HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Next time someone mention...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:54 AM

Next time someone mentions gun rights

Consider this:







Gun brigade. Alert all you want. You will not silence me. Nothing you do to me changes the fact that you stand with the financial interests of gun manufacturers over children's lives. Your fight for a cause that is fundamentally immoral.

102 replies, 10508 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 102 replies Author Time Post
Reply Next time someone mentions gun rights (Original post)
BainsBane Feb 2013 OP
Kolesar Feb 2013 #1
BainsBane Feb 2013 #2
aikoaiko Feb 2013 #3
BainsBane Feb 2013 #4
aikoaiko Feb 2013 #23
BainsBane Feb 2013 #24
aikoaiko Feb 2013 #26
BainsBane Feb 2013 #63
aikoaiko Feb 2013 #64
BainsBane Feb 2013 #65
aikoaiko Feb 2013 #69
BainsBane Feb 2013 #72
aikoaiko Feb 2013 #73
BainsBane Feb 2013 #74
aikoaiko Feb 2013 #75
BainsBane Feb 2013 #78
aikoaiko Feb 2013 #79
BainsBane Feb 2013 #80
aikoaiko Feb 2013 #81
BainsBane Feb 2013 #82
aikoaiko Feb 2013 #87
BainsBane Feb 2013 #88
aikoaiko Feb 2013 #90
BainsBane Feb 2013 #95
BainsBane Feb 2013 #99
aikoaiko Feb 2013 #100
BainsBane Feb 2013 #101
Remmah2 Feb 2013 #39
rdharma Feb 2013 #68
Glassunion Feb 2013 #5
BainsBane Feb 2013 #6
Glassunion Feb 2013 #7
Glassunion Feb 2013 #8
BainsBane Feb 2013 #10
hack89 Feb 2013 #15
BainsBane Feb 2013 #16
hack89 Feb 2013 #21
baldguy Feb 2013 #18
former9thward Feb 2013 #50
DanTex Feb 2013 #34
badtoworse Feb 2013 #9
BainsBane Feb 2013 #11
badtoworse Feb 2013 #13
BainsBane Feb 2013 #25
backwoodsbob Feb 2013 #51
hack89 Feb 2013 #12
BainsBane Feb 2013 #14
hack89 Feb 2013 #17
baldguy Feb 2013 #19
hack89 Feb 2013 #20
BainsBane Feb 2013 #22
hack89 Feb 2013 #27
BainsBane Feb 2013 #30
hack89 Feb 2013 #31
DanTex Feb 2013 #43
hack89 Feb 2013 #44
DanTex Feb 2013 #49
hack89 Feb 2013 #53
sir pball Feb 2013 #55
applycommonsense Feb 2013 #35
cyberswede Feb 2013 #40
PETRUS Feb 2013 #46
HockeyMom Feb 2013 #28
BainsBane Feb 2013 #29
hack89 Feb 2013 #32
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #36
hack89 Feb 2013 #37
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #41
hack89 Feb 2013 #42
BainsBane Feb 2013 #59
Jenoch Feb 2013 #76
BainsBane Feb 2013 #85
Jenoch Feb 2013 #96
BainsBane Feb 2013 #97
Jenoch Feb 2013 #98
Dr. Strange Feb 2013 #33
Remmah2 Feb 2013 #38
Glassunion Feb 2013 #45
BainsBane Feb 2013 #47
Glassunion Feb 2013 #48
The Straight Story Feb 2013 #52
mwrguy Feb 2013 #54
sir pball Feb 2013 #56
mwrguy Feb 2013 #57
sir pball Feb 2013 #58
BainsBane Feb 2013 #60
ismnotwasm Feb 2013 #61
CBHagman Feb 2013 #62
krispos42 Feb 2013 #66
BainsBane Feb 2013 #67
krispos42 Feb 2013 #70
BainsBane Feb 2013 #71
krispos42 Feb 2013 #83
BainsBane Feb 2013 #84
krispos42 Feb 2013 #92
BainsBane Feb 2013 #93
rightsideout Feb 2013 #77
rjj621 Feb 2013 #86
BainsBane Feb 2013 #89
rjj621 Feb 2013 #91
BainsBane Feb 2013 #94
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #102

Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:32 AM

1. I found another FB page from which I can borrow placards!

My old classmates from stinkytown are going to love these.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:41 AM

2. Occupy the NRA

is another page on Facebook. I forgot to credit them. That's where I got this image.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:53 AM

3. You can still sue the responsible party- the gun owner


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:57 AM

4. a company manufactured a pink gun

attractive to children, just like the detergent makers who are sued for their packaging. But the gun manufacturer can't be sued because of the influence of a multi-dollar corporate industry, whose financial interests you promote.

At least now we can expose the "rights" trope as pure artifice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:07 AM

23. The manufacturers CAN be sued but not for a limited set of situations.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #23)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:08 AM

24. courts are throwing out lawsuits in a wide variety of situations

I provide links to articles below. The gun companies receive special protection from liability because of the influence on the gun lobby. Why do you feel compelled to defend that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #24)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:18 AM

26. The law protects manf. from ONLY damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others



I'll dig up the text of the law later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #26)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:01 PM

63. we've been through this

Reading the text of the law is meaningless. What matters is how courts interpret the law, and they have broadened it to include a wide variety of situations. The articles linked below establish that.

