General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPost removed
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)You cannot sue Ford when a drunk driver kills a family member, so why this now?
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Yes, its misused. So are cars, knives, beer, etc. We should not be suing manufactures of legal products.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Who else would you sue? Makers of illegal products?
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)If I take a ford, and the brakes fail, that is the basis of a lawsuit.
If I'm drag racing a ford on a public street, nobody should be suing ford because their car is capable of going 90mph. They should be suing me for not using it in a responsible manner.
rock
(13,218 posts)It sounds demented to say we should be able to sue a manufacturer because his product worked.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)That goes completely against anything that can be seen in America today, with very few exceptions. Gun manufacturers being one of them. It also goes against the concept of justice itself.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)If you've a problem with a legal product, address the legality of that product. I'll help you.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)You know, in this world where ":makers of legal products" can't be sued. the kids that were killed at sandyhook were ripped apart by a product that worked exactly as designed and was perfectly legal and is immune from responsibility thanks to gun humpers (like Bernie Sanders?)
ileus
(15,396 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)One needs to be responsible when drunk.
99.9% of guns in America never killed anybody. Maybe mine is defective and I should sue glock.
Throd
(7,208 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)It makes no sense.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)That makes no sense.
ileus
(15,396 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)derby378
(30,252 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)gratuitous
(82,849 posts)But federal law pre-empts their liability for their lethal products, which when used as intended, kill people. Just like tobacco, which similarly enjoys federal pre-emption from the natural and normal consequences of its use by citizens.
I think there's a case to be made that gun manufacturers are purposely overproducing, knowing that their products will be oversold in jurisdictions with lax gun regulation to be used in areas with stricter standards on gun ownership.
But that would require lawmakers more concerned about citizens and public health than they are about gunmakers' bottom lines and whether Wayne LaPierre and the ghouls in the NRA are happy. So, it's not likely to happen anytime soon. Unless we get another Dylann Roof event that breaks loose the dammed-up sentiments of a majority of the country, and popular opinion manifests itself at last against the merchants of death.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)How would they control distribution to stop trafficking.
Somebody orders a gun, they make a gun.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)I think it's in Georgia, there is a little old gun merchant who orders quite a lot of stock from the manufacturers. In spite of the fact that Georgia is pretty well-stocked with shootin' arns, a whole bunch of that merchant's sales winds up in places like the District of Columbia, which has heavy local restrictions on gun sales and purchases. Now, either the good people at Colt or Winchester are a remarkably incurious lot in contravention of their "responsible gun owner" pose (negligence), or they know good and well that their wares are winding up where they shouldn't (reckless disregard), and causing a lot of bloodshed.
I would argue that those manufacturers should be held liable for the deaths their products cause because of their negligent or reckless behavior. A few successful lawsuits and some punitive damages awards, and I'd be willing to bet that the manufacturers themselves would be leading the campaign for better regulation.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)If the gun store is selling them illegally, go after the gun store.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)It really doesn't make much sense to me.
petronius
(26,581 posts)of a third party, IMO - i.e. not for 'gun violence.'
Like all manufacturers, gun makers should be (and are) liable for their own negligence and misdeeds but not for that of others...
Spazito
(49,784 posts)but I have to say one of my favorite movies is The Runaway Jury, the gun manufacturer representatives were characterized as greedy, don't give a shit about victims, dirty players and that's my take on real representatives of the gun manufacturers.
The movie is fiction, the plaintiff won, yesssss!
Amishman
(5,541 posts)if they are circumventing laws intended to keep guns out of dangerous hands, then definitely yes
but just because they manufactured it and someone down the supply chain did something illegal? no, it is unreasonable to punish them for something outside their control.
And in our litigious society, removing all protections would quickly result in hundreds of lawsuits against each manufacturer. This would bankrupt all of them from legal expenses alone, even if they win every case. I suspect this is what some people have in mind.
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)Bernie's vote was good.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Suing the perpetrator makes more sense.
sarisataka
(18,222 posts)of 9-11 victims be able to sue Boeing?
Same rational- planes are designed to travel through the air, guns are designed to accurately fire projectiles.
The practical use i.e. using either to kill, is on the operator.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)should the victims of mesothilioma be barred from suing the manufacturer?
Yes, they shuld be able to sue.
When a manufacturer lobbies for and creates a nuisance. When they conspire with huge national organizations to lobby and buy off politicians. When they have systematically created laws that protect shooters of innocent people, and create an environment and a pervasive mind set of shoot or be shot first...yeah, they hava some culpability in creating a society where guns are so prolific and ripe for abuse. They deserve to be sued.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)To manufacture them is to enable people to kill people.
Common sense, really.
ghostsinthemachine
(3,569 posts)H2O Man
(73,333 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)while slicing vegetables, no, you can't sue JA Henckles because you got distracted.
There is a difference between a defective product and a product that works exactly as intended.
Oh, and gun-humper? Wow.