Want ONE simple law to help curb mass-shootings?

[nat4900]

How would you like it if a criminal used healthy food or water as a murder weapon

True....I have heard of MASS KILLINGS using granola and Evian water......LOL
(is this moron for real???)

 

[nat4900]

This is, of course, a lie.
Why do yo have to lie to make your point?

Fine.....Question: .Do you buy a car or a gun to "protect your family" ????

 

[nat4900]

You keep pretending that's the standard of manufacturing liability. But in order for a manufacturer to be liable there has to be a flaw in the products design. If a product does what it is designed to do, then there is no liability. No matter how much you don't like it.

Following THAT logic, then what is your problem with Iran building a nuke?

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is, of course, a lie.
Why do yo have to lie to make your point?

Fine.....Question: .Do you buy a car or a gun to "protect your family" ????

Irrelevant to the conversation.
No manufacturer is held liable when their legal product is stolen from its rightful owner and used to commit a crime.
Not one.
You have no sound argument as to why firearms should be treated differently.
Your response will only serve to prove me correct.

 

[nat4900]

No manufacturer is held liable when their legal product is stolen from its rightful owner and used to commit a crime.

I'm responding to the right wing nitwit who is comparing the manufacturing of a car versus the manufacturing of a gun (ESPECIALLY an assault weapon) whose ONLY purpose is NOT hunting, but to kill as many human beings as possible.)

Look, I have NO problem with hand guns or hunting rifles.....I DO have a problem with anyone who manufactures weapons of WAR and sells them to ANYONE who can pay the price.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No manufacturer is held liable when their legal product is stolen from its rightful owner and used to commit a crime.

I'm responding to the right wing nitwit who is comparing the manufacturing of a car....

Noting here addresses what I said.
No manufacturer is held liable when their legal product is stolen from its rightful owner and used to commit a crime.
Not one.
You have no sound argument as to why firearms should be treated differently.
Your response will only serve to prove me correct.

...(ESPECIALLY an assault weapon) whose ONLY purpose is NOT hunting, but to kill as many human beings as possible.

This is a lie.

 

[nat4900]

This is a lie.

Try telling that "it's a lie" to the parents of those babies at Sandy Hook who ARE suing the assault weapon manufacturer.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is a lie.

Try telling that "it's a lie" to the parents of those babies at Sandy Hook who ARE suing the assault weapon manufacturer.

Your appeal to emotion does not change the fact your statement is a lie.

Your appeal to emotion does not change the fact that there is no sound argument as to why firearms should be treated differently than the manufacturers of everything else.

 

[nat4900]

Your appeal to emotion does not change the fact your statement is a lie.

Your appeal to emotion does not change the fact that there is no sound argument as to why firearms should be treated differently than the manufacturers of everything else.

I guess we'll see how that Connecticut law suit turns out...............................mindful that CT is one of the biggest gun-manufacturing states.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your appeal to emotion does not change the fact your statement is a lie.

Your appeal to emotion does not change the fact that there is no sound argument as to why firearms should be treated differently than the manufacturers of everything else.

I guess we'll see how that Connecticut law suit turns out...............................mindful that CT is one of the biggest gun-manufacturing states.

Your appeal to emotion does not change the fact your statement: "...an assault weapon) whose ONLY purpose is NOT hunting, but to kill as many human beings as possible...". is a lie.
Why do you need to lie to make your point?

 

[Idadunno]

Actually, we should always follow what lobbyists push (aka, BRIBE) congress to do (and in some instance, NOT to do) when searching for legislation to curb an abuse of the common welfare and good.

Regarding mass murders, we know that gun manufacturers (and their bought puppet, the NRA) fought and won the right to NOT be sued for the misuse of their deadly products.

If we wanted to make a substantial dent with mass shootings (almost impossible to eliminate without reversing the Constitution's 2nd amendment) pass a law that gun manufacturers AND gun vendors can be sued when their product is sold WITHOUT a thorough background and psychological clean bill of health.

Your ignorance is massive! Zip it before it gets you sued for exposure.

 

[nat4900]

Your ignorance is massive! Zip it before it gets you sued for exposure.

Here's an IDIOT who places the second amendment way above the first.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

And if you sell your car to some clown who later drives drunk and kills someone, the victim's family should be able to sue YOU for millions in damages, right???

Except cars are for driving and guns are for killing.

Which means it makes even less sense to sue a gun manufacturer for designing a product that does what it was intended to do.

Try that circular logic shit on someone else. That shit wont fly here.

Nothing circular about it. Manufacturers are liable when their products dont work the way they are supposed to while using them correctly. Like if you are driving a car and it randomly explodes or it doesn't brake because of a design flaw, the manufacturers are liable.