What enables you to defend a two tiered justice system? How is it that the right of your fellow citizens to equal protection under the law mean so little to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #63)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:45 PM

64. There is still equal protection under the law.


Everyone has the same rights to she. No matter who you are you have the same right sue gun manufacturers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #64)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:53 PM

65. No

If your child is killed by one product vs. another. you have no legal redress.
But your message is understood, corporate gun profits are more important to you than the rights of your fellow citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #65)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:29 PM

69. Yes, you do, if the product was faulty in some way.


The law protecting gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits came about because anti-gun organizations were trying to bankrupt the companies. They were beaten by their own game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #69)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:23 PM

72. Yes, we understand your unyielding commitment to corporate

profits above equal protection and human life, noted. Tobacco companies survived litigation. They still make lots of profits, and lots of people still smoke. The legal activists were beaten by the Republican pols who whore themselves out to the highest bidder. That's who you celebrate above and and have chosen to align yourself with on this issue.

Next time you make a pro-rights about guns, be aware that we now know that your argument is fictitious and that you don't care about your fellow citizens' rights at all. I love when hypocrisy is exposed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #72)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:52 PM

73. Give me a break. The "legal activists" weren't interested in a safer product, but culture war


Their goal was to punish gun manufacturers with bankruptcy.

But the good news for you is that if they make a faulty gun, you can still sue. Good luck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #73)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:50 PM

74. I won't be suing

I don't have a gun and have no occasion to go near one. Tobacco companies didn't go bankrupt. Nor would gun makers. Just don't try any rights BS in the future now that you've shown what you really care about.

Yeah, you'll always win. That's what happens when you ally yourself with a multi-billion dollar corporate industry above your fellow citizens. Billions of dollars in profits result from from the fact that more Americans have died from gun shot wounds since 1960 than in all of our nation's wars. The gun lobby and their lackeys in the pro-2A movement have worked hard to promote policies that make that possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #74)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 12:09 AM

75. The 2nd Amendment protects a civil liberty.


Protecting civil liberties is always important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #75)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 12:49 PM

78. the First Amendment

Is also important, as is the 14th. It would be nice if you cared a bit about those more than profits by gun companies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #78)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 01:21 PM

79. I do care about the other civil liberties but no one is trying to ban my computer or internet...


...because it makes it so easy to incite a riot.

My views in this thread are motivated by continued legal, regulated access to firearms and not by love for corporate profits. Its really a shame you can't argue your point without misrepresenting me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #79)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 01:31 PM

80. Here's the situation

Legal battles against tobacco did not bankrupt cigarette companies. All law suits will do against gun companies is cut into their profits and force them to install safety mechanisms. They won't get rid of guns. Suits against tobacco and alcohol companies prove that to be true. So whether you realize it or not, you are privileging corporate profits above the rights of your citizens. That is the effect of the legal exemptions gun companies face, even if not your intent. You can be sure ensuring unfettered corporate profits and continued campaign contributions were the motivations of the legislators who approved the legal exemptions.

As Glassunion points out below, some other companies have similar (though less encompassing) legal exemption as well. I am equally outraged at those. It is an effort to circumscribe our rights as citizens in order to protect corporate profits. It's also a function of the kind of institutional corruption that characterizes our political system because of campaign financing.

Lawsuit have to make sense to be be successful. A gun company will need to be found negligent in some way to face penalty, as was the case with tobacco companies. Simply developing cancer from smoking wasn't enough for the states to win their landmark case. They won because they found evidence the big three were deliberately making products more addictive. The same would be true for gun companies. I would argue a pink gun is indeed a form of negligence, but a jury might not see it that way. But those are matters of fact that deserve to be adjudicated in court. They have plenty of resources for armies of attorneys. To imagine they would face extinction because of lawsuits is a stretch, to say the least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #80)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 01:43 PM

81. Then make that case about the pink pistol. It should be covered by the law.


And if it is and that's upheld on the appeals, then work to change to law.

I have no interest in helping you punish gun companies because they used the color pink with their firearms. Children play with guns when they are found (regardless of color) and that's not a manufacturing or marketing defect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #81)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 01:53 PM

82. I'm not a lawyer

A lawyer would make a case about the pink pistol if that family were not deprived of their right to seek legal redress.

The pink gun was merely one example. You ignore the larger point and in doing so confirm your disregard for citizens' rights. Your only interest is guns, not rights. You like the 2nd amendment because current interpretation under Heller justifies your gun obsession. You clearly don't care about the rights of others. I will not take back my comments about your concerns for corporate profits. You reveal them again here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #82)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:27 PM

87. That's fine but this type of argument is why you're failing.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #87)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:49 PM

88. You purposefully ignored my argument

You ignored the fundamental argument that lawsuits do not bankrupt industries in order to focus on a particular example, one that would require a finding by a jury to prevail. You ignore everything that challenges your love of guns. You cannot and do not mount a persuasive or consistent argument.


America--not I--is failing because of the influence of corporate money that privileges profits above human life. Guns are one of many areas where that is the case. You have done nothing but confirm you support that power structure, at least as long as it suits your fetish for gun proliferation. You site rights as a justification for guns, but do not support rights that don't meet your own self-interests. Aligning yourself with corporate power is a handy way to secure your self-interests. It's hardly surprising that you and the GOP are so committed to their unfettered profits.


I have no illusions of every changing your mind. You aren't honest enough to examine your own ideological inconsistencies. I expect you'll go to you grave clinging to your right-wing views on guns. Change won't depend on you. It will happen despite you and your allies in the gun lobby.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #88)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 04:21 PM

90. I've been ignoring the argument because I reject the premise.


I'm not the only one who rejects this idea that the lawsuits were threatening to bankrupt the companies. See Tim Dickinson's Rolling Stone article.

