Originally posted by WulebgrI disagree with you, when you buy a gun, you know its dangerous, if it happens to misfire, you think we should be able to sue? what about if a tire pops in your car going down the road, and causes you to wreck? What about if you buy a shoe, and you slip on ice because the shoe didnt have a good grip on ice, should you be able to sue?
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.
accidents happens, and when you buy somthing I think the buyer should take responsablity. Im tired of all the stupid lawsuits there are around this country, we should take responsability,
I dont think we should take away the right to sue, but I do think we should limit it somehow to prevent stupid lawsuits that are costing the companies millions of dollors a year
Originally posted by StarrmanLogically though, if you have a drunk driving a car and a pedestrian crossing a road. It's not the drunk's fault.
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.
If the pedestrian doesn't cross the road, he can still be hit by the car. If the driver is sober he can still run somebody down. Only when you remove the car from the equation, can the accident not happen.
------------
I totally disagree with the whole sueing culture, therefor I can't really support the sueing of gun companies.
On the other hand, if I was to manufacture bombs and hand them out to people, surely I would get my arse dragged to court for endangering people's lives?
Carrying on from there, if the US has 11.000 gun related deaths a year (Bowling for Colombine), then I can't see why these gun companies aren't dragged off to court for endangering lives. Not to sue them, but to jail them!
Originally posted by flyUnityYou need to read my statement more carefully. You've misunderstood my point.
I disagree with you, when you buy a gun, you know its dangerous, if it happens to misfire, you think we should be able to sue? what about if a tire pops in your car going down the road, and causes you to wreck? What about if you buy a shoe, and you slip on ice because the shoe didnt have a good grip on ice, should you be able to sue?
accidents happens, ...[text shortened]... it somehow to prevent stupid lawsuits that are costing the companies millions of dollors a year
Originally posted by RingtailhunterYes, of course. You strengthen my point. No guns are made without a safety. The gun manufacturer should be liable, if, and only if, the gun discharges itself. Guns do not 'accidently discharge" without human actions. When the newspapers report that a gun did so, someone is getting the story wrong.
The safety on muzzle loaders is having to cock the hammer back.
In a word, you CANNOT hold gun makers liable, and allow J.R. Simplot off the hook for American obesity from eating too many french fries.
1 edit
Originally posted by ShoskavitchHence the slippery slope. If gun makers are to blame for gun deaths, then pretty much every company that makes anything is responsible for every bit of harm that comes to anyone that uses their product.
Saying that someone getting shot is the gun manufacturers fault, is like blaming the spoon manufacturer for rosie odonnell's weight problems.
So I have a drink, get in my car, start talking on my cel, drive a little ways, and hit a cyclist. The cyclist could potentially sue me, the cel phone maker, the alcohol brewer, the alcohol distributer, the 7/11 store that sold the alcohol to me, the car manufacturer, the car salesman, and maybe even the Department of Transportation since they built the road that I was driving on.
That's a lot of billable hours for some law firm... 🙂
Originally posted by Wulebgryou said
You need to read my statement more carefully. You've misunderstood my point.
"I agree that gun manufacturers should be subject to damages if the gun discharges and injures someone without a pulling of the trigger"
Thats what I disagree with you on, I understand your point is that if the gun misfires and injures without using the trigger, then the manufacters pay for the damage
ueOriginally posted by flyUnityI think (IMHO) , that the real problem is in the court system . Why do we continue to play softball with the whole lot of these social miscreants like drunk drivers , and criminals who commit violent crimes with guns . If you hurt someone while driving under the influence , or shoot someone in the commission of a robbery you shouldn't see the light of day for a couple of decades . Instead of going after manufacturers and trying to establish some obscene daisy-chain of blame - go after those who commit the crimes !
you said
"I agree that gun manufacturers should be subject to damages if the gun discharges and injures someone without a pulling of the trigger"
Thats what I disagree with you on, I understand your point is that if the gun misfires and injures without using the trigger, then the manufacters pay for the damage
As to the gun going off without the trigger being pulled and hurting someone- In 33 years of handling weapons I have NEVER had an accidental discharge of a weapon , much less one that could have hurt someone . All firearms are treated as loaded at ALL times and never pointed in a direction that could hurt someone if they went off . To not treat every gun like it's loaded and will go off at the worst posible time is negligent and reckless . If I ever did have a gun go off for any reason and injure someone I would expect to be punished as the fault would be entirely mine as the gun handler .
PS -Hmmm, If I can sue for the gun going off without someone pulling the trigger , I wonder if I can sue if I try to shoot someone and it fails to go off . "Your Honor , this man attempted to kill his wife to collect the $3 million insurance policy . Colt sold him a defective weapon which failed to operate as advertised , causing my client greivious loss of hard earned money that would have been his had the gun worked ."
Originally posted by Moldy CrowGets my rec, MC. My wife keeps a revolver in her car and I keep one in my truck and there are guns here and there around the house, all loaded all the time and have been for 30+ years. No problem. There are no gun accidents and no gun crimes, just people accidents and people crimes. Sympathize with the people who have the accidents and severely punish the people who commit the crimes.
I think (IMHO) , that the real problem is in the court system . Why do we continue to play softball with the whole lot of these social miscreants like drunk drivers , and criminals who commit violent crimes with guns . If you hurt someone while driving under the influence , or shoot someone in the commission of a robbery you shouldn't see the light of da ...[text shortened]... ng my client greivious loss of hard earned money that would have been his had the gun worked ."
Originally posted by flyUnityMy whole point is that such accidental discharges don't happen, and that when you read in the newspapers that it did someone is lying, and teh reporter was too gullible to get the story right.
you said
"I agree that gun manufacturers should be subject to damages if the gun discharges and injures someone without a pulling of the trigger"
Thats what I disagree with you on, I understand your point is that if the gun misfires and injures without using the trigger, then the manufacters pay for the damage
If I am wrong, and guns do accidently discharge without trigger action, then the manufacturer of that gun could be held liable. I challenge you, if you continue to distort my point, to name one American gun manufacturer (the American courts will have a hard time going after foreign companies) that is making firearms that discharge without trigger action.
It's bad enough that the anti-gun folks are ignorant regarding firearms, but when the pro-guns folks babble on without noting certain important distinctions, I believe the anti-gun kooks have a point.
Please recall the focus of my original point:
anti-gun Democrats, and anti-abortion Republicans (not just these two issues, but the whole package they come distributed with) are ruining their parties and our democracy.
Originally posted by Moldy CrowThank you.
As to the gun going off without the trigger being pulled and hurting someone- In 33 years of handling weapons I have NEVER had an accidental discharge of a weapon , much less one that could have hurt someone . All firearms are treated as loaded at ALL times and never pointed in a direction that could hurt someone if they went off . To not treat every gun ...[text shortened]... e someone I would expect to be punished as the fault would be entirely mine as the gun handler .
You are making the point I've tried to emphasize. Guns do not accidently discharge, they are fired by human action. If it were otherwise, and it most certainly is not, then gun makers would have a problem.
Originally posted by WulebgrTrue. And I agree with you. But we're not talking about accidental shootings or people mishandling a gun and causing an injury, we're talking about intentionally killing someone with a weapon (handgun) that is designed specifically for that purpose.
Thank you.
You are making the point I've tried to emphasize. Guns do not accidently discharge, they are fired by human action. If it were otherwise, and it most certainly is not, then gun makers would have a problem.
So do we sue the maker of a weapon that serves only one spurpose when that weapon is used for that purpose? And used successfully.