If automobile, tobacco, pharmaceutical and other companies ..

[MindMover]

can be prosecuted for killing people with their products ....

SO CAN GUN MANUFACTURERS

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

1. Gun manufacturers...

...don't kill people, the users of their products do.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. I am sure that our Founding Fathers never envisioned the days when we would turn our

arms Against each other ...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. Them Founders...

...was sure somethin'.

[oldhippie]

3. Can you cite a case where this was successfully accomplished?

I know of a couple of attempts. I haven't seen one succeed.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. AFAIK...

...this has never succeeded and manufacturers have immunity from suits involving the criminal misuse of their products.

[MindMover]

18. Of course they do ... however, knowing that you sell products that kill and maim

hundreds of thousands every year around the world and you are defending yourself with words and not actions based on current technology is the same argument that tobacco companies tried using ...

Its like bringing a hand grenade to a five year olds birthday party ... "what does this pin do daddy.."

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. I think you should go for it.

A new round of free media attention will for sure sell out a few more months (or maybe years) worth of firearms manufacturers production. They couldn't buy advertising like that.

[holdencaufield]

6. You can sue a manufacturer ...

... if a product causes death or injury while being used in a PRESCRIBED AND LEGAL manner.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm almost certain shooting people isn't legal and not a prescribed use for the item in question.

[spin]

9. O.K. I'll correct you ...

You can legally shoot a person for legitimate self defense. Some firearms are designed primary for this purpose. A snub nosed .38 caliber revolver is an example.

[MindMover]

10. Ask the tobacco companies about your theory ...

[PuffedMica]

7. Prosecuted if the product can be demonstrated to be misrepresented or defective

If a gun manufacturer sells a defective product that results in a death, a lawsuit is in order.
Ford Pinto fuel tanks, Tylenol with potassium cyanide and baby food with glass shards rate law suits. A properly functioning revolver, not so much.

[MindMover]

8. You left out tobacco company products ... wonder why .?

[spin]

11. Tobacco companies advertised their products as safe. ...

Firearm manufacturers admit misuse of their products can lead to injury or death.

Here's an excerpt from the Smith & Wesson web page.

SAFETY IS YOUR NUMBER ONE RESPONSIBILITY!
At home, in the field, at the range, or anywhere, the first concern of every firearm owner should be safety. Before handling any firearm, understand its operation and familiarize yourself with its mechanical features. If you feel uncertain about any operational aspects of your Smith & Wesson firearm, please contact Smith & Wesson at 1-800-331-0852, ext. 2905, before proceeding with its operation. Never allow a firearm to be used by individuals who do not understand its safe operation or who have not read these firearm safety rules.

As a firearm owner, you accept a demanding responsibility. How serious you take this responsibility can be the difference between life and death. There is no excuse for careless or abusive handling of your firearm. At all times handle your firearm with intense respect for its power and potential danger.

Firearms are dangerous and can cause serious injury or death if they are misused or used inappropriately. Appropriate use of your firearm means using your firearm for legal purposes. For example: target shooting, hunting, and lawful resistance of deadly criminal force. Safety must be the prime consideration of anyone who owns, handles or uses firearms. Accidents are the result of violating the rules of safe firearm handling and common sense. Firearm safety training is available. Contact your firearms dealer, law enforcement agency, local sportsman's club, etc. for availability....emphasis added
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Category3_750001_750051_757978_-1_Y

[MindMover]

14. There once was a man called Nader ...

who championed a cause for safety ... in automobiles ... and now I have to buckle or else --$100.00

I say every gun sold should have trigger safety technology ... just a start ..

[spin]

29. I have no major problem with "trigger safety technology" as long as it is reliable. ...

Having retired from a highly technical field I am a firm believer in Murphy's law.

If anything can go wrong, it will

and I will add MacGillicuddy's Corollary:

At the most inopportune time

A firearm is not a good environment for safety mechanisms. Smith & Wesson installed a safety lock on their revolvers years ago and while rare there have been reports of the lock causing the handgun to malfunction.

INTERNAL GUN LOCKS
Thursday, September 3rd, 2009
Earlier blog posts on new Smith & Wesson products here in the last few weeks triggered a visceral storm of criticism in the Comments sections for S&’s continued installation of an internal lock on most of their revolvers. The turn of the key locks the mechanism and renders the gun unshootable, even if it is fully loaded.

S&W has departed from the current policy twice. First, as mentioned here in comments, they quickly sold out a run of Airweight .38 revolvers made on older frames in stock, which did not have the controversial feature. Second, they’ve had good sales of their “lemon-squeezer” series, so called because these models come with a grip safety that the company feels, apparently, makes the internal lock redundant. These are still available, and can now be had in Airweight, the Model 42-1.

My experience and research has shown that spontaneous locking of the guns during firing (characterized as an ILF, or Internal Lock Failure) has occurred, but rarely. It normally involves very powerful guns with very violent recoil, and also very light guns (Scandium, Titanium) firing these extremely hot rounds. The buffeting from the heavy “kick” seems to be what’s jarring the parts out of alignment. However, one of our readers reported in the comments section that he saw an all-steel S&W spontaneously lock after it was accidentally dropped. Again, a violent impact to small parts seems to have been the culprit.
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2009/09/03/internal-gun-locks/

But the S&W internal lock is not what you were talking about.

I feel that there is some hope for this technology if it is thoroughly tested.

Smart Gun

The Smart Gun or Personalized Gun is a concept gun that aims to reduce the misuse of guns through the use of RFID chips or other proximity devices, fingerprint recognition, or magnetic rings. Only magnetic devices are readily available.

***snip***

Criticism

Smart guns have been criticized by gun-rights groups like the NRA[2] as well as by gun-control groups like the Violence Policy Center[citation needed]. Gun-rights groups generally feel that smart gun technology is an attempt to control citizen ownership of guns. The Violence Policy Center feels smart guns will make gun ownership more commonplace by making guns seem safer. [3]

***snip***

Many gun enthusiasts object to smart guns on a philosophical/regulatory basis as well as a technological basis. Gun ownership advocate Boston T. Party, writing about smart guns on page 35/24 of Boston's Gun Bible, says "No defensive firearm should ever rely upon any technology more advanced than Newtonian physics. That includes batteries, radio links, encryption, scanning devices and microcomputers. Even if a particular system could be 99.9% reliable, that means it is expected to fail once every 1000 operations. That is not reliable enough. My life deserves more certainty."

At least one major seller of smart gun technology admits potential fallibility of the technology. IGun Technology Corporation say on their website that "No mechanical or electrical device is capable of 100% reliability....Personalized guns offer advantages to some people and disadvantages to others."[5]...emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Gun

One reliable "smart trigger" does exist. It is the Magna-Trigger Conversion.

Magna-Trigger Gun Safety

Tarnhelm Supply Co., Inc. has a smart gun technology available that has been proven in the field. Tarnhelm Supply is the sole source for the Magna-trigger gun safety, a smart gun technology that has been around for decades. This safety device was developed for Smith & Wesson J, K, L and N frame guns. It is also available for a Ruger Security Six. The device works with a magnetic ring which, when worn, allows the gun to fire.

This smart gun has been proven in the field for over 20 years and is ideal for home defense, especially in homes with young children. The applied smart gun technology is also used by security forces in hospitals and by police.
http://www.tarnhelm.com/

Unfortunately this technology is not available on newly manufactured Smith and Wesson handguns from the factory and is fairly expensive.

The cost of the conversion is $350.00 and $60.00 for each standard ring. Shipping is priced according to the shipping policy outlined above. Each order takes three to four weeks to process.
http://www.tarnhelm.com/magna-trigger/gun/safety/magna1.html

[MindMover]

35. Of course smart gun technology is more expensive ...

but it will save many lives ....

[spin]

40. But adding several hundred dollars to the cost of a firearm might put it out of the reach ...

of a member of the lower class who has an honest need for a self defense weapon.

The idea should not to make firearms so expensive that only the upper middle class and the rich can own them. Unfortunately that does often seem to be the goal of some who support strong gun control. In some strong gun control states this is accomplished by requiring that any person who wishes to buy a firearm has to apply for an expensive license and spend a considerable amount of time traveling to and from a government office.

For example this article lists the steps to obtain a handgun for home defense in Washington DC:

MILLER: The new guide to getting a gun in D.C.
By Emily Miller - The Washington TimesJuly 12, 2012, 09:54AM
http://p.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2012/jul/12/miller-new-guide-getting-gun-dc/

In Florida you go to a gun store and pick out the handgun you want. You then fill out a simple form. The clerk calls and obtains a NICS background check. You leave and return in 3 business days to pick your new weapon up. (You can pay and leave with your new handgun if you have a Florida concealed weapons permit.) No registration of the weapon is required and you do not have to have the approval of the local police.

Even if your idea was passed into law and required your trigger safety technology there are still over 300,000,000 firearms in our nation without this feature. Many people would simply avoid buying a new firearm and instead would buy a used one. That's exactly what happened to Smith & Wesson when they put the internal gun lock on their revolvers.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

12. because the product was used correctly and it was misrepresented.

[Travis_0004]

13. There was a reason the tobacco lawsuits were sucessful.

The lawsuits were sucessful, because the tobacco companies were participating in anti trust practices, and fraud. They also lied about their products and claimed them to be safe even when they learned it wasn't true. That is why they lost the lawsuit.

Notice there haven't been any major tobacco lawsuits since that huge one in the late 90's, and the reason is because they stopped illegal practices. Smoking is still dangerous, and if you get lung cancer, you are not going to win a lawsuit against big tobacco.

Same with guns. If a gun is defective, and you get injured firing it, you can sue a gun manufacturer, you just can't sue them if they are used illegally.

I was hit once by a drunk driver, and I didn't sue Budweiser, I sued the person that hit me, since they were the ones at fault.

[MindMover]

15. But if the person had been drinking at a bar, you could have sued the bar ..

which sold the alcohol ...

[DonP]

16. Dram shop law

They can sue the bar ... only if they can determine that the driver was over served there.

Gun manufacturer are protected by the Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act, or whatever the formal name of it is.

It was a way to stop the sleazy mayor types that decided back in the '90's that, instead of ajudicating or repealing the 2nd amendment, they'd put gun makers out of business with a series of nuisance lawsuits. The gun manufacturing industry is actually relatively small, only a $4 or $5 billion industry. Much less than America spend son potato chips every year.

The cities that tried it actually never won a case anyway once they got to the appellate court level and finally congress passed a law protecting them from nuisance lawsuits.

If they make a defective product that blows up in your hand, you can sue them. But if some scum bag robs a bank and shoots a little old lady, they can't sue the gun maker, any more than you can sue GM for the stolen Chevy Impala they drove as a getaway car.

[MindMover]

19. Its getting harder to steal that new Chevy these days ....

[Travis_0004]

20. And I think thats a law that can be abused

There is a reason cops use breathalisers, and thats because telling how drunk somebody is isn't easy. I can understand not selling alchol to somebody who is wasted, but if somebody is just a bit drunk, then I don't think the bar should be responsible.

I know I've been at bars before and had a BAC over .08, but I've taken the responsibility to make sure I had a ride home.

In my situation, the guy that hit me also didn't have insurance, so I just filed a claim against my own insurance, and they paid me. I'm sure they sued him, and maybe the bar, but I have no clue how that lawsuit went as it was none of my business.

[MindMover]

23. I believe that gun manufacturers are responsible for manufacturing there product

to be as safe as possible ...

and with today's technology that includes many more safety features than are currently incorporated ...

I am saying that gun manufacturers are liable for that lapse in manufacturing security/safety ...

just as tobacco companies and others have been held liable ...

[DonP]

24. Well, then do something about it.

We have a raft of so called gun control supporters here that offer a lot of "moral support", then sit with their thumb up their rear and do nothing. They actually think posting on a discussion board is somehow achieving something for gun control.

75 people show up for a gun control march in DC and 500 show up at a gun show in Austin Texas with cash in their hand. "Deeds not words".

If you really think this is a great way to curb gun violence and can prove the gun manufacturers are holding back on safety technology (none of which the police ever wind up using anyway) and you aren't just spouting off, get a lawyer and go for it.

But don't be surprised if he wants a hefty up front cash retainer from you though. It's likely that he won't go for the 33% contingency fund approach, based on the odds of success.

Be sure an keep us all posted on how it's going.

[MindMover]

25. And I am sure you buckle up everytime you get in your car ...

the lawyer bit is already happening ... and you will hear about it soon enough ...

This discussion is more about gun safety and the issue of current technology that is not being incorporated into gun manufacturing ...

Gun Control elicits fervent passionate fear, related to "you are trying to take my guns away mentality" ... which does increase gun sales....

[gejohnston]

26. but it is

This discussion is more about gun safety and the issue of current technology that is not being incorporated into gun manufacturing ...

The technology for smart guns doesn't actually exist. If it did, one of the European ones would be the first to do it, or an upstart would had fat police contracts, like Glock did in the 1980s using lightweight materials. Many do have built in locking devices and trigger locks are inexpensive.

There was a Yahoo article about the Irish guy complaining that the US gun industry wanted nothing to do with his after market smart technology. I asked myself "why didn't he market it directly to police armorers or to major European gun makers like Glock and Walther?" I pretty much came to the conclusion that it isn't ready for prime time.

[iiibbb]

31. The problem with "smart" guns

here is my problem with "smart" guns. I really dislike the whole "smart gun" movement. I actually think it is dangerous.

(1) The technology is unproven. How do you know it's going to be reliable? I'll adopt the technology when the police adopt the same technology.

(2) Guns are mechanical. You assume there would be no workaround.

(3) Smart guns over-ride the most important gun safety rules by tricking people into thinking guns are "safe". People will develop bad habits. You should not give anyone a reason to ever think that a gun is "safe" or "smart". It's like auto-correct on "smart" phones. What if you insisted that anyone using the internet adopted auto-correct to prevent typos... and people actually thought that would solve their typing problems?

No... "smart" guns are a very bad idea.

Smarter gun safes are a better idea. A subsidy for gun safes even... if you register your firearms you get a gun safe to match it.

[DonP]

28. As a matter of fact I do

What kind of lame brained asshole doesn't?

How are you supposed to teach your kids how important it is if you don't buckle up?

Same way I taught them about gun safety.

Once again, it's all about deeds, not words.

We'll all be looking forward to your reports on the progress of your lawsuit.

[iiibbb]

30. what safety features are you refering to?

[MindMover]

34. There are many ... here is a start .. but of course the gun manufacturers said no ...

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

[gejohnston]

36. Did you read passed the US manufactures?

Germany
In 2009, the German legislature passed a technology waiting law that would eventually require all German manufacturers of weapons to only make smart weapons, once an acceptable technology existed anywhere in the world. In addition, the German law would require the retrofitting of all existing German weapons with smart gun technology. Should other European countries follow suite with similar legislation, some of the world's most advanced weaponry will be required to incorporate smart gun technology, in affect ensuring that some of the hand guns used at Aurora and Newtown, like Glock and Sig Sauer, would only be able to be fired by authorized users.

Under German law, once the technology exists, manufactures such as Walther, Mauser, HK, etc. must include it. Since my Walther P-22 doesn't have it, since it was legally made in Germany, the technology does not exist yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Firearms_manufacturers_in_Germany

[MindMover]

37. There are many smart gun technologies that exist ... your wording acceptable is the definition

that needs explanation ... both in and out of the courtroom ...

[gejohnston]

38. under German law, it doesn't exist to an acceptable level where it works

with any reliability. Under German law, it doesn't exist. If it fails during a home invasion, for example, where a criminal murders a family or a cop on the job, the manufacture will be held liable under current US law. Proto types are not working models that work with any reliability. If it did, they would already exist as required by German law. Your theory would not hold up in any courtroom in the US or Europe. All the defense has to do is enter an English translation of the German law and any German made firearm made after that time frame into evidence. The only one that half way works can only be adapted to a few revolvers.

[MindMover]

39. Perfection is really the definition ... which sounds more German than American ...

and certainly sounds more pro gun manufacturer ....

Well, the gig is up ...

Smart gun technology has been here for at least 20 years and as long as humans are involved, it will never be perfect ... but it will save lives ...

[gejohnston]

41. no it won't

When it comes to firearms technology, the Europeans are ahead of us. I don't know what you base your opinion on, but I fail to see how it will save more lives that it could take if it doesn't work correctly. If it did, cops would be using it because dept armorers can buy and install the technology after market. The ironic thing is, according to the Wiki article, gun control groups don't want the technology.
Let me ask you this:
What are you basing your opinion on?

One more thing, it doesn't exist on an acceptable level under NJ or CA law either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Gun#U.S.

[iiibbb]

43. When I first learned about firearms, I might have endorsed them

A Korean era marine taught me to shoot when I thought a safety was something you flicked off before you fire. He got me off that dangerous idea pretty quick. Now I have problems with the for a few reasons, but my biggest is #3. I actually think smart guns are more dangerous

(1) The technology is unproven. How do you know it's going to be reliable? I'll adopt the technology when the police adopt the same technology.

(2) Guns are mechanical. You assume there would be no workaround.