The NRA secured its "number-one legislative priority" in 2005, a law blocking liability lawsuits that once threatened to bankrupt gunmakers and expose the industry's darkest business practices. Across the country, the NRA has opened new markets for firearms dealers by pushing for state laws granting citizens the right to carry hidden weapons in public and to allow those who kill in the name of self-defense to get off scot-free.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-nra-vs-america-20130131#ixzz2KLNYzX4D
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #90)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:32 PM

95. Why would it bankrupt gun companies

When it didn't bankrupt tobacco or liquor companies? That someone has that opinion is hardly evidence. Prior examples are far more instructive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #90)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 10:25 PM

99. It's a simple question

Why would litigation bankrupt the gun companies when it didn't bankrupt tobacco or alcohol? Do you know of any whole industry bankrupted by lawsuits? I don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #99)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:37 AM

100. It might not bankrupt the industry but it could bankrupt companies and dealers


Most dealers are not taking in huge profits from selling guns. Most of the ones I know talk about 10 - 20% after all costs.

Back before the PLCAA became law, many gun manufacturers were small. When Bushmaster contributed $500K to the Sniper lawsuit, it was because defense fees were adding up. And if there was judgment it would have hurt worse. Since then Bushmaster was bought up by a larger company, but lawsuits can bankrupt smaller companies.

Again, my goal in supporting the PLCAA isn't to help gun business make more money, but rather to have access to firearm for a decent price.

Ant-gun organizations want to limit, reduce, or eliminate that access with law suits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #100)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:15 PM

101. you have no constitutional right to cheap firearms

And it is truly unfortunate that means more to you than the rest of our constitutional rights. It really doesn't matter what you claim your motivation is. You seek to justify a view that privileges your own interests above everything else, including human life. That is the result of your position on guns. Therefore that is what you support. It's like someone who supports a war, and works hard to bring about that war, claiming they have nothing to do with the causalities that result. It's denial.

The law is a perfectly acceptable means of tactic of resistance. That's how segregation was outlawed.
It didn't end white people. It just meant they weren't the only ones in society with basic civil rights. You insist that others not have the right to political expression because it might cost you more money. Your values are crystal clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:31 AM

39. Was that Kimber manufactured as such at the factory.

 

Or was it customized by a third party afterwards?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:58 PM

68. You can still sue the owner.......

 

........ if you can track 'em.

Another reason that 100% universal background checks should be required for ALL firearms sales!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:38 AM

5. That got me thinking.

If a child plays poorly with beer could you sue the brewer?
If a child plays poorly with the family car can you sue the manufacturer?
If a child plays poorly with a kitchen knife can you sue the maker?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:45 AM

6. Yes, you can sue everyone but the gun company

and people do all the time. Only gun manufacturers are protected from litigation because of the financial power of the gun lobby. Then the courts or a jury decides if the case has merit. In the case of gun companies, they are exempt from lawsuit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #6)


Response to BainsBane (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:31 AM

8. They are not exempt

A gun manufacturer can be sued. Kahr Arms was sued and recently settled out of court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to BainsBane (Reply #10)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:45 AM

15. The law says that gun manufacturers cannot be sued if the gun was used in a crime

which has nothing to do with your OP - an accidental death is not a crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #15)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:46 AM

16. I suggest you read the articles

to see how the law has been applied. Law is what judges interpret it to be. Not what you think it is based on your own reading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #16)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:04 AM

21. A design flaw is grounds for a suit

a pink gun that attracts kids is a design flaw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:49 AM

18. That suit had nothing to do with the design or marketing of their product.

If it did, they would have had immunity. No other industry enjoys such immunity from the justice system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:13 AM

50. You can sue but you won't win.

All three cases cited by the poster would be losers if there was a lawsuit. So would the top image in the OP. It's nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:13 AM

34. Yes, you can.

You aren't guaranteed to win, but there isn't any special immunity for prosecution for those other industries. The fact that gun fanatics continue to defend the immunity that the gun industry gets is mind-boggling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:34 AM

9. That's a crock

Gun owners are responsible for the safe storage of their weapons. Letting a child play with a gun is grossly negligent and if the child dies as a result, the gun owner would be civilly (and probably criminally) liable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to badtoworse (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:38 AM

11. there is nothing in the OP that says otherwise

It speaks to the special protection against liability congress has granted gun companies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #11)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:43 AM

13. You can sue the gun manufacturer if it sells a defective gun

But you shouldn't be able to sue the gun manufacturer for negligence on the part of a gun owner. That's no different than sueing a car manufacturer because a drunk driver killed someone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to badtoworse (Reply #13)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:12 AM

25. very true

so why give the gun manufacturers special protection not afforded to car manufacturers? And why do you feel compelled to defend restrictions on equal protection of Americans citizens in pursuit of unfettered profits for gun companies, when no other manufacturer experiences that level of privilege?

The law is protecting gun companies that knowingly allow illegal sales of their weapons. It has been used to shield them from a wide variety of law suits, as articles I have linked to in this thread demonstrate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #25)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:21 AM

51. because

there were certain groups who were determined to use the courts to sue gun manufacturers out of business.Groups were making an effort to abuse the court system to sue gun manufacturers into bankruptcy by claiming every gun that was misused by anyone was the fault of the gun maker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:42 AM

12. Does the law actually say that?

here is the wording from the law:



(a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified civil liability action may not be
brought in any Federal or State court.

