From the Zogby poll #3

[beevul]

In reading the zogby survey in another thread, it became clear that theres too many questions to discuss them all in one thread.

This one seems pertinent to J/PS:
http://client.xntec.com/clientpages/oleary/report0104.html


"The National Rifle Association also made inroads with voters on the issue of gun manufacturer lawsuits. The poll asked:"


"Do you agree or disagree that American firearm manufacturers who sell a legal product that is not defective should be allowed to be sued if a criminal uses their products in a crime?"


"Current members of the military and their families opposed this idea by a margin of 83% to 16%. Veterans disagreed with the idea by a lesser margin of 79% to 19%. Non-military respondents disagreed with the idea by an even smaller 68% to 30% margin."

"Whites, Hispanics and African Americans also disagreed with allowing gun manufacturers from being sued by margins of 77%, 68% and 53% respectively. Seventy-one percent of Asians, however, supported the premise."

"Perhaps more surprising is that 68% of liberals and 70% of moderates disagree that gun manufacturers should be sued when a criminal uses their product in a crime. Opposition to such a premise consistently ran above 70% regardless of the frequency with which respondents attended church. High school graduates opposed the premise by 68% while opposition by college graduates rose to 76%. Gun owners were far more in opposition to the question by an 82% to 16% margin while non-gun owners disagreed by a 65% to 33% percent. Overall, a majority in each demographic opposed to such lawsuits."

[aquart]

1. Again, the wording, the wording.

Is a chocolate manufacturer responsible if you eat chocolate until you die?

If a gun is manufactured for no other purpose than to kill human beings, is it wrong to sue a manufacturer when it is successfully used to kill human beings? Veterans say no because they want good guns.

If a manufacturer makes a plastic or other sort of gun designed to elude detection by law enforcement specifically so it can be used in the commission of criminal acts, and the gun is so used, should the manufacturer be held accountable?

Try that one.

[MrSandman]

2. The proposed law would allow

the manufacturer to be sued under your hypothetical question. They would be violating a federal law by manufacturing such a gun. S.659 & 1806:


"(A) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified civil liability action' means a civil action brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include--
<>
(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly and willfully violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought;"

If guns were manufactured for no other reason than to kill human beings, why are about 200 million guns out there having failed in their mission.