Congress says Gun Makers are innocent.


Sdashiki

macrumors 68040
Aug 11, 2005
3,512
8
Behind the lens
If there were no guns, we would have no gun violence.

but, im all for constitutionality and all that, and its the 2nd Amendment.

no matter how much I might hate the NRA, I cant argue, cuz its written in parchment.

What the problem in this country today is that after the revolutionary war, where the 2nd amendment made sense, they should have added another amendment repealing it or rewriting it another way, "The Right to Bear Arms" is too ambiguous even for the Constitution.

but anyway, I do agree with what Congress did. Its like the fast food lawsuit...
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Original poster
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
Still if there wasnt guns these same folks doing these acts would be using something else,knives,swords,hammers,bats,spoons and spitballs. We seem to want to blame everyone and everything except the person doing the crime.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
As long as it doesn't exempt them if they put out a $h!**y product that proves dangerous for reasons other than it's user...

But this does go to further prove that this is the party of special interests running the country at the moment.

Edit: Per the linked article, the bill's authors claim it doesn't protect manufacturers and dealers from product liability lawsuits. Ok, good. But that's quoting the bill's authors, so I don't know how much stock I put in that.

Further, I would be very concerned if it protected a dealer who made an illegal sale from a civil lawsuit to recover damages. From the article linked, that seems unclear.
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Original poster
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
mactastic said:
As long as it doesn't exempt them if they put out a $h!**y product that proves dangerous for reasons other than it's user...

But this does go to further prove that this is the party of special interests running the country at the moment.
This has to do with crime victims not manufactoring of a product. They are still liable for example if they produced a gun that blew up in your face or something.
This simply says that the Gun Maker didnt do the crime. You know the old story the gun went off just as i pointed it at him.......... :rolleyes:
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
It's difficult to wipe out liability with a passage of a law. The best Congress can hope for is a reassignment of liability, which is what they've almost certainly done here, to benefit one favored industry.

Another example: Back in the '80s I think it was, Congress passed a law designed to shield the general aviation airplane manufacturing industry from "excessive" liability. It did help the industry, but it didn't change the liability situation one iota. It just shifted the cost to the owners of the airplanes, in the form of higher liability insurance premiums.
 

tristan

macrumors 6502a
Jul 19, 2003
765
0
high-rise in beautiful bethesda
The problem is that one gun has the potential to cause an incredible amount of damage, and the gun makers get to say "all we do is sell them". The game needs to be changed so that people who buy and sell guns understand the tremendous responsibility. The 2nd amendment is a big obstacle though, and maybe that one line in the constitution is destined to always give the US a murder rate that's much higher than any other developed country.
 

superbovine

macrumors 68030
Nov 7, 2003
2,872
0
tristan said:
The problem is that one gun has the potential to cause an incredible amount of damage, and the gun makers get to say "all we do is sell them". The game needs to be changed so that people who buy and sell guns understand the tremendous responsibility. The 2nd amendment is a big obstacle though, and maybe that one line in the constitution is destined to always give the US a murder rate that's much higher than any other developed country.
so we should be to hold a car company liable for somone running over someone else. A better example would be knife manufactorers. Lets say someone stabs you with a carving knife. do you get to whoever made the knife?

what about a drunk driver? do you get to sue the beer company and the car company then?
 

pseudobrit

macrumors 68040
Jul 23, 2002
3,418
4
Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
superbovine said:
Lets say someone stabs you with a carving knife. do you get to whoever made the knife?
If the carving knife was specificially designed to kill human beings and the manufacturer targeted its sales and marketing toward knife murderers, I'd say yes.
 

miloblithe

macrumors 68020
Nov 14, 2003
2,076
28
Washington, DC
superbovine said:
so we should be to hold a car company liable for somone running over someone else. A better example would be knife manufactorers. Lets say someone stabs you with a carving knife. do you get to whoever made the knife?

