blatantly stupid... got to love the NY Times choice for op ed writers

maineman said:
Coors, nor an automobile are designed to kill things.
Click to expand...

Yet autos are responsible for more deaths in the US than guns.

Beer/alcohol causes more innocent people to be harmed due to violence than guns do.

Guns are used for other purposes than killing. But you gun grabbers just can't get past any of the above... can you?
 
Superfreak said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/let-shooting-victims-sue.html

'let shooting victims sue gun companies' says this walking brain trust op ed writer for the NY Times. Do we allow people to sue Coors if someone drinks too much and starts a fight? Do we allow people to sue GM when some moron drives drunk/wreckless and injures/kills another?

No... we do not. Yet we hear this type of nonsense from gun grabbers.
Click to expand...


Actually, I'm not aware of any legislation that shields brewers or automobile manufacturers from liability under the circumstances that you describe, so, yes, we do allow those things.
 
Superfreak said:
Got any examples of someone being successful in such a suit?
Click to expand...


Well, that's an entirely separate issue. People who believe they have been harmed can bring those types of lawsuits if they wish. They may not prevail, but we don't close the courthouse doors on them. But we do for victims of gun violence. Victims of gun violence can't even bring suit in the first instance.

And the fact that the gun manufacturers paid out $2.5 million to settle the suit brought by victims of the D.C. sniper suggests that such claims are potentially meritorious, whether you personally agree or not.
 
Superfreak said:
Yet autos are responsible for more deaths in the US than guns.

Beer/alcohol causes more innocent people to be harmed due to violence than guns do.

Guns are used for other purposes than killing. But you gun grabbers just can't get past any of the above... can you?
Click to expand...

If you want to start a movement to ban cars, go ahead. If you want to join MADD or other anti-alcohol groups, go ahead.

But those have nothing to do with guns or gun control; it's a logical fallacy to say "X number of people die in autos and therefore we shouldn't control guns".

Has it escaped your notice that we DO control cars and alcohol? With cars - safety belts, air bags, increased standards for crash safety, licenses, insurance, etc. We do that not because we can stop all car deaths; but because we want to reduce the chance of death.

With alcohol - rules around BAC, age that you can drink at, and a HUGE educational campaign to reduce the damage.

So rules around guns - to reduce the carnage; we know we won't eliminate it. Why can't you gun lovers appreciate that?
 
Dungheap said:
Well, that's an entirely separate issue. People who believe they have been harmed can bring those types of lawsuits if they wish. They may not prevail, but we don't close the courthouse doors on them. But we do for victims of gun violence. Victims of gun violence can't even bring suit in the first instance.

And the fact that the gun manufacturers paid out $2.5 million to settle the suit brought by victims of the D.C. sniper suggests that such claims are potentially meritorious, whether you personally agree or not.
Click to expand...

No, it really isn't a separate issue. It is the same issue. You cannot find one because people get shut down, either by going to a lawyer who tells them it isn't going to happen or by a judge who dismisses the case. I could be wrong, maybe there is a case out there where someone has been successful taking such a case to trial. But I doubt it. Which is why I asked you for an example.

Just because there isn't a law that specifically says you can't, doesn't mean it is something that is allowed.

Also... the gun manufacturer did NOT settle for $2.5mm. They settled for $550k. The gun STORE paid the remainder. We know the victims split about 2/3's of that total as the lawyers grabbed the rest. We also know that the immunity was granted after this case. It is too easy for the public to get manipulated by the lawyers and blame the manufacturers for the actions of the criminals who misuse their products. Start sueing GM for drunk driving deaths and watch how fast the same type of legislation passes.
 
tekkychick said:
If you want to start a movement to ban cars, go ahead. If you want to join MADD or other anti-alcohol groups, go ahead.

But those have nothing to do with guns or gun control; it's a logical fallacy to say "X number of people die in autos and therefore we shouldn't control guns".

Has it escaped your notice that we DO control cars and alcohol? With cars - safety belts, air bags, increased standards for crash safety, licenses, insurance, etc. We do that not because we can stop all car deaths; but because we want to reduce the chance of death.

With alcohol - rules around BAC, age that you can drink at, and a HUGE educational campaign to reduce the damage.

So rules around guns - to reduce the carnage; we know we won't eliminate it. Why can't you gun lovers appreciate that?
Click to expand...

Don't you need to pass a test to drive a car and have insurance hence all gun owners should pass a test and have public liability insurance.
 
tekkychick said:
If you want to start a movement to ban cars, go ahead. If you want to join MADD or other anti-alcohol groups, go ahead.
Click to expand...

No, I am pointing out the stupidity of trying to blame a manufacturer for the misuse of its product.

But those have nothing to do with guns or gun control; it's a logical fallacy to say "X number of people die in autos and therefore we shouldn't control guns".
Click to expand...

I didn't say a thing about whether or not we should control guns on this thread. I pointed out the stupidity of sueing the manufacturers for the misuse of the guns.

Has it escaped your notice that we DO control cars and alcohol? With cars - safety belts, air bags, increased standards for crash safety, licenses, insurance, etc. We do that not because we can stop all car deaths; but because we want to reduce the chance of death.
Click to expand...

No, it has not. But we do not sue the manufacturers of autos that are involved in drunk driving deaths. We sue the person responsible. Did that escape your notice?

With alcohol - rules around BAC, age that you can drink at, and a HUGE educational campaign to reduce the damage.
Click to expand...

With guns, rules are there for our protection as well. There is ample education on gun safety that is available. But like alcohol, a person can either choose to educate themselves or not. Did that escape your notice?

So rules around guns - to reduce the carnage; we know we won't eliminate it. Why can't you gun lovers appreciate that?
Click to expand...

Again, can you stay on topic? The topic of this thread is whether or not people should be able to sue the manufacturer of products if someone misuses that product and the end result is the injury or death of another person.

Why can't you gun grabbers appreciate that?
 
The topic of this thread is whether or not people should be able to sue the manufacturer of products if someone misuses that product and the end result is the injury or death of another person.
Click to expand...

I'd say yes. They may or may not win, but they should be able to sue. Think of asbestos... it was used for its legitimate purpose - insulation - but when it was discovered it was killing people, the company got sued.

Then the judge/jury can determine if the manufacturer should have foreseen that its product could have been used in such a fashion; or did they in fact encourage that use of the product; and if so, they may be found guilty. Maybe not. Up to the courts.

Too bad Bush signed a law protecting gun companies.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/bush-signed-2005-law-protecting-gun-m
At the very least, gun manufacturers should be held civilly liable for the injuries and deaths that foreseeably result from their products.
Click to expand...

http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/24/why-is-congress-protecting-the-gun-industry/
but Congress enacted a law in 2005 — under heavy lobbying from the NRA and the gun industry — that gives gun manufacturers and dealers broad immunity from being sued. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) shields the gun industry even when it makes guns that are unnecessarily dangerous and sells them recklessly.
Click to expand...
 
That Time article is pretty good -
http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/24/why-is-congress-protecting-the-gun-industry/
Civil lawsuits do two important things: they compensate people who are injured by the bad acts of others and they penalize people and companies for bad behavior. If a company knows it may have to pay a large amount of money if it poses an unreasonable threat to others, it will have a strong incentive to act better.

Lawsuits prod companies to make their products safer. Years ago, lawsuits over the Ford Pinto’s fuel tank fires led Ford to recall the troubled car and improve the design. Since then, all sorts of consumer products — from aboveground swimming pools to children’s pajamas — have been made safer by litigation or the threat of litigatio

Lawsuits also make retailers act more prudently when they sell things. “Dram shop” laws are a classic example. These laws, which allow victims of drunk drivers to sue the bar that sold the liquor, put pressure on bars and restaurants not to let people drive home drunk.
Click to expand...
 
Superfreak said:
No, it really isn't a separate issue. It is the same issue. You cannot find one because people get shut down, either by going to a lawyer who tells them it isn't going to happen or by a judge who dismisses the case. I could be wrong, maybe there is a case out there where someone has been successful taking such a case to trial. But I doubt it. Which is why I asked you for an example.
Click to expand...

No, it's a separate issue, which is why you changed your tune from "do we allow this?" to "are these suits successful?"


Superfreak said:
Just because there isn't a law that specifically says you can't, doesn't mean it is something that is allowed.
Click to expand...

That's very informative, but you can sue whoever the hell you want for whatever the hell you want unless there's a law that says you wan't.


Superfreak said:
Also... the gun manufacturer did NOT settle for $2.5mm. They settled for $550k. The gun STORE paid the remainder. We know the victims split about 2/3's of that total as the lawyers grabbed the rest. We also know that the immunity was granted after this case. It is too easy for the public to get manipulated by the lawyers and blame the manufacturers for the actions of the criminals who misuse their products. Start sueing GM for drunk driving deaths and watch how fast the same type of legislation passes.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. So we can't let gun manufacturers get sued (unlike how we let GM and Coors get sued) because a jury might find the claims meritorious? That doesn't sound like a good reason not to let gun manufacturers be sued.


Also, too, you keep talking about "misuse" of guns and I'm not sure why. Killing people is what guns are designed to do when operated properly.
 
Superfreak said:
Yet autos are responsible for more deaths in the US than guns.

Yet there are MORE car owners than gun owners in the US, so that statement is not surprising.

Beer/alcohol causes more innocent people to be harmed due to violence than guns do.

Especially when the drunk has access to a gun.

Guns are used for other purposes than killing. But you gun grabbers just can't get past any of the above... can you?
Click to expand...

Nobody has "grabbed" any gun in the US via federal law in the last 50 years....even the DC law was overturned. So stop braying that bullshit.

And guns are designed to KILL...whether it be for food, defense or offense. "Target" shooting is to hone those skills. CHOICE determines how the gun is used.

People kill people....and they can do it more efficiently with guns.
 
Dungheap said:
Well, that's an entirely separate issue. People who believe they have been harmed can bring those types of lawsuits if they wish. They may not prevail, but we don't close the courthouse doors on them. But we do for victims of gun violence. Victims of gun violence can't even bring suit in the first instance.

And the fact that the gun manufacturers paid out $2.5 million to settle the suit brought by victims of the D.C. sniper suggests that such claims are potentially meritorious, whether you personally agree or not.
Click to expand...
I have been told, consistently, by many of the posters here that settlements without convictions are nothing but that....settlements. it is no admission of liability, so your claim really means nothing.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Don't you need to pass a test to drive a car and have insurance hence all gun owners should pass a test and have public liability insurance.
Click to expand...
one needs to determine if one is a right or privilege. if it is indeed a privilege, then by all means feel free to require insurance. If one is a right, then no can require insurance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top