------------snip------------

(5) QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTION.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘qualified civil liability
action’’ means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative
proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer
or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association,
for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory
relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other
relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of
a qualified product by the person or a third party, but
shall not include


------------snip------------

(v) an action for death, physical injuries or property
damage resulting directly from a defect in design
or manufacture of the product, when used as intended
or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that
where the discharge of the product was caused by
a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense,

then such act shall be considered the sole proximate
cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property
damage; or

------------snip------------

(D) MINOR CHILD EXCEPTION.—Nothing in this Act shall
be construed to limit the right of a person under 17 years
of age to recover damages authorized under Federal or
State law in a civil action that meets 1 of the requirements
under clauses (i) through (v) of subparagraph (A).


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109s397enr/pdf/BILLS-109s397enr.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:45 AM

14. what matters in law is how the courts interpret it.

This post contains links to articles: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2327888

But how can a child collect damages when they are dead?

The point is the companies enjoy special protections because of the influence of the gun lobby. The closest equivalent would be tobacco companies. Their product is by nature deadly, but they aren't held liable simply because of use of their product. Lawsuits hinged on wrong doing on their part. But such cases cannot be brought against gun companies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:48 AM

17. Your links confirm my point

the Sand Hook parents can't sue because the death of their children was the result of a crime. The manufacturers were not responsible for the shooter getting the gun.


That is not the same as designing a dangerous product that would entice children to play with it - that is a design flaw and the law allows such suits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:54 AM

19. The OP wasn't referencing Sandy Hook:

http://www.wyff4.com/news/local-news/greenville-news/GPD-Pink-gun-mistaken-for-toy-3-year-old-killed/-/9654794/18380044/-/a9v5v3z/-/index.html

Making a gun shiny, pink, pearlescent - and attractive to toddlers - doesn't make it defective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #19)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:02 AM

20. I was referring to one of the articles in a subsequent post

the law is specific - if the death is not the result of a crime then there can be a suit. It is in black and white.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:05 AM

22. the articles specificly say



You ignored this point about in the WaPo article showing that the law has been extended to accidental death: "In 2009, for instance, the Illinois Supreme Court rejected claims by the family of a child killed by his 13-year-old friend, who was playing with his father’s loaded Beretta 9mm pistol. The family argued that the gun’s design was flawed because the device meant to register ammunition in the chamber was inadequate and that the company should be held responsible. But the court ruled that the company was protected by the industry’s legal shield."

The law has further been broadened to protect companies that knowingly allow illegal weapons sales. It is one thing to say a company is not responsible for the illegal (or even normal legal) use of their product. Any court would hold that, irrespective of the law. But the law protects gun makers who behave negligently in ways no other industry enjoys. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about unrestricted profits for gun manufacturers. There is clearly unjustified special treatment as a result of the influence of the gun lobby, passed under a Republican controlled House, Senate, and Presidency.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/12/congress_should_repeal_the_law_that_protects_the_gun_industry_from_lawsuits.html

I understand that equal protection under the law means little to you compared to your ability to stockpile weapons. But at least be honest about it. The rights trope is self-serving and ultimately empty, since the only rights gun proponents care about are their own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #22)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:21 AM

27. And here is a suit that is proceeding

LOS ANGELES -- A California appeals court has reinstated a now-retired paralyzed Los Angeles police officer's product liability lawsuit against gun manufacturer Glock.

Enrique Chavez was paralyzed from the waist down when his 3-year-old son accidentally shot him with his service pistol.

The lawsuit claims the .45-caliber Glock 21 pistol lacks adequate safeguards against accidental discharge.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/enrique-chavezs-lawsuit-glock_n_1701930.html

here is another suit

BOSTON — A Massachusetts gun maker has agreed to pay nearly $600,000 to the families of one man who was killed and another man who was wounded in a shooting involving a gun said to have been stolen from the company, a national gun-control group announced Tuesday.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/26/gun-maker-settles-wrongful-death-lawsuit/#ixzz2KDqkVbwJ

And another:

BUFFALO, N.Y. (AP) — A former high school athlete who was shot in 2003 may sue the companies that made and distributed the handgun used in the crime under an appellate court ruling that gun control advocates say will keep irresponsible gun makers and sellers from taking advantage of a federal law shielding them from lawsuits.

The ruling by the Appellate Division of the state Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s 2011 dismissal of victim Daniel Williams’ complaint, which accused Ohio gun maker Hi-Point and distributor MKS Supply Inc. of Ohio of intentionally supplying handguns to irresponsible dealers because they profited from sales to the criminal gun market.

The appellate panel said the Buffalo man’s lawsuit should have been allowed to move forward because Williams’ claims fall within exceptions contained in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from lawsuits over criminal use of their products.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/09/ny-appeal-court-rules-shooting-victim-may-sue-gun-maker/

The reason why the case you give as an example was rejected is here - note how the Illinois Supreme Court does not recognize a blanket immunity?:

While a lower state court allowed that claim to proceed, the Illinois Supreme Court blocked the lawsuit altogether. It ruled that, because Billy had intentionally aimed the gun and pulled the trigger, the incident did not come within the exception Congress had made to the lawsuit ban.


http://www.scotusblog.com/2009/08/tracking-new-cases-suing-gun-makers/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #27)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:39 AM

30. Why not be honest here

We can play lawyer all day, but you are only avoiding the central issue: How can you defend special protection for gun makers? Doesn't your conscience tell you that is wrong? Do you really care so little about the rights of your fellow citizens?
If not for lawsuits, cars would still be death traps and auto makers would still be calculating deaths vs. profit margins. Gun companies will never improve product safety as long as they are shielded from liability claims. You continually defend them in ways that only lead to more deaths. They could stop making pink guns. They could implement trigger locks, but they won't do so if they don't face potential loss of profit. Profit is all any company ever cares about. Of course businesses are entitled to make profit, but they should be on equal footing under the law. And, more importantly, citizens and consumers should have equal access to legal redress.


