearms for health and safety just like all other consumer products."

More: Gun Deaths Are Now Outpacing Traffic Deaths In 21 States, And Counting

This is dangerous, sad, and just wrong.

Show of hands, everyone who is moved to panic by propaganda from HuffPo and the leader of a gun-grabber group.

 

[Conservative65]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

Because the gun didn't do the killing, the person misusing the gun did. Secondly, other manufacturers get sued when the product itself malfunctions not when someone does something in a manner in which the product wasn't supposed to be used.

Try putting gasoline in a kerosene only heater that plainly says on the top "Use Kerosene Only", have it cause a fire and it will, then try to sue the manufacturer because YOU put gasoline in it. Your comparison of guns and other products is foolish.

 

[Conservative65]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

Other manufacturers get held liable when thier products malfunction, which gun owners would be held as well. If someone made a gun that had a propensity of blowing up in your hand after 20 shots, the manufacturer can be sued.

What you want is to hold a manufactuer liable for when their product functions as desgined, which is quite silly.

Seems Lakhota can see the difference between something being misused and something not operating properly due to a faulty design.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

Car manufacturers are held liable for defects in their cars, but not in the defects of the drivers that cause wrecks and kill people.

Drug manufacturers are held responsible for defective drugs, but not for the person that exceeds the prescribed dosage and dies as a result.

Gun manufacturers would be held responsible if the gun is defective and explodes in the hands of the owner, but not if the owner shoots another person.

I know this is very basic, but it has to be for those that think a gun kills on it's own.

Tort law appears to be quite clear on this subject for ALL manufacturers, which is why lawsuits against gun manufacturers in cases of murder seem to be routinely dismissed.

For a manufacturer of a product to be sued because of death or injury caused by their product, the product must be either defective, or there must be proof of negligence (eg. lack of proper safety warnings and instructions).

For no product lawfully manufactured and sold in the United States is the manufacturer held liable for incorrect uses of that product.

Which means that gun manufacturers have no "unprecedented" protection that other companies do not; they merely enjoy the same protection under the law as everyone else.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

Other manufacturers get held liable when thier products malfunction, which gun owners would be held as well. If someone made a gun that had a propensity of blowing up in your hand after 20 shots, the manufacturer can be sued.

What you want is to hold a manufactuer liable for when their product functions as desgined, which is quite silly.

Seems Lakhota can see the difference between something being misused and something not operating properly due to a faulty design.

Leftists consider guns defective by definition, simply because they're designed to fire projectiles.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

There are two sides to this argument, and they're both full of shit.

No "other manufacturers" are held liable when someone kills someone else with their product - but no "other manufacturers" seem to need specific laws giving them immunity, either.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

For the same reason we don't hold car makers responsible for drunk drivers.

We would if car makers funneled booze to drivers like the NRA gunrunners facilitate funneling guns to criminals and assorted mental nuts.

I heard "We should persecute people for things I imagine they have done."

 

[Cecilie1200]

There are two sides to this argument, and they're both full of shit.

No "other manufacturers" are held liable when someone kills someone else with their product - but no "other manufacturers" seem to need specific laws giving them immunity, either.

Oh, really? Your claim is now that no product liability cases are EVER prosecuted successfully in this country? NEVER?!

You sure you want to go with that?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

There are two sides to this argument, and they're both full of shit.

No "other manufacturers" are held liable when someone kills someone else with their product - but no "other manufacturers" seem to need specific laws giving them immunity, either.

Oh, really? Your claim is now that no product liability cases are EVER prosecuted successfully in this country? NEVER?!

You sure you want to go with that?

Well, no - since that's not what I said. You're welcome to re-read my post.

The Louisville Slugger company can't be held liable if someone beats another to death with a bat. Chevy can't be held liable if you intentionally run down a pedestrian - and for those same reasons, Sig Sauer can't be held responsible if someone kills someone with their product.

If a 9mm backfires due to a manufacturing defect and sends the slide flying into someone's eye, then yes - they can (and should) be held liable.

The gun industry does not need special protection.

 

[Jarlaxle]

There are two sides to this argument, and they're both full of shit.

No "other manufacturers" are held liable when someone kills someone else with their product - but no "other manufacturers" seem to need specific laws giving them immunity, either.

We both know why they need the protection: without it, well-funded people would simply bury them under an avalanche of baseless lawsuits in an attempt to bankrupt them. Sure, the companies would win every lawsuit...but they'd go broke defending themselves.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

There are two sides to this argument, and they're both full of shit.

No "other manufacturers" are held liable when someone kills someone else with their product - but no "other manufacturers" seem to need specific laws giving them immunity, either.

We both know why they need the protection: without it, well-funded people would simply bury them under an avalanche of baseless lawsuits in an attempt to bankrupt them. Sure, the companies would win every lawsuit...but they'd go broke defending themselves.

That's fiction.

It's already gone all the way, and precedent has been set. The whole "avalanche of baseless lawsuits" thing doesn't hold up in reality.