Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Connecticut Senator Not Happy With Bernie Sanders’ View On Sandy Hook Lawsuit [View all]jberryhill
(62,444 posts)148. Yeah, I did
The existence of airbags eventually limited the viability of selling cars without them, because once they were a proven technology then, yes, they were required.
That happens with a lot of products. No, there is not a "free market" in the sense that one can now sell cars without airbags. They were, at one point, voluntarily introduced. But they proved to be so effective that, yes, they did become required.
You can't sell beer cans with pull tabs anymore either.
What categorical liability shields do, is to stymie the ordinary evolution of product safety.
People like to put their babies in cribs. One response to crib choking deaths would have been to say, "Well, we need to prevent liability suits against crib manufacturers, or nobody is going to make cribs." But, it is certainly true that you can't buy a crib with slats spaced wide enough for a baby's head to go between them anymore.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
237 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Connecticut Senator Not Happy With Bernie Sanders’ View On Sandy Hook Lawsuit [View all]
still_one
Apr 2016
OP
No talking points, just fact and observation. The Sandy Hook killer didn't care about lawsuits.
arcane1
Apr 2016
#66
And Senator Murphy did not "pimp the bodies of murdered children" in his disgreement....
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
Apr 2016
#237
If you promote gunz as manly, the best sniper rifle, necesaaru, etc., you have liability.
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#188
let the jury decide if the manufacturers are liable - I agree with Sen. Murphy
wordpix
Apr 2016
#233
A better idea than holding manufactuers liable for damages that guns cause would be
JDPriestly
Apr 2016
#75
Yes. Insurance riders normally exclude criminal acts so this insurance would have to be very
JDPriestly
Apr 2016
#121
Free speech, the right of assembly and the right to petition the government are all fundamental
JDPriestly
Apr 2016
#174
I think my idea will become very popular, and gun owners will just have to pay up, all of them.
JDPriestly
Apr 2016
#179
You appear to have no idea how many regulations already exist for firearms, and the transfer thereof
AtheistCrusader
Apr 2016
#222
What part of 'it doesn't cover intentional criminal acts' is confusing to you?
AtheistCrusader
Apr 2016
#221
I thnk you appeal to people in general. This insurance idea is fair to everyone.
JDPriestly
Apr 2016
#185
Sell the insurance at the time of the gun sale. It would be part of the purchase price and
JDPriestly
Apr 2016
#184
You say that in one breath, but propose to price out poor rural people from hunting
NutmegYankee
Apr 2016
#186
If you want to exercise your free speech right in Los Angeles and get a bunch of people to
JDPriestly
Apr 2016
#187
That's what would have to change. The insurance would have to cover intentional acts
JDPriestly
Apr 2016
#182
I have incredibly strong feelings in support of our civil liberties and form of government
NutmegYankee
Apr 2016
#205
Sounds like the creed of some American militia group. Believe it or not, we don't live in
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#206
It is when someone is promoting guns in USA, and it's used by militia groups like the Border Klan.
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#216
I know what it is, and I know militia groups, Oath Keepers and other Right Wing groups
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#217
We're talking complete immunity - there are vaccine courts and parents can sue. nt
Native
Apr 2016
#162
Hillary's voting for two wars should disqualify her from the nomination. n/t
Cheap_Trick
Apr 2016
#4
Obviously you didn't even bother to read the OP. This isn't a hit piece against Sanders
still_one
Apr 2016
#5
It's a hit piece. The law was a joke. It would never have made it past the SCOTUS. You
rhett o rick
Apr 2016
#54
Closer to apples to zebras. The tobacco industry added ingredients that made their product
rhett o rick
Apr 2016
#141
It doesn't matter where the argument "plays". Its a losing argument and would never fly in courts.
phleshdef
Apr 2016
#22
Well if there was a law that stated that gun manufacturers HAVE to use such technology...
phleshdef
Apr 2016
#33
You just want it to go to court, no matter what, because that will cost the dealers and manufacture
AtheistCrusader
Apr 2016
#94
It will also cost the people who attempt to sue and would likely be a loss of money for those...
phleshdef
Apr 2016
#95
A court (and I assume you mean jury, not judge) cannot just arbitrarily declare a product defective.
branford
Apr 2016
#117
Did you just say 'free market' in a story where the *existence* of a technology limits the firearms
AtheistCrusader
Apr 2016
#109
Nothing in that liability legislation prevents those technologies from advancing.
AtheistCrusader
Apr 2016
#149
We'll see if people in Connecticut, the Bronx, and Brooklyn agree with you. nt
geek tragedy
Apr 2016
#29
and, pardon me if I'm incorrect as it's been a while since I've done torts, but
geek tragedy
Apr 2016
#85
No way. I want to see strong gun laws but this law made a mockery of true gun control.
rhett o rick
Apr 2016
#63
He (Sanders) is right. Unless you're willing to advocate for no one ever having a gun...
dchill
Apr 2016
#12
Seems so goddamned SIMPLE, doesn't it? If I didn't know better, I'd think some are politicizing
AzDar
Apr 2016
#53
Good luck selling that argument in this city and the broader tri-state area Senator Sanders.
hrmjustin
Apr 2016
#20
You people will say anything ANYTHING, no matter how wrong or disgusting, or made up- for your Queen
Elmer S. E. Dump
Apr 2016
#25
The meaning of "you people" was militant Hillary supporters, not NYC citizens
JonLeibowitz
Apr 2016
#43
You know who I was talking to. Good luck in your life. You're going to need it!
Elmer S. E. Dump
Apr 2016
#137
One thing we should do is to make parents face time for felony child endangerment
JDPriestly
Apr 2016
#49
Woops! Maybe we should make them liable for obesity deaths while we are at it.
JDPriestly
Apr 2016
#65
because bernie protect the death industry they havent felt compelled to make the gunz safer
saturnsring
Apr 2016
#38
It would be easier to pass legislation regulating the gun manufacturers so that they have to
JDPriestly
Apr 2016
#47
Should we allow people whose loved ones have been killed by drunk drivers to sue the
JDPriestly
Apr 2016
#40
Murphy sat on the Financial Services Committee while his own home got forclosed on so I'm not
Bluenorthwest
Apr 2016
#71
He says if you are knowingly negligent, you should be liable. Not if you did nothing illegeal
jtuck004
Apr 2016
#77
It's like 99% of the people on this thread have conveniently forgotten the PLCAA precedent
Native
Apr 2016
#142
Bernie Bombs in NYDN Editorial Meeting, Reveals Just How Substance-Free His Campaign Is
Sir Lurksalot
Apr 2016
#155
I'm sorry, but manfactuerers are NOT responsible for what people do with their guns.
Odin2005
Apr 2016
#183
Fortunately this isnt a viewpoint that is held in comminality among the electorate...
Earth_First
Apr 2016
#234