The issue in the last case a matter of fact, which normally falls to juries to decide. If that is not an accident, nothing is. That's an appalling justification for you to get behind, truly reprehensible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #30)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:54 AM

31. Why do you think gun manufacturers should be sued for the acts of criminals?

that is not a reasonable standard - no other manufacturer is held to that standard.

This law came about due to the overreach of gun control groups - they planned a concerted campaign to drive gun makers out of business through an avalanche of frivolous law suits. Their goal was to turn the legal system into a weapon.

Perhaps the solution is to tighten the language - be more specific as to what constitutes a valid law suit.

BTW - are you aware that the law you are condemning actually requires gun manufacturers to provide trigger locks:

‘‘(z) SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided under paragraph
(2), it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer
any handgun to any person other than any person licensed
under this chapter, unless the transferee is provided with a
secure gun storage or safety device
(as defined in section
921(a)(34)) for that handgun.


I suggest you actually read the law instead of getting your information from anti-gun sites.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #31)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:52 AM

43. The real question is, why should the gun industry receive special immunity?

The gun industry should be subject to the same liability laws as anyone else. The same laws that govern cars, and cigarrettes, and ball-point pens. I don't support frivolous lawsuits against any industry. But I think that a judge and jury should decide, not the gun lobby.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #43)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:56 AM

44. So tighten the wording of the law

to be more specific in what is allowed and not allowed.

As long as it is clear that the gun manufacturers are protected from acts of crime or criminal negligence like every other business, I don't see a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #44)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:08 AM

49. Just get rid of the law, and let judges and juries decide.

No special protection for the gun industry, period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #49)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:30 AM

53. Time will tell I guess. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #49)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 12:48 PM

55. As long as we change to a loser-pays system, I'm fine with that.

Until then, no...you know there would be no shortage of funding for an organization that explicitly stated an intention to sue a firearms manufacturer every time one of their weapons was used in a crime with the express purpose of bleeding them out via legal expenses, even though any cases that did make it by a jury would likely be overturned on appeal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #22)


Response to applycommonsense (Reply #35)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:37 AM

40. How is the government perpetuating the shattering of the family?

Not sure what you mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cyberswede (Reply #40)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:59 AM

46. Good question.

The last twenty times I heard that line it came from Alex Jones-listening Ron Paul supporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:27 AM

28. Safety locks

Why do script bottles have child proof caps? Why do household cleaners have the same caps? Why do the manufacturers of these common products have these safety caps on them?

Yet, the gun manufacturers are exempt from putting safety locks on THEIR products, especially PINK guns which look even more like toys? Hasn't the NRA fought requring safety locks?????? WHY???? It might "annoy" gun owners?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #28)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:30 AM

29. it cuts into their profits

It's about profit for every company. Innovation and model changes always cost something. And gun companies have no incentive to make such modifications when they are protected from liability. If not for law suits, cars would still be death traps. Auto makers would still be calculating deaths vs. profit margins. Gun makers will never improve product safety without the threat of lawsuits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #28)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:59 AM

32. They are not exempt - they are actually required to by law

‘‘(z) SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided under paragraph
(2), it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer
any handgun to any person other than any person licensed
under this chapter, unless the transferee is provided with a
secure gun storage or safety device
(as defined in section
921(a)(34)) for that handgun.


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109s397enr/pdf/BILLS-109s397enr.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #32)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:25 AM

36. sorry, i think i'm the one that gave the hackster that link

it is called-
PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS act

there is really no argument.

it sucks for everyone but gun makers and the NRA.

it sucks for 'good' gun owners because it makes them look like NRA puppets for 'supporting' it

AND its a bunch of unintelligible gibberish.

just like the way they shit-sandwiched the 'safe passage act' into the FOPA- if a normal person can't decipher it, they can make any law they want!

i didn't read thru the thread yet, but it seems you are trying to inform mr. hackster that the FOPA is the cause of the 40-50% of gun sales that are illegal. and he is, of course, complaining, even though he has enough guns, but he is NOT doing for the NRA!


The Arms Act

The Arms Act was passed in 2005, in the depths of the Bush era, and today it remains one of the most jarring parts of a relentless conservative campaign to impose "tort reform" upon America. It shields gun-industry actors who may not have done all they can do to ensure that guns stay out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. And it does so in the name of the hoary concept that freedom of gun commerce is more important per se than freedom from gun violence. Think that's an equation the American people embrace today?

Here below are some of the Congressional "findings" which accompany the law. The language is telling -- and downright dire in its condemnation of the rule of law and centuries-long role of judges and juries in our civil justice system. In the name of shielding potentially negligent gun dealers, Congress quickly threw under the bus virtually every legal precept Americans have treasured for the past 225 years. According to the law, having a jury of American citizens pass judgment on the negligent acts of a gun dealer weakens the very fabric of our society:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/one-quick-answer-to-sandy-hook-repeal-the-2005-arms-act/266371/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #36)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:28 AM

37. Good morning - industrious as always I see. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #37)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:43 AM

41. cheerio! i call it 'anti-gunindustrious'

unbiased source-
The problem, as Leahy and others see it, is that without a specific statute explicitly criminalizing straw purchases and stiffer penalties for both crimes, government prosecutors will continue to treat such offenses as paperwork infractions undeserving of prosecutorial resources.

