GREAT source re: gun lawsuits

[LuckyTheDog]

This is a few years old. But it clearly explains why gun lawsuits are NOT about punishing gun makers and dealers for the actions of others. They are about holding them accountable for their OWN ACTIONS:

http://www.gunlawsuits.org/pdf/immunity/siebel_sfr_101703.pdf

[DemInDistress]

1. If you can sue a gun maker can you sue a car maker

or fast food makers or cigarette makers ? If you buy a gun and it
later kills someone why should the maker be liable?

[SteppingRazor]

2. I agree...

I don't think gunmakers should be sued when someone misuses their products (i.e. shoots someone else with one). That said, I also don't think Congress should make laws protecting gunmakers from such suits. These suits should be decided in court on their own merits.

[LuckyTheDog]

3. Not the point

The gun lawsuits have NEVER been about suing the industry for the actions of others. They are about holding them accountable for irresponsible, reckless behavior that leads to guns getting into the wrong hands. Bad dealers and the manufacturers who "wink and nod" at their practices should be accountable for the damage they do.

:banghead:

[SteppingRazor]

4. Yes, someone who sells guns to a criminal should be held accountable....

but how is that Smith & Wesson's fault?

[LuckyTheDog]

8. It depends

Do they knowingly sell to bad dealers? Does the manufacturer have ANY procedures in place to weed out bad dealers? Their liability would depend on what they do or don't do. As with any business, there should be "safe harbor" practices that are well understood.

[DemInDistress]

5. Early last yr. in NYC a man ran over 11 people

some died.This guy was hell-bent on killing someone,should the auto
makers be liable?I dont approve of killing but why sue the people
with the deepest pockets for what someone did with their product.If I
poison you,should the makers of that poison be sued? Where does it end?

[LuckyTheDog]

9. Straw man argument

In that case, there were no reasonable steps the manufacturer could have used to keep the car away from the dude. But if GM or Ford sold to dealers whom they knew were re-selling cars to be used for, say, car bombing... well, then they might have a problem.

[DemInDistress]

17. ok if I poison you and you die

CAN I SUE THE POISON MAKERS?

[LuckyTheDog]

18. That's not it, either

You know very well that is not the case I am making here.

[DemInDistress]

20. one more time..I steal your gun

and shoot your family shoulod you be allowed to sue the gun maker?

[LuckyTheDog]

21. And once again

That's not even close to the case I was making. In the case you mention here, I see no reason why the gun maker would be liable. They legally sold me the gun.

THIS is what I am talking about:

A bunch of unscrupulous gun dealers play fast and loose with the rules. Their reckless practices allow street gangs to illegally obtain an arsenal that is used to terrorize large sections of cities. Those dealers should be subject to lawsuits from cities involved.

Now... imagine this: The gun maker KNOWS that such dealers exist. But it does nothing to screen out the bad gun dealers -- it takes a "don't ask don't tell" approach... or worse, a "wink and nod" approach. In fact, the gun maker might actually create weapons designed to be appealing to the customers of the rogue gun dealers. In such cases, the cities should be able to sue the gun makers.

Who can't should not be sued? Gun dealers and manufacturers who operate responsibly.

[LisaL]

22. If a car maker sold you a defective product, you bet you could sue

them. For instance, if you car bursts into flames, you can sue a car manufacturer.

[LuckyTheDog]

23. A better analogy

A better analogy is this case is: should you be able to sue the car makers if they knowingly supply vehicles to dealers known to sell them to car bombers? The answer is... of course you should.

And you should be able to sue gun makers who give a "wink and a nod" to gun dealers who make money arming street gangs.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[billbuckhead]

7. DU is being NRAstroturfed by gun fanatics who wouldn't vote Dem

if we gave them free ammo. Until Dems start standing up to the NRA thugs ,we don't deserve to win.

[LuckyTheDog]

11. Naah

billbuckhead: Many Dems legitimately disagree re: guns. But I actually am not arguing for gun control here. I merely want that industry to be held to the same standards as all others -- no special treatment.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

25. NO! NO! IF YOU SAY ANYTHING BAD ABOUT GUNS YOU WANT TO BAN THEM!

RUSH TOLD ME SO! DDIRTY LIBRUL!!!!!111!1!11!11!!

[Greyhound]

12. I'm pretty sure most NRA members don't vote dem because

they keep pissing them off. Lots of amerikans love guns, they're not going to change that so just get over it and get on with it.
It's like so many divisive issues that the dems love to talk about, instead of focusing on areas of agreement.
How do you think it been working so far?:banghead:

[billbuckhead]

14. It's worked very well for thousands whom haven't died

In Virginia right now, the NRA is working against the Dems becuase they are in favor of keeping a law that allows only one pistol purchase a month. For this the NRA will support a Nazi like Kilgore over a Dem like Kaine who only wants to keep the status quo. Nothing is good enough for the gun lobby and their neoCon friends.

[Greyhound]

16. So wouldn't the dems be far better off to move the firearms issue onto the

back burner and try to get some of those NRA votes so they can win? Standing on the outside shouting through the window just get the window closed on you.

[billbuckhead]

19. The problem is that nothing less than no gun laws will satisfy the NRA

They are against Virginia's 1 hangun a month law enough to back a Nazi like Kilgore over a good Dem moderate like Kaine who only wants the status quo in gun regulation. Nothing satisfies these brownshirted NRA thugs.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

26. The back burner would be kinda crowded

what with abortion, gay rights, separation of church and state, minimum wage, war, and god knows what else already there.

[Greyhound]

30. Abortion, separation of C & S, minimum wage and war are/should be

the front burner issues. Dems can gain majority support for those issues and bring the rest along.

[LuckyTheDog]

10. Again

All I am saying is that gun dealers and makers should act responsibly or face the consequences -- same as any other company.

The gun lawsuits have NEVER been about suing the industry for the actions of others. They are about holding them accountable for irresponsible, reckless behavior that leads to guns getting into the wrong hands.

I think bad gun dealers and the manufacturers who "wink and nod" at their practices should be accountable for the damage they do.

I have NO PROBLEM with law-abiding gun owners and responsible gun dealers.

[Greyhound]

13. Refresh my memory, when was the last time DuPont was held accountable

for the poisoning of thousands? Or Union Carbide, Dow, Martin, Monsanto, ADM, Grumman, etc.?

[LuckyTheDog]

15. They should be

And, yes, in many cases, companies HAVE been held accountable for irresponsible actions. Does the tobacco settlement ring a bell? Have you looked up the history of the asbestos industry?

Why do the gun makers need special treatment?

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DelawareValleyDem]

27. Actually , the judge's ruling states

that there is "clear and convincing evidence" that gun retailers are guilty of "careless practices.", and that NAACP members and potential members "did suffer relatively more harm from the nuisance created by the defendants through illegal availability of guns in New York". It also states that manufacturers have not gone far enough "to eliminate or even appreciably reduce the public nuisance they individually and collectively have created". Why the dismissal? Because the NAACP "failed, however, to show that its harm was different in kind from that suffered by other persons in New York."

Edited for a typo.

[maximovich]

28. Gun Lobbyists Are Back

If you kill somebody with yur car... duh!

Notice how they use the apple vs. orange analogy to defend deregulation? And notice how they frame it as a political party agenda, "You are with us or against us", "the Dems will lose elections unless...". These numb nuts act as if they were being persecuted because the gun industry was being regulated.

Unless you are being payed to come here and post NRA propaganda, and half-truths, your efforts to twist facts and cow the rest of us, will be in vain. DU'ers are just not as gullible as you may think we are.

Go guilt somebody else into walking lock-step with this NRA Pro Gun Industry tripe and shove you straw man arguments where the sun don't shine.

Poor poor persecuted gun owners. The inconvenience of regulation. Oh... how they suffer for such a noble cause. Bullshit!

[Liberal In Texas]

29. What he/she said. Cars are not manufactured solely to kill. Gus are and

therefore the manufacturers should have a greater liability for the use of their products.

Government should be regulating corporations, not making them immune to redress or restitution.