(3) Smart guns over-ride the most important gun safety rules by tricking people into thinking guns are "safe". People will develop bad habits. You should not give anyone a reason to ever think that a gun is "safe" or "smart". It's like auto-correct on "smart" phones. What if you insisted that anyone using the internet adopted auto-correct to prevent typos... and people actually thought that would solve their typing problem

Those gun accidents jpak likes to post would happen more often because lazy people would be more inclined to leave a gun out, or think "my transponder ring is in my pocket, this gun is safe" (I cringe thinking about this) or if someone picks up a dumb gun who is expecting a smart gun. Bang.

I think it's worse. Safety should not be unlearned

Devise safer retention (holsters), better safes, better trigger locks.

The on feature the have added, that I do like are ways to lock the safety on.... but some "improvements" aren't so great.... disable the fire in mechanism but still permit loading.

When I lock a firearm I run a cable lock through the chamber somehow.

[ManiacJoe]

33. Safe for who?

I believe that gun manufacturers are responsible for manufacturing there product to be as safe as possible ...

Gun makers do a good job at making sure their product is safe for the user to use. Not only is the product strong enough to contain the explosions of the rounds, much work is added to make sure the gun fires only when the user pulls the trigger.

The purpose of a gun is to fire bullets with repeatable accuracy.

Most things do not react well to having holes punched into them, especially humans and animals. The choice of target is wholly the responsibility of the user. Trying to make the gun safer for the target is a fools errand. The gun has no control over its misuse.

It is the owner's responsibility to keep the gun out of unauthorized hands. Many means are available.

It is the user's responsibility to pick a proper target and backstop.

[PuffedMica]

42. Tobacco?

The law suits over tobacco were filed under the pretext of misrepresentation of the the product by the tobacco companies.

I find this to be some what suspicious because I was taught in grade school, in 1966, that cigarettes cause cancer. The fourth grade class, in a public school, in a tobacco producing state (Tennessee) proclaimed the health risks of tobacco use, and yet some people still claim years later that RJRenynols lied to them about the dangers of smoking.

Tobacco use is a victimless crime that proceeds over a number of years. Being stupid by ignoring continuous warnings is not grounds for litigation.

[ileus]

17. If they designed an unsafe or defective product maybe.

For the most part most all firearms are extremely safe. Recalls are made pdq when a product does have a defect.

[krispos42]

22. If a gun maker makes a shoddy gun, then they can be sued.

But since they are not lying about the lethality of their products, I don't see any analogy here.


Auto makers designed cars that exploded like napalm if they were hit in certain ways. Ford had the Pinto, GM had the 1500 series trucks, etc. If your gun explodes in your hand while you're shooting factory ammo, SOMEBODY is liable. Either the people that made the ammo, or the people that made the gun.

Tobacco's advertising pronounced their products as not only harmless, but actually healthy for you. No gun maker is advertising that bullet wounds increase stamina and energy.

Pharmaceutical companies hide the fact that their products don't cure or treat what they claim it does, or hide the fact that their product actually harms you. No gun maker is claiming that bullet wounds cure cancer or regrows thinning hair.

[iiibbb]

27. Has an automobile company been sued for the act of someone deranged?

Have the been sued when children have managed to get behind the wheel?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

32. Not under current law

unless the firearm itself is defective

[MindMover]

44. This is not about current defective product laws ...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

47. Then unless you are planning to overturn black letter with supporting precedent, you are wasting

the court's time.

[MindMover]

48. I will not divulge any of our already mounting details other than to refer you to

chapter 7 in the book Unsafe at Any Speed .... which in our book will be titled, "Damn the Victims and spare the guns .."

"In common law legal systems, the term black letter law is used to refer to the technical legal rules to be applied in a particular area, which are most often largely well-established and no longer subject to reasonable dispute. The term is not confined to one doctrinal area; one may speak of the "black-letter law" of contracts or the "black-letter law" of trademarks, for example. Should one wish to draw a distinction, one would typically contrast black-letter law and legal theory, or black-letter law and unsettled legal issues."