During testimony in June 2011 before the House Government Oversight Committee, another ATF agent decried the “toothless” nature of existing laws. The Fraternal Order of Police, among many police groups that have argued for such legislation, said in a recent letter to Leahy that specific penalties for firearms trafficking “would greatly assist ATF agents during the investigation and prosecution process.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0206/Gun-debate-101-Doesn-t-US-already-have-laws-against-gun-trafficking/%28page%29/2

also fairly trustworthy-
" heard testimony about the safety of women and gun violence. Now I'm seeking immediate consideration of the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. I was told yesterday that sometime in the next couple weeks we'll have it on the floor of the Senate for a vote," Leahy said. "I do this out of concern for domestic violence victims."

Addressing panelists including NRA president Wayne LaPierre, Leahy said statistics show that women in the U.S. are killed "at alarming rates" by domestic abusers with guns, but in states that require background checks for handgun sales, 38 percent fewer women are shot by their partners. He asked one panelist, Baltimore Police Chief Jim Johnson, whether universal background checks would have a significant effect on keeping guns away from domestic abusers. Currently, background checks are not required by private gun sellers or at gun shows.

"Absolutely," Johnson said. "Statistics show that when females are killed, it's more likely, over 50 percent of the time, to be by a spouse or household member. A gun in a home where there is a history of domestic violence, statistics show that there is a 500 percent increase of chance that that person will be victimized by gun violence."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/patrick-leahy-vawa-gun-violence_n_2583458.html

(i doubt the rest of your family would laugh at that ^^^ not meant as snark)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #41)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:49 AM

42. You and I most likely agree on about 80% of gun control issues

I am assuming you support the president's EOs, universal background checks, and limits on magazine size.

So how about you stop trying to paint everyone that disagrees with you as an extremist? The reality is that you cannot get the gun control measures you want without the support of gun owners. Why are you so actively working against your own best interests? That is what is so puzzling about the gun "debate" the nation is having - people seem to be choosing line in the sand litmus tests over working with their opponents to find common ground to actually fix things. And that goes for borth sides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #36)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 02:37 PM

59. Thanks! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #28)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 01:47 AM

76. It is a state law in Minnesota

that if there are children living in a home that any and all guns in the home must be locked and/or made inoperable with ammunition stored separately.

The bottom photo does not show a toy. Anyone older than about 10 years old should know that it is not a toy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #76)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 02:53 PM

85. the child was 3

not 10.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #85)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:10 AM

96. It appears you missed the first part of my post where I mentioned that guns need to be locked up

with ammunition stored separately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #96)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:43 AM

97. and not left lying on the ground outside?

That's great, but do you honestly believe a low keeps people from behaving irresponsibly? We have accidental shootings by children all the time in MN.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #97)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:12 AM

98. I don't understand your point.

Are you claiming there should not be further gun-control laws because people will behave irresponsibly and not follow those laws?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:08 AM

33. I don't see a toy in the bottom picture.

Regarding the top picture, if a child dies from playing with that toy gun, can you really sue? And if so, who?
If a child plays with that dime and dies, can you also sue? If so, who?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:29 AM

38. Some people have more money than brains.

 

Custom pink Kimber, how trashy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:58 AM

45. List of other industries that have certain special protections from lawsuits

Automotive Companies
Financial Institutions
Pharmacutical Companies
Medical Device Companies
Credit Card Companies
Vaccine Manufacturers
Food Manufacturers
Advertizing Companies
Insurance Industry
Telecom Industry
Rail Industry
Cosmetics Industry
Matress Manufacturers

Each of these industries have been afforded certain immunities from civil lawsuits. I'm sure the list is larger, however this was what I could gather.

The problem is that what you will find in almost any little law that regulates an industry our congress critters come up with they will sneak a little immunity in for the industry to protect them from future lawsuits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #45)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:00 AM

47. another reason for public financing of elections

Which I maintain is essential for democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #47)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:04 AM

48. Fuckin' A! +3.1415926535897932384626433832795

This corporate personhood at the same time corporate immunity at the same time corporate sponsored elections crap needs to stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:23 AM

52. But if a child plays poorly with the dime can you sue? Why not? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:56 AM

54. Repealing immunity should be a top priority

Then multiple states and cities can sue the gun industry into oblivion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwrguy (Reply #54)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 12:53 PM

56. Until the cases are overturned and the companies countersue for costs

I get it, you want to kill the gun industry by any means possible, but appeals courts tend to be less emotional than juries and will look at the cold legality instead of the argument to the heart.

If you also support the right of the family of a person killed in a DUI to sue the brewer and distributors I'll at least respect your POV, but I haven't come across anybody who will agree with that. Why do you think that is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #56)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:06 PM

57. Brewers don't sell a product designed to kill people

That's why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwrguy (Reply #57)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:56 PM

58. It's a legal product though

That's sold through currently legal channels. What it's designed to to is largely irrelevant to the particular question at hand, which is "should a company, ANY company, that's complying with all current laws regarding their product be held liable for the criminal or negligent use of their product?" I'm assuming your answer to that question is "yes"..

BTW, alcohol is designed to kill, just more slowly and generally unpleasantly than guns - that warm fuzzy feeling you get is basically being just a little poisoned. Don't believe me, go drink a couple bottles of vodka and see if you wake up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #56)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:00 PM

60. those rights all exist, except against gun companies

Your point is nonsense. You can sew the brewer and distributors. They are not protected by special legal exemptions. That does not mean a suit will be successful. Whether a particular law suit has merit It is for courts and juries to decide if a particular case has merit. You are advocating that gun companies not have to worry about the kinds of law suits that every other industry faces because . . . why? What is your interested in seeing them earn unfettered profits? How does their profit margin affect your right to bear arms? It doesn't. Tobacco companies survived lawsuits and still profit very well. All kinds of manufacturers have done so. The difference is their products are safer today because they are subject to liability.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:04 PM

61. That is horrid.

Guns should always look like what they are. And then there's the flip side, toys that look so realistic that kids have gotten shot and killed because someone thought they were.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:06 PM

62. The analogy from "Gift of Fear" author Gavin de Becker.

http://gavindebecker.com/resources/child_safety/children_visiting_houses_with_guns/

... the design of billions of bottles of consumer products was changed after the deaths of eight people from poisoned Tylenol, a tragedy completely beyond the control of the manufacturer. Ironically, gun-makers knowingly and enthusiastically build products that kill five hundred Americans each week for which we don’t require a single safety feature.