what about a drunk driver? do you get to sue the beer company and the car company then?
Arguing by anology is always weak. None of the things you site are the same issue as guns and what guns do.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that it requires little more than basic literacy (understanding of dependant clauses) to know that the Constitution never guaranteed free and unfettered access to arms.
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Original poster
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
pseudobrit said:
If the carving knife was specificially designed to kill human beings and the manufacturer targeted its sales and marketing toward knife murderers, I'd say yes.
pseudo look back at what you are saying..........................People are responsible for their actions not inanimate objects. :rolleyes:
 

miloblithe

macrumors 68020
Nov 14, 2003
2,076
28
Washington, DC
Dont Hurt Me said:
pseudo look back at what you are saying..........................People are responsible for their actions not inanimate objects. :rolleyes:
Nobody is talking about prosecuting the gun (or knife). Aren't gun manufacturers people?
 

tristan

macrumors 6502a
Jul 19, 2003
765
0
high-rise in beautiful bethesda
We do hold car manufacturers and lots of other manufacturers responsible for making their products less dangerous. Why should guns, arguably the most dangerous product the average person can buy, be any different?
 

miloblithe

macrumors 68020
Nov 14, 2003
2,076
28
Washington, DC
tristan said:
We do hold car manufacturers and lots of other manufacturers responsible for making their products less dangerous. Why should guns, arguably the most dangerous product the average person can buy, be any different?
I don't really think that's the same issue. A car that is unsafe is essentially a design flaw and a case of false advertizing or negligence. People have a right to expect that their vehicle won't explode when hit, or tires won't explode when driving, etc. Cars subject to these issues are not opperating properly. This issue applies to guns more in the sense that people should be able to sue the manufacturer if the gun explodes in their hand in routine operation.
 

Thanatoast

macrumors 65816
Dec 3, 2002
1,005
134
Denver
But if the produce being sold is a specifically designed killing machine, isn't irresponsible to sell it regardless of the circumstances?
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
Thanatoast said:
But if the produce being sold is a specifically designed killing machine, isn't irresponsible to sell it regardless of the circumstances?
you're talking about killer tomatoes, aren't you?

:)
 

tristan

macrumors 6502a
Jul 19, 2003
765
0
high-rise in beautiful bethesda
Drivers have liability insurance and are licensed to help prevent them from causing unnecessary damage to other people in society. Perhaps people who own guns should have to go through training and then pay $5k/yr insurance which goes into an investment fund to compensate people who are victims of gun violence.

By the way I agree with the original poster (Don't Hurt Me) that it's not the gun industry at fault, but I do think they can play a role in making people more responsible. But I also think our society would do just fine without personal gun ownership. Actually in DC it's illegal to own a gun, but given that it's next door to VA and MD that doesn't really work.
 

pseudobrit

macrumors 68040
Jul 23, 2002
3,418
4
Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
zimv20 said:
you're talking about killer tomatoes, aren't you?

:)
A better analogy than the knife one.

If I genetically engineer a tomato that carries a lethal poison and proceed to honestly sell and market the seeds, should I be responsible when the first cases of murder-by-spaghetti-sauce start popping up?

And more importantly, should I fit the seeds with a terminator gene?
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Like I said, the fear I have is that this law will be used, not by the manufacturers, but by unscrupulous dealers who make an illegal sale to hide behind when they get sued.

Since we're going the analogy route, it could be like shielding liquor stores from legal responsibility if they sell without checking ID and then the kids get behind the wheel and mow down a crowd. In that case, the victims would have a right to seek damages from the store that negligently sold booze to minors.

If this protects gun sellers who violate the law I'm against it. Otherwise I don't see it as anything other than a big wet kiss to the holders of campaign money and voter influence.

Of course, this is just an outgrowth of the concept of suing to shut down groups you don't agree with. People didn't seem to mind when it was skinhead groups being sued out of existence...
 

Verto

macrumors 6502a
Jul 20, 2005
582
0
Denton, TX
pseudobrit said:
If the carving knife was specificially designed to kill human beings and the manufacturer targeted its sales and marketing toward knife murderers, I'd say yes.
Guns are specifically designed to shoot a bullet in the direction it is pointed, at high velocity. Where the projectile is shot at - whether it be a tin can, an animal, or a human being - depends on the direct actions of the individual wielding the gun. This is no different from knives, specifically designed to cut, slice, whatever. Do manufacturers market their guns as specifically designed to kill human beings? Perhaps, with their self-defense ads. Do they specifically target their sales as gun-wielding murderers? No.