[gejohnston]

49. Just one thing

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) issued a press release dated 12 August 1972, setting out the findings of 1971 NHTSA testing—after the Corvair had been out of production for more than three years. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had conducted a series of comparative tests in 1971 studying the handling of the 1963 Corvair and four contemporary cars, a Ford Falcon, Plymouth Valiant, Volkswagen Beetle, Renault Dauphine—along with a second generation Corvair with revised suspension design. The subsequent 143-page report (PB 211-015, available from NTIS) reviewed a series of actual handling tests designed to evaluate the handling and stability under extreme conditions; a review of national accident data compiled by insurance companies and traffic authorities for the cars in the test—and a review of related General Motors/Chevrolet internal letters, memos, tests, reports, etc. regarding the Corvair's handling.[7] NHTSA went on to contract a three man advisory panel of independent professional engineers to review the scope and competency of their tests. This review panel then issued its own 24-page report (PB 211-014, available from NTIS), which concluded that "the 1960-63 Corvair compares favorably with contemporary vehicles used in the tests...the handling and stability performance of the 1960-63 Corvair does not result in an abnormal potential for loss of control or rollover, and it is at least as good as the performance of some contemporary vehicles both foreign and domestic."

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

[MindMover]

50. Why oh why would you refute this book when you could so easily have

cited some gun runners statistics on how victims choose to die at the end of a gun, that's why they are called victims ... or some such nonsensical crapola ...

I only bring that book up because of its apparent reference to safety ... mainly product safety issues ..

[gejohnston]

54. one has nothing to do with the other

you are saying that the gun is unsafe for the shooter, just as the car was supposedly unsafe for the driver and passengers. That is why the "product safety" suits were absurd and little more than nonsense suits that work like SLAPP suits, to file merit-less and unwinnable law suits to silence or drive the target to financial ruin.

Refute isn't an accurate term, "counter" would be more accurate.

[MindMover]

56. A semantically inclined person .. counter it is ...

Last edited Sat Feb 2, 2013, 03:32 AM - Edit history (1)

And I am not saying the gun is unsafe for the shooter, that is your assumption ...

[iiibbb]

51. If you were for real

I doubt you would be in a forum like this telegraphing anything

[MindMover]

55. If this is telegraphing then on with it ...

It is more than obvious to many more intelligent thoughtful people than myself about what is transpiring ..

The congressional sideshow being displayed for the country and orchestrated to sooth the raw emotions of millions will soon wear off and discussing silly issues like background checks which will be the only law strengthened will only embolden the gaggle of lawsuits, books and commentaries about the subject ...

[kudzu22]

45. There has to be an element of fraud

I don't know any gun manufacturer who claimed their products aren't dangerous or won't kill someone.

[MindMover]

46. Automobile, pharmaceutical and others did not commit fraud ...

and where do you get, "There has to be an element of fraud"

[Deep13]

53. or unreasonably dangerous

check Second Restatement of Torts 402A, comment i.

[Deep13]

52. Not under current law, and there is a distinction...

...among those examples. Simply causing an injury is not a legal basis for a monetary claim. One has to show a breach in the duty of care. Usually that means that the product is more dangerous than an ordinary, reasonable user thinks it is. So with a car, it usually means some defect that made the car more dangerous than one expects a speeding, two-ton machine to be. For cigarettes which are known to be pathogenic and addictive, it means those dangerous qualities were intentionally augmented by the company unknown to most users.

So if a gun is designed to kill or cause serious injuries, how are they more dangerous than ordinary users think they are?

[MindMover]

57. Oh let me count the ways ... enough, I could not count that high .. examples are better ..

Man Accidentally Shoots Himself in the Head While Mimicking Movie Scene

A South Carolina man reportedly succumbed to injuries he sustained while demonstrating the "proper" way to shoot one's self in the head.

James Gagum was pronounced dead by paramedics who arrived at his Conway home Thursday night to find the 43-year-old lying in a pool of his own blood.

According to eyewitnesses, Gagum had been watching a movie when he was inspired to "correct" a scene in which a person was presumably holding a gun to his own head.

Gagum, seated in a recliner, picked up his gun and put it to his head saying, "that's not how it's done." He then pulled the trigger several times, possibly unaware the gun was loaded.

The third time proved deadly.

http://gawker.com/5939688/man-accidentally-shoots-himself-in-the-head-while-mimicking-movie-scene

[Deep13]

58. Did they all know guns are deadly weapons?

...or rather, is that generally known? If so, they are exactly as dangerous as everyone thinks they are.

[gejohnston]

59. Yeah, go with that one.

I want to be on that jury, assuming the judge doesn't throw it out after busting a gut. No manufacture can be held liable for negligence or stupidity of an end user.

[MindMover]

60. Of course they cannot be held liable for negligence or the stupidity of an end user ...

Unless,........ you bring a hand grenade to a 5 year olds birthday party ....


Liability is a much broader word than how you and others in this post have characterized it to be ...