The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity

[JoeB131]

Again- simple enough solution- if a gun that came from your shop is used in a crime, you own that crime.

You don't think that when the gun dealer in VA sees the the same customer come in for the fifth time in a month to buy a bunch of guns, he doesn't know what's up?

"Simple" and wrong. That's the kind of "solution" that Hitler or Stalin would find appealing. Free Americans, on the other hand, are disgusted with such totalitarian schemes.

You are the biggest moron in this forum.

The way you are shitting your pants over the notion seems to indicate it is on the right path.

 

[bripat9643]

Again- simple enough solution- if a gun that came from your shop is used in a crime, you own that crime.

You don't think that when the gun dealer in VA sees the the same customer come in for the fifth time in a month to buy a bunch of guns, he doesn't know what's up?

Wow, you are a true simpleton. So when your car is used by your daughters boyfriend to commit a crime I get to sue you right?

Idiot.

Actually, under most jurisdictions, the fact you let the guy have your car would probably make you liable, especially if you knew the kid was dirtbag...

No it wouldn't, you witless git.

 

[bripat9643]

Again- simple enough solution- if a gun that came from your shop is used in a crime, you own that crime.

You don't think that when the gun dealer in VA sees the the same customer come in for the fifth time in a month to buy a bunch of guns, he doesn't know what's up?

"Simple" and wrong. That's the kind of "solution" that Hitler or Stalin would find appealing. Free Americans, on the other hand, are disgusted with such totalitarian schemes.

You are the biggest moron in this forum.

The way you are shitting your pants over the notion seems to indicate it is on the right path.

I would shit my pants if anyone in this forum proposed putting anyone who opposed Obama's schemes in a gulag. would that indicate to you that such a plan would be "on the right track?"

Once again, you only managed to prove that your an imbecile and a Nazi hosebag.

 

[Ernie S.]

Car companies get sued all the time for mechanical defects that cause accidents.

Frankly, if you design a product that is specifically meant to kill people and you don't strictly regulate who you are selling it to, you should be sued.

How can Smith and Wesson control who Joe's Guns and Fried Possum sells a revolver to?
How can Joe's Guns and Fried Possum control what you do with the revolver after the government approves your purchase and you walk out thew door?

Good question.

Maybe they might actually do BACKGROUND CHECKS.

Wow. What a concept.

Maby Joe's will notice the same guy keeps coming in once a month and buying a bunch of guns.

They do do background checks. The last rifle I bought, it took about 45 minutes.
So what if someone buys 6 or 60 guns/ month? Does the fact that I own over a dozen firearms make me dangerous?

 

[JoeB131]

Wow, you are a true simpleton. So when your car is used by your daughters boyfriend to commit a crime I get to sue you right?

Idiot.

Actually, under most jurisdictions, the fact you let the guy have your car would probably make you liable, especially if you knew the kid was dirtbag...

No it wouldn't, you witless git.

Um... no, they would be responsible for anything that happens with that car, as they hold the insurance on it...

 

[JoeB131]

How can Smith and Wesson control who Joe's Guns and Fried Possum sells a revolver to?
How can Joe's Guns and Fried Possum control what you do with the revolver after the government approves your purchase and you walk out thew door?

Good question.

Maybe they might actually do BACKGROUND CHECKS.

Wow. What a concept.

Maby Joe's will notice the same guy keeps coming in once a month and buying a bunch of guns.

They do do background checks. The last rifle I bought, it took about 45 minutes.
So what if someone buys 6 or 60 guns/ month? Does the fact that I own over a dozen firearms make me dangerous?

Combined with the crazy shit you say on here day in and day out, yeah, I'd be worried.

 

[westwall]

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

Because guns cannot be made safe. When used as intended, they can kill someone. It's the same reason why knife makers aren't liable for people slicing their hands when they cut a bagle. If you stab someone the knife maker isn't liable. The knife is doing exactly what it is supposed to do.

There are dozens of law giving immunity to gun makers as well as the maker of every other product that cannot be made safe.

Are you saying that, when used as intended, target pistols always kill people? That, when used as intended, deer rifles kill people? Do you have a working brain cell in your skull? A non working one?