When a product works as it's designed to do and people, through their intentional or negligent acts use the products to cause harm a manufacturer cannot be held liable because the products are working as designed.

Guns that shoot are doing what they were designed to do. They are a tool for self defense and hunting. If someone kills another person using a tool that works correctly they aren't liable. If someone runs another over with a car, it's not the cars design that is the problem, it's the killers negligent/intentional behavior.

Likewise with firearms if the gun shoots properly they are not liable. The killer is.if the gun is designed badly and it explodes or something instead of shooting bullets then yeah there is a design flaw. But you can't sue a manufacturer for product that works as it is intended

And thats why comparing cars killing to guns killing is stupid, thanks

I don't think anyone made that comparison.... you missed the point. The comparison is one of liability. If I beat you silly with a hammer, you gonna sue Craftsman? Good luck with that.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Your ignorance is massive! Zip it before it gets you sued for exposure.

Here's an IDIOT who places the second amendment way above the first.

They're equal... just because one is 1st and the other is 2nd doesn't imply any real order in terms of importance.

Geeze, how dumb are you?

 

[mudwhistle]

So, you're saying gun deaths matter more than deaths caused by drunk drivers?

Talking about utter stupidity.

All deaths matter numbnuts.

Avoiding the question as to whether cars are manufactured as killing machines, versus the manufacturing of guns as killing implements...

Sure all deaths matter.........including the FACT that you and I will be dead some day.

A car can be a more effective killing machine than a gun if in the wrong hands.

That doesn't mean you can create laws to prevent it. You can only punish the assailants after the fact. What you're doing is trying to take everyone's guns in some pie-in-the-sky fantasy.....


It won't remove the threat. It'll just make it easier for abusive government to get away with murder.

You progressives consider America and Americans to be a greater threat than Islamic terrorism.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Except cars are for driving and guns are for killing.

Which means it makes even less sense to sue a gun manufacturer for designing a product that does what it was intended to do.

Try that circular logic shit on someone else. That shit wont fly here.

Nothing circular about it. Manufacturers are liable when their products dont work the way they are supposed to while using them correctly. Like if you are driving a car and it randomly explodes or it doesn't brake because of a design flaw, the manufacturers are liable.

When a product works as it's designed to do and people, through their intentional or negligent acts use the products to cause harm a manufacturer cannot be held liable because the products are working as designed.

Guns that shoot are doing what they were designed to do. They are a tool for self defense and hunting. If someone kills another person using a tool that works correctly they aren't liable. If someone runs another over with a car, it's not the cars design that is the problem, it's the killers negligent/intentional behavior.

Likewise with firearms if the gun shoots properly they are not liable. The killer is.if the gun is designed badly and it explodes or something instead of shooting bullets then yeah there is a design flaw. But you can't sue a manufacturer for product that works as it is intended

And thats why comparing cars killing to guns killing is stupid, thanks

I don't think anyone made that comparison.... you missed the point. The comparison is one of liability. If I beat you silly with a hammer, you gonna sue Craftsman? Good luck with that.

What you think doesnt matter...what actually happened does. 10/10 made the comparison

 

[nat4900]

They're equal... just because one is 1st and the other is 2nd doesn't imply any real order in terms of importance.

Geeze, how dumb are you?

Right wing morons just keep on posting bullshit......ONE OF YOUR ILK (IdaDumBo) in post 591.....stated that I may be sued for defaming the good ol' gun manufacturers.....Do you get it now????

 

[nat4900]

That doesn't mean you can create laws to prevent it. You can only punish the assailants after the fact. What you're doing is trying to take everyone's guns in some pie-in-the-sky fantasy...

NO, nitwit, I am trying to CURB the sale of assault weapons whose ONLY purpose is to kill as many as possible in a very short period.........

Try doing the same killing spree by a maniac using a car, hammer or knife.

 

[nat4900]

Using right wing "logic", the MAKER of a bomb vest is NOT culpable for the suicide bomber who blows himself up in a crowded movie theater, right or wrong?

 

[mudwhistle]

That doesn't mean you can create laws to prevent it. You can only punish the assailants after the fact. What you're doing is trying to take everyone's guns in some pie-in-the-sky fantasy...

NO, nitwit, I am trying to CURB the sale of assault weapons whose ONLY purpose is to kill as many as possible in a very short period.........

Try doing the same killing spree by a maniac using a car, hammer or knife.

You're a fucking liar too!!!

Once the assault - weapons are gone you'll just call any gun that isn't a flintlock an assault - weapon.