Regarding Bernie and Gun Control

[retrowire]

I have a question!

So, I know Bernie gets a D- from the NRA. I know he's all about gun control and that the people against him are going to parade around that he's pro gun because he signed something that protects manufacturers of firearms from being held accountable for the deaths caused by their guns.

So my question is this, since Hillary is pushing for this, do you think Bernie will as well? If not, why not?

I myself kind of feel that holding gun manufacturers accountable for the deaths of innocent people is holding the wrong people accountable. I'm more the type that believes, hey, guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people.

Guns can have their uses, and we can legislate action that makes their availability a lot more finite and controlled. But I don't think allowing people to sue gun manufacturers will teach those who are truly responsible a lesson. It's kind of like taking your anger out on the guy who makes knives, instead of the culture that encourages violence and stabbings.

So in a way, even if Bernie doesn't follow Hillary's lead, I'm cool with not holding those companies accountable either.

This is only my opinion so... don't hurt me! D:

[pipoman]

1. Held accountable for what?

Bernie was right when he voted against waste of time , frivolous law suits.

1. This has nothing to do with defective products.

2. This has nothing to do with any illegal acts on the part of makers or sellers.

If makers and sellers follow all laws, rules, and regulations they cannot be held liable for the illegal use of their legal products....thats it.

Car makers can't be liable for a drunk killing someone with their product. ...this is simple...Bottom line is we agree..

[retrowire]

2. So, it's a moot point that Hillary is pushing?

So what Hillary is doing is just posturing then?

She said apparently that gun manufacturers are the only ones protected from being held accountable for these things.

So if that's not true, she's lying?

[pipoman]

8. In my opinion, yes....

Last edited Mon Oct 5, 2015, 06:53 PM - Edit history (1)

This act was put in place for one purpose....people like Mike Bloomberg spending mom and pop gun stores and small manufacturerers broke.....

There are similar rules for tobacco companies, and other industries. They are not designed to protect anyone from wrong doing, they are to protect legal product manufacturerers from frivolous law suits. Usually rules about recovery of costs and attorney fees from the plaintiff if they loose, keep people from filing frivolous suits.. ...on some products others leverage the system as blackmail...as with this issue....

[Duckhunter935]

9. So are small aircraft

Manufacturers and abortion clinics. It is all about SLAPP suits

[retrowire]

10. SLAPP suits? n/t

[Duckhunter935]

14. Suits designed to fail

As they are frivolous but are intended to bankrupt a legal business.

[artislife]

3. I like the idea of making it an insurance thing

Like if you have a gun, then your homeowner's, renter's insurance or car insurance should cover the use of a fire arm.

If you use a gun the way it was intended and legally--that means not killing someone, then you should have no problem. If something happen's and the gun is secured properly, but still stolen, you are off the hook.

[retrowire]

4. I heard this elsewhere too.

TOTALLY AGREE.

Oh yes.

[artislife]

5. Once I heard it, I was surprised

that the insurance people weren't clamoring for it.

You threaten an ex with a gun, boom insurance through the roof. You have to show a proof of sale to get the insurance to not be automatically applied!

[Duckhunter935]

11. Of course

Insurance does not cover criminal acts. The NRA would thank you 👍

[SandersDem]

6. and how about Cigarettes?

Cigarettes don't kill people either...not when they sit there doing nothing. Why a person actually has to pick it up and put it in their mouth! Blame the person for being sooo stupid!

Why should the GUN Industry be protected?????

If gun manufacturers could be sued, guess what would happen? Guns would surely still be legal, but these manufacturers might actually do things like fingerprint verified triggering, specific industry only usage, smaller clips....I don't know things that would not actually get them sued like advocate for gun laws to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill????

It's time to rethink this shit.

[Duckhunter935]

12. Cigarette companies lied for decades

And sold a product that is used as intended poisoned the user. Weapons if used as intended fire a projectile where the user decides to point it.

[pipoman]

16. The tobacco industry is protected from product liability

The only cases they lost were directly related to and because of their lying about and hiding science....every single penny of liability paid out by tobacco companies was based on lying. You can't sue a tobacco company for health issues associated with their product.

[Enthusiast]

7. The NRA has become too extreme.

I am a lifelong hunter. Even though I no longer hunt I do not fear the government "taking my guns away".

The problem is, the NRA cannot be reasonable. Obviously the nation has a problem with guns in the hands of the wrong people. The solution is not more guns and more armed people/teachers.

[Duckhunter935]

13. The legislative part has

They still have excellent safety programs.

[Enthusiast]

18. They should back off. Way off. The NRA comes off as crazy extremists.

[DianeK]

15. he explains his position this way...

if you get hit in the head with a baseball bat...it is unlikely that you will sue the manufacturer of that baseball bat...sounds logical to me...i am a vermonter, i don't agree with bernie on the gun issue but up here i am sure i am in the minority...it is the only issue i do not agree with him on...i also understand that we do have a 2nd amendment to the constitution that has precious little to do with hunting

[rbnyc]

17. IMHO

I feel similarly.

I think that holding manufacturers accountable for misuse of product sets a bad precedent and doesn't address the deeper issues.

I believe a company should be responsible to make a product that is not defective and subject to safety regulations, and after that, an individual should be responsible for how he or she uses the product.

However, both the company and the individual should be subject to laws, and those laws should serve the common good. No industry should be mass-dumping lethal product into a population when it is allowed to purchase the policy process that regulates it. That industry representatives can author policies that prohibit pediatricians from talking to families about gun safety is a really serious and consequential concern. Addressing THAT issue seems more important and more correct than holding manufacturers liable for how their products are used.

And there are many other issues that have an impact on gun violence, outside of gun control laws, that Bernie addresses positively.

But my kid is waiting for me and I have to run.