No. The gun companies have never made the claim that guns are "safe" to use. The reason why the tobacco companies have had their asses rightfully handed to them is because they said for decades that tobacco use was safe when they knew that the truth was the opposite.

if you misuse a gun, you or someone you care about, will die. A gun is a tool. it is no better or worse than the person using it. They are inherently lethal when in use, just like automobiles or airplanes. To assert otherwise is incorrect.

 

[westwall]

Good question.

Maybe they might actually do BACKGROUND CHECKS.

Wow. What a concept.

Maby Joe's will notice the same guy keeps coming in once a month and buying a bunch of guns.

They do do background checks. The last rifle I bought, it took about 45 minutes.
So what if someone buys 6 or 60 guns/ month? Does the fact that I own over a dozen firearms make me dangerous?

Combined with the crazy shit you say on here day in and day out, yeah, I'd be worried.

Unlike you, Ernie has more than two brain cells to rub together. He's forgotten more than you'll ever know.

 

[bripat9643]

Combined with the crazy shit you say on here day in and day out, yeah, I'd be worried.

You have more to worry about on that score.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually, under most jurisdictions, the fact you let the guy have your car would probably make you liable, especially if you knew the kid was dirtbag...

No it wouldn't, you witless git.

Um... no, they would be responsible for anything that happens with that car, as they hold the insurance on it...

Sorry, moron, but no they wouldn't. Being a "dirtbag" isn't a bases for any kind of legal action.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Again- simple enough solution- if a gun that came from your shop is used in a crime, you own that crime.

You don't think that when the gun dealer in VA sees the the same customer come in for the fifth time in a month to buy a bunch of guns, he doesn't know what's up?

Wow, you are a true simpleton. So when your car is used by your daughters boyfriend to commit a crime I get to sue you right?

Idiot.

Actually, under most jurisdictions, the fact you let the guy have your car would probably make you liable, especially if you knew the kid was dirtbag...

You would only be liable for the damage caused by the vehicle, not for the robbery/murder he committed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because guns cannot be made safe. When used as intended, they can kill someone. It's the same reason why knife makers aren't liable for people slicing their hands when they cut a bagle. If you stab someone the knife maker isn't liable. The knife is doing exactly what it is supposed to do.

There are dozens of law giving immunity to gun makers as well as the maker of every other product that cannot be made safe.

Are you saying that, when used as intended, target pistols always kill people? That, when used as intended, deer rifles kill people? Do you have a working brain cell in your skull? A non working one?

No. The gun companies have never made the claim that guns are "safe" to use. The reason why the tobacco companies have had their asses rightfully handed to them is because they said for decades that tobacco use was safe when they knew that the truth was the opposite.

if you misuse a gun, you or someone you care about, will die. A gun is a tool. it is no better or worse than the person using it. They are inherently lethal when in use, just like automobiles or airplanes. To assert otherwise is incorrect.

Funny, I don't recall arguing that.

That said, can you prove the gun companies never claimed that, if used properly, guns are safe? It seems that Smith and Wesson, to name just one gun manufacturer, actually posts gun safety rules on their website.

Handgun Safety Rules - Smith & Wesson

Gun manufacturers even issue recalls when they come across safety issues, Bushmaster had one in 2010. Why would they do something like that if product safety is not an issue with them?

By the way, the only time I saw a gun fire by accident no one got hurt. How does that fit into your claim that any misuse of a gun results in death?

 

[bripat9643]

Wow, you are a true simpleton. So when your car is used by your daughters boyfriend to commit a crime I get to sue you right?

Idiot.

Actually, under most jurisdictions, the fact you let the guy have your car would probably make you liable, especially if you knew the kid was dirtbag...

You would only be liable for the damage caused by the vehicle, not for the robbery/murder he committed.

I doubt you would even be liable for that. A plaintiff would have to prove that you knew the perp was going to crash the car. That's a hard case to make. the insurance company would only be liable for the damage to the car, if that. If the perp had his own insurance, then that company would be liable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, under most jurisdictions, the fact you let the guy have your car would probably make you liable, especially if you knew the kid was dirtbag...

You would only be liable for the damage caused by the vehicle, not for the robbery/murder he committed.

I doubt you would even be liable for that. A plaintiff would have to prove that you knew the perp was going to crash the car. That's a hard case to make. the insurance company would only be liable for the damage to the car, if that. If the perp had his own insurance, then that company would be liable.

Actually, all they have to prove is you let him drive it. If you gave your daughter the keys and she let him drive it you might not be in the hook though.

 

[JoeB131]

[

No. The gun companies have never made the claim that guns are "safe" to use. The reason why the tobacco companies have had their asses rightfully handed to them is because they said for decades that tobacco use was safe when they knew that the truth was the opposite.

if you misuse a gun, you or someone you care about, will die. A gun is a tool. it is no better or worse than the person using it. They are inherently lethal when in use, just like automobiles or airplanes. To assert otherwise is incorrect.

The Tobacco companies got their asses handed to them because when their internal documents came out, it was shown they deliberately marketted their dangerous product to children.

And who knows what we'd find out if we got to look at all the internal documents of the gun industry... probably enough to hang them with.

 

[bripat9643]

You would only be liable for the damage caused by the vehicle, not for the robbery/murder he committed.

I doubt you would even be liable for that. A plaintiff would have to prove that you knew the perp was going to crash the car. That's a hard case to make. the insurance company would only be liable for the damage to the car, if that. If the perp had his own insurance, then that company would be liable.

Actually, all they have to prove is you let him drive it. If you gave your daughter the keys and she let him drive it you might not be in the hook though.

So if I rent a car and then crash it through the front of a grocery store, the rental car company is on the hook for the damages?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I doubt you would even be liable for that. A plaintiff would have to prove that you knew the perp was going to crash the car. That's a hard case to make. the insurance company would only be liable for the damage to the car, if that. If the perp had his own insurance, then that company would be liable.

Actually, all they have to prove is you let him drive it. If you gave your daughter the keys and she let him drive it you might not be in the hook though.

So if I rent a car and then crash it through the front of a grocery store, the rental car company is on the hook for the damages?

That explains why they carry insurance on their vehicles.

 

[westwall]

Are you saying that, when used as intended, target pistols always kill people? That, when used as intended, deer rifles kill people? Do you have a working brain cell in your skull? A non working one?

No. The gun companies have never made the claim that guns are "safe" to use. The reason why the tobacco companies have had their asses rightfully handed to them is because they said for decades that tobacco use was safe when they knew that the truth was the opposite.

if you misuse a gun, you or someone you care about, will die. A gun is a tool. it is no better or worse than the person using it. They are inherently lethal when in use, just like automobiles or airplanes. To assert otherwise is incorrect.

Funny, I don't recall arguing that.

That said, can you prove the gun companies never claimed that, if used properly, guns are safe? It seems that Smith and Wesson, to name just one gun manufacturer, actually posts gun safety rules on their website.

Handgun Safety Rules - Smith & Wesson

Gun manufacturers even issue recalls when they come across safety issues, Bushmaster had one in 2010. Why would they do something like that if product safety is not an issue with them?

By the way, the only time I saw a gun fire by accident no one got hurt. How does that fit into your claim that any misuse of a gun results in death?

Yes gun SAFETY RULES. When they are not followed people die. Gun companies will allways recall a firearm if it has a defect that will cause an accidental discharge. Note, I did not say negligent discharge. An accidental discharge will occur independant of a finger on a trigger and is extraordinarily hazardous.

Most "accidental" discharges are actually negligent discharges where the person pulled the trigger when they shouldn't have.

There is a HUGE difference.

As regards your witnessing a negligent or accidental discharge with no death, that's called luck. There is no way to calculate luck so people who handle weapons assume the worse thing will happen so they treat all guns as loaded all the time even though they know the weapon they are handling isn't......just...in...case.

 

[westwall]

[

No. The gun companies have never made the claim that guns are "safe" to use. The reason why the tobacco companies have had their asses rightfully handed to them is because they said for decades that tobacco use was safe when they knew that the truth was the opposite.

if you misuse a gun, you or someone you care about, will die. A gun is a tool. it is no better or worse than the person using it. They are inherently lethal when in use, just like automobiles or airplanes. To assert otherwise is incorrect.

The Tobacco companies got their asses handed to them because when their internal documents came out, it was shown they deliberately marketted their dangerous product to children.

And who knows what we'd find out if we got to look at all the internal documents of the gun industry... probably enough to hang them with.

No, idiot, they lied about the harmful effects of tobacco. If it were good for you no one would care if children used it.

 

[Lakhota]