There's a big debate going on in the US Congress about this right now. Conservatives want to pass legislation that would prevent American citizens from being able to bring a suit against gun manufacturing companies.
Here's the deal:
Bad guy shoots somebody.
Victim dies.
Bad guy is caught and convicted.
Bad guy has nothing worth suing for.
But the gun compay does.
The family of the victim wants to sue the gun manufacturer for making this dangerous weapon.
Should they be able to sue?
My opinion is no. Not because of any loyalty to gun makers, but because I see no end in sight for this. Who's next to be sued? Cel phone makers because a guy was talking on the phone and he ran over a pedestrian? If I stab someone with a pair of scissors should the victim be able to sue the maker of the scissors?
I agree partly, just beacause they make the weapon, they shouldn't be sueable. But if their distribution or sales practices mean that the safeguards meant to protect innocent lives are ignored and it can be proved that the company are directly at fault, ie: putting money gain before protecting the lives of people, which as a manufacturer of leathal weapons they have a duty to do, then yes I believe they should be held accountable. Anyone can sue anyone about anything these days, we shouldn't remove that right. Whether they win or not is another matter.
Originally posted by wibNo
There's a big debate going on in the US Congress about this right now. Conservatives want to pass legislation that would prevent American citizens from being able to bring a suit against gun manufacturing companies.
Here's the deal:
Bad guy shoots somebody.
Victim dies.
Bad guy is caught and convicted.
Bad guy has nothing worth suing for.
...[text shortened]... stab someone with a pair of scissors should the victim be able to sue the maker of the scissors?
Originally posted by StarrmanSo you're saying let'em sue, but let the courts decide?
I agree partly, just beacause they make the weapon, they shouldn't be sueable. But if their distribution or sales practices mean that the safeguards meant to protect innocent lives are ignored and it can be proved that the company are directly at fault, ie: putting money gain before protecting the lives of people, which as a manufacturer of leathal weapon ...[text shortened]... anything these days, we shouldn't remove that right. Whether they win or not is another matter.
How ya been Starrman?
Originally posted by RingtailhunterIf you could prove that some process that Ford were aware of and chose to ignore, directly lead to that drunk killing your family then theoretically yes. Though I imagine that his drunken state would supercede anything else.
Can I sue FORD if some drunk kills my family?
Originally posted by StarrmanThat's my point. Should you be able to sue Ford for that? How about if Ford could have done more to prevent an intoxicated person from having access to their vehicles?
I agree partly, just beacause they make the weapon, they shouldn't be sueable. But if their distribution or sales practices mean that the safeguards meant to protect innocent lives are ignored and it can be proved that the company are directly at fault, ie: putting money gain before protecting the lives of people, which as a manufacturer of leathal weapon ...[text shortened]... anything these days, we shouldn't remove that right. Whether they win or not is another matter.
Originally posted by wibHi Wib, nice to see you. Yeah, I'm good, I've been staying out of debates for a while, but should be around a bit more.
So you're saying let'em sue, but let the courts decide?
How ya been Starrman?
More or less, if there's reason to sue, then they should be sued, if they're just trying to make 'somebody' responsible and the manufacturers fit the bill, then no.
1 edit
Originally posted by wibLike if Ford had advertised a breathaliser in their car which you had to use before ignition would click in, and they knew it didn't work properly? Yes I think so. Simply having a Ford dealership next to a bar doesn't count.
That's my point. Should you be able to sue Ford for that? How about if Ford could have done more to prevent an intoxicated person from having access to their vehicles?
Originally posted by StarrmanGlad to hear you're doing well and still around Starrman! Good to see ya. I see you still have the RHP Faces up and running too. Nice.
Like if Ford had advertised a breathaliser in their car which you had to use before ignition would click in, and they knew it didn't work properly? Yes I think so. Simply having a Ford dealership next to a bar doesn't count.
Your point is one of the ones that's going to come up, or already has in the debate in Congress. To take it one step further - suppose Ford didn't advertise the breathalizer, but they do have the technology to implement it (they do). Should they still be liable?
Hence the slippery slope that follows every law we've ever passed. They all have the slippery slope effect, no matter what the law addresses, the question for me is "how steep is the slope"? In this instance it looks pretty steep.
Originally posted by wibI guess if the breathaliser technology is present but not yet implemented, unless there is a legal requirement for it then it cannot be factored in. Once it is in place though it may be a different situation. You'd have to talk to someone like no1, I'm not to up to date on this sort of law. It seems to me that the point behind it is that if Ford knew it did not work and they continued to sell it, there may be a problem there as they are obviously putting profit before safety, at least in thought if not in deed.
Glad to hear you're doing well and still around Starrman! Good to see ya. I see you still have the RHP Faces up and running too. Nice.
Your point is one of the ones that's going to come up, or already has in the debate in Congress. To take it one step further - suppose Ford didn't advertise the breathalizer, but they do have the technology to implement ...[text shortened]... the question for me is "how steep is the slope"? In this instance it looks pretty steep.
If you ask me personally, I would like to see guns banned anyway, however this is never going to happen. So instead I believe that laws constricting their use and availability must be made stronger. Unfortunately when this walks the line of profit, the NRA are going to have something to say.
Originally posted by StarrmanWell, don't ya think that maybe it should be demanded of car manufacturers to provide or install safety systems in there vehicles that would prevent drivers from driving drunk because of the overwhelming statistics of drunken driving?
If you could prove that some process that Ford were aware of and chose to ignore, directly lead to that drunk killing your family then theoretically yes. Though I imagine that his drunken state would supercede anything else.
Everyone knows the statistics and car manufacturers have the tech. to install such devises, but have not done so.
Isn't that Gross Neglegence on someones part?
People demand that if gun manufacturing is to continue to disperse guns to the general public (if they cannot be banned outright) that they provide safe guards?
Originally posted by RingtailhunterI agree that gun manufacturers should be subject to damages if the gun discharges and injures someone without a pulling of the trigger.
People demand that if gun manufacturing is to continue to disperse guns to the general public (if they cannot be banned outright) that they provide safe guards?
Perhaps, also, installation of a safety on every gun is a mandate that Congress could hand down. Although I cannot remember handling any guns without a safety, except maybe som old muzzle loaders.
Otherwise, blaming gun manufacturers for producing weapons that accomplish their purpose is pretty stupid. The anti-gun crowd is doing as much damage to the Democrats as the religious kooks are doing to the Republicans. Together they are wrecking a fine country.
Originally posted by WulebgrIn all my years of handling guns I have never heard of a gun discharging by itself. I have heard of dud shells and bullets going off at a later time.
I agree that gun manufacturers should be subject to damages if the gun discharges and injures someone without a pulling of the trigger.
Perhaps, also, installation of a safety on every gun is a mandate that Congress could hand down. Although I cannot remember handling any guns without a safety, except maybe som old muzzle loaders.
Otherwise, blaming gu ...[text shortened]... as the religious kooks are doing to the Republicans. Together they are wrecking a fine country.
The safety on muzzle loaders is having to cock the hammer back.
The problem is that you cannot legislate intelligence and common sense.
Some people think it is a stellar idea to leave a gun loaded where it is easily accessible in a house full of children....
RTh