One correction to the above: Other sources say seven people died during the Tylenol poisonings, not eight. Still, fewer than 10 deaths and we changed how we bottle medicine.

And note how U.S. airport security changed after one would-be shoe bomber, Richard Reid (If there was another one, I can't name him). Yes, the object is to screen for explosive materials, but note the degree of screening (and the nonthreatening and compliant nature of the screened).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:57 PM

66. So I can sue the US Mint for making coins too small?




I don't want to silence you, not when you make comparisons like this!



How dumb to you think DUers are? Do you think they can't tell between choking on a tiny toy, or a tiny toy made out of toxic metals, and a loaded handgun left out by a careless adult?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #66)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:58 PM

67. Interesting you find the death of a child funny

but hardly a surprise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #67)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:10 PM

70. I find your analogies funny.

So if a poorly secured TV tips over and killed my kid, I get to sue Samsung?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #70)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:05 PM

71. anyone can sue manufacturers other than gun makers

It is for the courts and juries to decide if a particular suit has merit. But the families who have children killed by pink guns don't have the same redress in court that everyone else has because they are up against a powerful corporate lobby that means more to you than human life. Detergent makers are sued for packaging that attracts children, and courts decide if their claims have merit. You defend denying that same equal protection to citizens harmed by guns. Your argument about constitutional rights is exposed as a lie. You don't care about rights. You don't care about any right other than your own. What is it like to be so concerned about corporate profit than you don't care how many children die? Karma.


Interesting you would call them "my analogies" when the source is attributed in the post. Is reading a dozen words really so challenging?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #71)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 02:30 PM

83. They can't sue gun makers because the gun worked as advertised, that's why.

Duh.

If a gun explodes in your hand while shooting factory ammuntion, you can most certainly sue for damaged, because they made a flawed product. If a lot of one kind of gun explodes in the same way, then you can certainly file a class-action suit.


Gun makers don't advertize too much on TV, and gun makers don't make toy guns, either. Maybe they should be suing Nerf for making kids think guns are toys.

Citizens aren't being harmed by guns; they're being harmed by PEOPLE. And there are generally at least 3 retail steps between a gun being made and a gun being sold, so why the hell would you sue the gun makers? Especially for crimes committed years after the gun was made and initially sold?

And your constant drenching of yourself in the blood of children is getting a little tiring. It sounds disturbingly similar to the rhetoric spewed by BushCo. It was controlling, emotional claptrap then, and it's emotional controlling claptrap now.


If you're so concerned with saving children's lives, can I count on your support for a 5mph national speed limit, enforced by mandatory governors installed on all vehicles? Or is being able to race to the drive-thru at 40 mph worth thousands of dead kids a year?



And, um, you are voluntary posting from another source, and supporting that source's viewpoint. So, it's "yours".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #83)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 02:51 PM

84. See this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2328353

We've been through this car argument ad nauseum. Take your ginkgo biloba.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #84)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 04:55 PM

92. Explain to me, then....

how, when a gunmaker sells to a federally-licensed gun distributor, who then sells to a federally-licensed dealer, who THEN sells it to Joe Citizen... the gunmaker is somehow responsible for the gun winding up in the wrong hands?


And you don't want to save 32,000 people a year, huh? Amazing how that works, isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #92)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:22 PM

93. He isn't

Or it's highly unlikely in that situation you present. I'm talking about your support of and refusal to acknowledge a special law protecting gun companies from liability. You insist on interrogating me on the specifics of hypothetical cases, which isn't the point. Not all--probably not even most--law suits are successful. But plaintiffs typically have a right to have a court entertain the case to see if there are grounds to move forward. They do not, however, against gun companies. Congress has given the gun industry immunity from liability, which is yet another example of the ways that the gun lobby restricts the rights of American citizens. If a law case is frivolous or unfounded, the plaintiff loses; the case is thrown out. You are asking about matters of fact that are typically decided by juries.

The tobacco companies are an appropriate parallel to the gun industry. They sell products that kill people. But everyone knows cigarettes kill. So the tobacco companies are not liable for the simple use of their product. They lost that landmark case to the states only because memos were uncovered showing they had deliberately conspired to make cigarettes more addictive. Despite that large verdict, and others, against them, tobacco remains a lucrative, highly profitable business. The same would be true for gun companies.

The central point here is that you gun people evoke rights as a justification for profligate gun proliferation but could care less about the rights of due process, equal protection, and First Amendment provisions regarding free speech and the right to petition courts. You obviously don't give a damn about anyone's rights but your own. So no one believes your arguments about about rights. When someone stands for rights that only meet their own interests, they don't support rights at all. They merely evoke them as justification. Your position is therefore entirely hypocritical. This thread makes clear that you people have absolutely no commitment to citizens rights. Your only concern is guns.

I don't know what your 32,000 remark is about. If that's a reference to cars, we went through that ages ago. I'm not rehashing old conversations because you have a poor memory and the NRA hasn't fed you any new talking points yet. That also happens to be a smaller number than the people who die by guns every year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 01:54 AM

77. Here's a thought(s)

I agree with your idea. I'm no law professor, but according to the law

"The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products."