We do hold car manufacturers and lots of other manufacturers responsible for making their products less dangerous. Why should guns, arguably the most dangerous product the average person can buy, be any different?
Again, a car is designed to move itself and its cargo, contained or towed, at relatively high speeds - let's say an average of 45mph. Car manufacturers are held responsible if their product has a defect like an airbag that goes off randomly, or brakes that fail without warning, not if their product hits another car, or an object, or a person. The car did not fail in its designed purpose, which is to move in the direction and speed chosen by its driver while carrying any amount of cargo within its stated abilities.

In short, we sue knife manufacturers if their blades shatter under reasonable circumstances, not if they slice open your finger. We hold car manufacturers accountable if their car explodes when involved in a 5MPH collision, not if their huge SUV kills a child crossing the street. Furthermore, we do not hold car manufacturers, or dealers, responsible if they sell a car to someone convicted of DWI/DUI, or any other automobile-related crimes. Why then should we hold gun manufacturers responsible if their product is not defective, merely the instrument used by someone to break the law?
 

pseudobrit

macrumors 68040
Jul 23, 2002
3,418
4
Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
Verto said:
In short, we sue knife manufacturers if their blades shatter under reasonable circumstances, not if they slice open your finger. We hold car manufacturers accountable if their car explodes when involved in a 5MPH collision, not if their huge SUV kills a child crossing the street. Furthermore, we do not hold car manufacturers, or dealers, responsible if they sell a car to someone convicted of DWI/DUI, or any other automobile-related crimes. Why then should we hold gun manufacturers responsible if their product is not defective, merely the instrument used by someone to break the law?
Tobacco is not a defective product. It is possible to enjoy tobacco products responsibly with no adverse health consequences. But the courts have found that tobacco product manufacturers marketed and sold their products in a way that increased consumption while disregarding the health of their customers.

And the courts have found tobacco companies liable for the harm they caused by ignoring or encouraging the irresponsible use of their product.

Their product may not be defective, but their product is inherently dangerous and deadly.

I don't understand how the Congress thinks they can remove judicial oversight in this matter. As much as they bleat on about "legislating from the bench" they're more than willing to do the inverse.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
Verto said:
Guns are specifically designed to shoot a bullet in the direction it is pointed, at high velocity. Where the projectile is shot at - whether it be a tin can, an animal, or a human being - depends on the direct actions of the individual wielding the gun. This is no different from knives, specifically designed to cut, slice, whatever. Do manufacturers market their guns as specifically designed to kill human beings? Perhaps, with their self-defense ads. Do they specifically target their sales as gun-wielding murderers? No.



Again, a car is designed to move itself and its cargo, contained or towed, at relatively high speeds - let's say an average of 45mph. Car manufacturers are held responsible if their product has a defect like an airbag that goes off randomly, or brakes that fail without warning, not if their product hits another car, or an object, or a person. The car did not fail in its designed purpose, which is to move in the direction and speed chosen by its driver while carrying any amount of cargo within its stated abilities.

In short, we sue knife manufacturers if their blades shatter under reasonable circumstances, not if they slice open your finger. We hold car manufacturers accountable if their car explodes when involved in a 5MPH collision, not if their huge SUV kills a child crossing the street. Furthermore, we do not hold car manufacturers, or dealers, responsible if they sell a car to someone convicted of DWI/DUI, or any other automobile-related crimes. Why then should we hold gun manufacturers responsible if their product is not defective, merely the instrument used by someone to break the law?
Thank you.
 

superbovine

macrumors 68030
Nov 7, 2003
2,872
0
miloblithe said:
Arguing by anology is always weak. None of the things you site are the same issue as guns and what guns do.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that it requires little more than basic literacy (understanding of dependant clauses) to know that the Constitution never guaranteed free and unfettered access to arms.
ok...

guns/knives/cars/alcohol can be used to kill.

guns/knives/cars/alcohol can be used to defend yourself.

guns/knives/cars/alcohol can aid in your survival (think wilderness)

guns/knives/cars are a tool.

edit: one more thing...if arguing by analogy is weak why to ppl keep reading the republic?