Is leaving a gun out for children to play with a crime? I guess the State could say the adults in the home were negligent then the responsibility is on them. It's not the manufacturers fault the gun was left out.

If the gun didn't have a safety or was defective you could sue for that. The color probably wouldn't qualify as defect.

There doesn't appear to be a creative way to get the gun manufacturers to be held legally accountable. The NRA pretty much has the manufacturers interests covered with the law.

Guns are consumer products. Baby carriages, cribs, strollers and car seats are recalled because of dangers to children even if no kids are killed and it's one or two injuries. It's enough to shut a whole line down and taken off the shelves.

But again this gun appeared to work as it was intended.

I had an idea that since guns are consumer products and over 1 million people have been killed and probably millions more injured in the US since 1968, as a consumer product they are unsafe and should be recalled but that idea would never fly. It would be proven in court over and over the deaths resulted because the gun wasn't used safely.

Most guns deaths are suicides. Obviously, in those cases the gun isn't used for protection as it was intended. But that's the same as using a consumer product like pills to kill yourself.

I don't know. Not much you can do to hold the gun makers accountable.

You could try an angle similar to second hand smoke from cigarettes. People are killed from errant "second hand" bullets. It's a public safety concern like second hand smoke is. Ban them from public areas. Of course the criminals won't listen to that but that's where you use law enforcement to go after gangs and the black market and you do gun buyback programs.

The other angle is some doctors are saying gun deaths are an epidemic. That's another public safety concern. Quaranteen the guns.

The gun fanatics have the 2A to keep their guns with the NRA to be on their side. There's got to be creative ways for us anti-gun people to avoid being the next victim when these gun fanatics become unhinged and I don't mean arming ourselves with even more guns.

And yes, I've fired many guns over the years at various rifle ranges, recently in December with my son and his scout troop (I went unwillingly and had to pretend to have fun) but I personally don't own one and would never keep one in the house for protection. I refuse to be caught up in protection paranoia and the whole macho man aspect of it. Swaggering around like Yosemite Sam in this day and age is loony. I can live without guns. They've been responsible for too many deaths and injuries.

When you have a government amendment in which more people die from guns than actually die from a property owner standing their ground or when you have more people killed in peacetime than in all the wars the US has been in, combined, the 2A has backfired on it's own citizens. The collateral damage of the 2A isn't worth it and is a failure in terms of human lives lost. The founding fathers weren't perfect. I don't care how many quotes you come up with from politicians that have been dead for 200 years. They aren't alive now to see the carnage.

It's like sending 4000 people off to die in a War against Iraq to avenge the death of 3,000 people. It's stupid killing more people than you save and that's what the 2A does. It's a failed government policy or whatever you call it. Yea George Mason. I'm trashing your Second Amendment.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:02 PM

86. Shouldn't be able to sue

for the small toy in my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rjj621 (Reply #86)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:52 PM

89. so you seek to abolish all right to civil lawsuits?

to be consistent? That will be tricky with the First Amendment guaranteeing the right to petition courts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #89)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 04:26 PM

91. No but seems like a frivolous lawsuit and trying to lay blame elsewhere

Manufacturer makes a toy that a kid swallows and chokes on, is it the manufacturers fault the kid tried to swallow it? Hell no it's not, if it is we may as well get rid of everything small enough for a kid to swallow and keep right on trying to protect everyone from themselves or those evil companies that didn't warn us of their dangerous products like marbles. If I'm dumb enough to try and change the fan belt in my car while it's running and fan is turning or try to dry my hair in the shower its no ones fault but my own for getting injured or killed. It wasn't a defective product that caused it, it was me using it other than intended.

Now, do kids know this? No, but we parents do, or should. I couldn't imagine trying to sue a manufacturer because my kid tried to swallow a mouthful of marbles. Damn sure wasn't the manufacturers fault and shouldn't be held responsible that my kid didn't understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rjj621 (Reply #91)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:48 PM

94. whether it is frivolous or not

Is for the courts to decide, in most cases. Only congress has exempted the gun industry from liability, so no case can move forward. Americans do not have the right to sue gun companies as they do other industries. For example, detergent companies modified their packaging so as not to make it so attractive to children. Gun companies might do the same, but they won't since they are shielded from most lawsuits.

Toy companies are liable for injuries if products are not properly labeled or defective in ways that cause harm. That's why you see age guidelines on toy packaging. If a company sells a small product that can be swallowed and labels it for an infant, they indeed are negligent. But if you as a parent give a toy meant for a 10 year old to a toddler, it's no one's fault but your own. Toys are far safer today because of law suits that resulted in packaging that recommends age ranges. Think of all the toys kids get as gifts. Not everyone buying toys knows what is suitable for kids of a certain age. Because of age guidelines, I as an aunt don't buy my nephews toys that could kill them. That would not be possible if not for lawsuits that resulted in those guidelines on the packaging.

If not for lawsuits, cars would still be death traps and automakers would still be calculating deaths vs. profit margin.

I'm not saying you should sue. That's not the point. I'm saying it's wrong that parents whose children are killed by guns don't have the same right to seek redress as those harmed by other products. That is one of many ways the gun industry usurps our rights. Others include restricting doctors' rights to free speech by prohibiting them from asking patients about guns in the home. There are a whole series of ways that the gun industry limits our rights as Americans. The only purpose is their unfettered profit, unique among all industries. It is a function of their buying politicians and it's just wrong. It also means the gun companies have no incentive to develop safer products, trigger locks, etc... that could save lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:19 PM

102. I totally dig the second one

As a photo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread