Originally posted by wibI don't think handguns are designed specifically to kill people. I think it is more likely they are designed to keep people from killing you. And I believe they serve many purposes. We should not sue manufacturers whose products actually work as advertised. We should sue manufacturers whose products do not work as advertised.
True. 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.
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.
Originally posted by WulebgrOk, I see what your getting at, But still there are cases that the gun goes off without the trigger, (Very rare but it happens) I have seen personaly in Shooting tournaments where the gun would explode and injure the shooter, and heard of a few cases where the Gun fires without trigger pull, When companies are making millions of guns, theres sure to be one that is defective, So my question is, Should people sue because the Gun misfires or explodes? In my opionion, no
My 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.
If I am wrong, and guns do accidently discharge without trigger action, then the manufacturer of that gun could be held liable. [b]I challenge you, if you cont ...[text shortened]... , but the whole package they come distributed with) are ruining their parties and our democracy.[/b]
I do not beleive that anti-gun Democrats, and anti-abortion Republicans are ruining our country, How so? Most people in our country are Pro Gun and pro life,
Originally posted by DelmerIf the lawsuits were allowed to happen, then I believe the point you raised about products working as designed will be brought up in the courts. But the suits aren't going to happen IMO. The NRA simply has too much money invested in Congressman and Senators here.
I don't think handguns are designed specifically to kill people. I think it is more likely they are designed to keep people from killing you. And I believe they serve many purposes. We should not sue manufacturers whose products actually work as advertised. We should sue manufacturers whose products do not work as advertised.
I disagree about handguns being designed for defense versus offense though. They're designed for both. I don't believe we can separate the two. A handgun, at least of medium caliber and up, is designed specifically to hunt and kill an animal approximately the size of a human in an urban enviroment. It's small, easy to conceal, lightweight (compared to a rifle or shotgun), and packs enough punch to knock even a very large man on his can. As we've seen for the last 150 years it works very well.
In the end though I think the gun makers will walk away from this one without a scratch. If Congress passes a law disallowing lawsuits against gunmakers someone may challenge it on constitutional grounds, but since I'm not a lawyer I have no idea what those grounds could be.
Originally posted by wibAbsolutely not. Blaming the maker of a tool for making an effective tool is absurd. Guns serve a useful purpose, and they are fun to shoot. People who misuse guns need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and these laws could be strengthened if need be. But the manufacturers are not responsible for the killing.
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.
Originally posted by WulebgrThere's some "straw man" knocking down in this thread. How about this actual case recently filed which will be dismissed if the immunity provision becomes law:
Absolutely not. Blaming the maker of a tool for making an effective tool is absurd. Guns serve a useful purpose, and they are fun to shoot. People who misuse guns need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and these laws could be strengthened if need be. But the manufacturers are not responsible for the killing.
Buffalo, NY - Lawyers with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Terrence M. Connors of the Buffalo law firm of Connors & Vilardo, LLP today filed a lawsuit on behalf of Daniel Williams, who was 16 when he was shot in the stomach and severely wounded as he played basketball on August 16, 2003. The suit seeks to recover damages from the gun companies who negligently enabled known gang member, Cornell Caldwell, to obtain the gun and shoot Williams.
Caldwell obtained one of the hundreds of guns trafficked to Buffalo from Ohio by notorious gunrunner James Nigel Bostic. The Buffalo News reported that between May and October 2000, Bostic purchased at least 250 guns from gun dealer Charlie Brown, and other gun sellers, at gun shows in Dayton, Ohio. Bostic traveled to Ohio, which, unlike New York, does not require a license to purchase a gun or impose a waiting period, to buy mainly Hi-Point Saturday Night Special handguns for under $100 a piece, then sold them for two to three times the price on the streets of Buffalo.
The suit alleges that gun dealer Charlie Brown was negligent in selling Bostic and his straw purchasers 190 Saturday Night Special handguns. It also alleges that Bostic and his girlfriend, Kimberly Upshaw, purchased guns from Brown on five occasions, including a purchase of 87 handguns, one of which was the handgun used to shoot and injure Williams. The suit alleges as well that Bostic sometimes used girlfriends to purchase guns for him in order to avoid being the purchaser of record, however, Bostic selected the guns and paid for them in cash.
"When this gun dealer chose to sell 190 Saturday Night Specials to a gun trafficker and his cohorts, he only saw dollar signs, not the damage those sales would wreak on innocent people," said Elizabeth S. Haile, Staff Attorney with the Brady Center. "These sales were grossly irresponsible, and the dealer should be held accountable in court. It is an outrage that the NRA and its allies in Congress, and President Bush, want to give unprecedented, sweeping immunity to reckless dealers who arm gun traffickers and criminals, at the expense of innocent victims like Daniel Williams."
Originally posted by flyUnity
When companies are making millions of guns, theres sure to be one that is defective, So my question is, Should people sue because the Gun misfires or explodes? In my opionion, no
If it explodes because of a defect in manufacturing, the manufacturer can be held to account.
I do not beleive that anti-gun Democrats, and anti-abortion Republicans are ruining our country, How so? Most people in our country are Pro Gun and pro life,
The "most people" you refer to put Bush in office. Surely you do not really believe that warmonger is pro-life.
Some pro-life folks are consistent in their position; that is, they consider war only a regrettable last resort in case of imminent danger (a standard not met in our current conflicts), and they are generally opposed to the death penalty, and they are fully committed to protecting the quality of life of those who have already taken breath. However, such true pro-lifers are a insignificant minority in the US. Further, most of them are a least a little bit unfomfortable with guns.
Unfortunately, most people in the US are not pro-gun, but we are a majority in the West. Republicans from areas that are not pro-gun generally follow the party line, and many Democrats from Western states are less rabidly anti-gun than some of their fellows from the East.
I do miss Frank Church, however. A genuine liberal who enjoyed shooting guns.
And this one:
Philadelphia, PA - Lawyers with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Mark LeWinter of the Anapol Schwartz law firm today filed a lawsuit on behalf of the family of Faheem Thomas-Childs, the 10 year-old Philadelphia boy who was shot and killed as he walked through the gates of his elementary school, on February 11, 2004. The suit seeks to recover damages from the gun companies who negligently supplied the gang members who shot him with the Ruger handgun used to kill Faheem.
The suit alleges that American Gun and Lock (f/k/a Fishtown Lock and Gun), of Girard Avenue in Philadelphia, negligently sold the murder weapon in a straw sale to gang members. A criminal, who was not permitted to buy guns, accompanied the straw purchaser to the store, picked out the gun, and supplied the money to the straw purchaser who did the paperwork for the transaction. The store's clerk even charged a "handling fee" for the straw purchase, which the criminal paid. American Gun had sold guns to several other gun traffickers over the years.
Under legislation being considered this week by Congress, S. 397/H.R. 800, which is co-sponsored by Pennsylvania Senators Rick Santorum and Arlen Specter, American Gun would have immunity from suit and Faheem's family would be deprived of its legal rights.
From the Brady Center Legal Action website at http://www.gunlawsuits.org/
Do the facts in these cases make a difference in anyone's support for the full immunity provision for gun manufacturers and sellers in S. 397?
Before this topic continues, consider this:
Those who design a car, it's clear purpose is for driving, not killing.
Those who design beer, it's clear purpose is for drinking, not killing.
Those who design scissors, it's clear purpose is for cuting materials, not stabing.
Those who design spoons, it's purpose is for eating, not creating fat overweight people who die of heart attack.
NOW, those who design military issue assault rifles and give them to the general public in America, design this product with one purpose in mind, TO KILL.
That's why America should be like Canada and outright ban military issue weaponry from civilians. Hunting rifles are just fine, as their purpose is to hunt or clay shoot, but multi-round assault rifles designed to kill as many people as possible, shouldn't be in civilian use. I can use a slipperly slope of this MYSELF, I could argue, what's next? If civilians are allowed to privately own 12 gauge's, m-16's, etc, then why can't someone own an F-117, a tomahawk, or a nuke? Fact of the matter is, assault rifles should only be used by military and police. You want to use these weapons? Then join the military or swat team, if puting your life on the line isn't for you and your a typical neo conservative gun lobbying PUSSY, then don't whine how I "take away your freedom" by removing your m-16 from your house.
Do I think American gun manufacturers should be sued MAJORLY for releasing military issue equipment to civilians designed to kill hordes of people? MOST DEFINATELY!
Originally posted by no1marauderThanks for some real info, No1. I'll need to look more carefully at the cases and the pending legislation.
And this one:
Philadelphia, PA - Lawyers with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Mark LeWinter of the Anapol Schwartz law firm today filed a lawsuit on behalf of the family of Faheem Thomas-Childs, the 10 ye ...[text shortened]... ll immunity provision for gun manufacturers and sellers in S. 397?
Nevertheless, off-hand I note that the two case summaries you provide may possibly hold companies that sold guns--distributors--liable, while wib's question concerned manufacturers.
Consider the parallel concept of beer: suppose I drink way beyond my limit at Larry's tavern, and injure someone when I pass out behind the wheel of my vehicle enroute home. Sweet Irene, the bartender, could be liable for selling me that sixteenth Coors, but not the company that Herr Adolph founded.
In the same way, a company profiting from running guns into an urban wasteland is in a somewhat different category than those making those guns.
Edit: A quick glance the proposed law reveals that it protects manufacturers and distributors. The Brady Campaign appears to aim their campaign principally at "reckless gun dealers", but they do offer a study, Smoking Guns: Exposing the Gun Industry's Complicity in the Illegal Gun Market that suggests strong links between the manufacturers of the wapons and the dealers who recklessly arm felons and others in the illegal gun market.
Originally posted by WulebgrNow in the case of what No1 has offered I have to lean towards allowing those suits to happen. Gun trafficking, as you pointed out Wule, is a whole other issue than gun making.
Thanks for some real info, No1. I'll need to look more carefully at the cases and the pending legislation.
Nevertheless, off-hand I note that the two case summaries you provide may possibly hold companies that sold guns--distributors--liable, while wib's question concerned manufacturers.
Consider the parallel concept of beer: suppose I drink way beyo ...[text shortened]... rs of the wapons and the dealers who recklessly arm felons and others in the illegal gun market.
The NRA won't see it that way though. They simply try to disallow all suits against anyone that's in anyway involved with firearms. So they're gonna throw the baby out with the bath water on this one. too bad.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1 , maybe I'm missing something here , but I'm not seeing the gun manufacturer selling "to known gun runners/gang members" being established firmly . How are they to know someone eventually using their product is a known felon ? They are a corporation and do not have the rights or the means to pry too far into a potential buyer's history , criminal record , present associations with criminal elements , etc . Second , there are several links in this chain that remove the violence pretty far away from the manufacturer . Yet the Brady people seem to treat this as if Ruger was selling guns off the back of their truck to crackheads across the street from the school yard . Third , it is incorrect IMHO to say shielding Ruger denies the family of the victim their legal rights . It sound to me like the retailer , Amerian , was negligent and facilitated the straw purchase . The family can go after American as the law stands now , (and imo it should remain this way). How does their irresponsible sales practices make Ruger culpable ? Again using the auto analogy , if I lend the keys to my car to a 15 year old who I supplied alcohol to , and he gets in a wreck ; should the victims be able to sue Ford and Miller Brewing ? No , I abused their products , the companies are not responsible , I am . Take it one step further and add criminal intent to the equation . I am a mobster , and I go to a used car dealer . I pay him cash to buy a car used in the commission of an armed robbery , kidnap , and murder . Was it the dealer's responsiblity to check into my my background more thoroughly prior to selling me the car ? If he "thinks" I am a mobster , but has no proof , and refuses to sell me the car based on this suspicion alone - doesn't he leave himself open to lawsuits for slander/libel ?
And this one:
Philadelphia, PA - Lawyers with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Mark LeWinter of the Anapol Schwartz law firm today filed a lawsuit on behalf of the family of Faheem Thomas-Childs, the 10 year-old Philadelphia boy who was shot and killed as he walked through the gates of his elementary school, on February 11, ...[text shortened]... n anyone's support for the full immunity provision for gun manufacturers and sellers in S. 397?
Originally posted by Moldy CrowNot having seen the actual allegations in the lawsuit, I can't address those questions but they seem to be of a factual nature: what did the manufacturer know? Factual issues are generally decided by judges and/or juries; if Ruger did nothing wrong then it would be granted summary judgment before trial (it's unclear from the description whether Ruger is even a defendant). So far as I know, no industry has EVER been given blanket immunity from lawsuits for a dangerous product they manufacture. And please check S. 397; it would shield the seller from liability as well as the manufacturer.
No1 , maybe I'm missing something here , but I'm not seeing the gun manufacturer selling "to known gun runners/gang members" being established firmly . How are they to know someone eventually using their product is a known felon ? They are a corporation and do not have the rights or the means to pry too far into a potential buyer's history , criminal ...[text shortened]... on this suspicion alone - doesn't he leave himself open to lawsuits for slander/libel ?
Personally, I oppose most gun control laws on libertarian principles, but it seems to me selling 150 handguns to one guy might be a little reckless. Manufacturers and sellers profit from these types of sales; isn't it fair that they have to pay for what the economists would call the "externalities"?
Originally posted by no1marauderOK , thanks for the clarification . I would have to agree blanket immunity is the other side of the slippery slope . I also agree , only knowing what has been stated , that I would not want to grant blanket immunity to the seller of 150 firearms . I just don't want to see open season on manufacturers , no matter how removed they might be from a criminal act .
Not having seen the actual allegations in the lawsuit, I can't address those questions but they seem to be of a factual nature: what did the manufacturer know? Factual issues are generally decided by judges and/or juries; if Ruger did nothing wrong then it would be granted summary judgment before trial (it's unclear from the description whet ...[text shortened]... ; isn't it fair that they have to pay for what the economists would call the "externalities"?
One more clarification if you please - "externalities" (?) .
Originally posted by Moldy CrowIn economics. an externality is a cost imposed on society by a product that the maker doesn't directly bear. The classic example in the '80's was pollution: the owner of the factory dumping chemicals into a river doesn't pay for the costs involved in people having health problems due to drinking the contaminated water. Thus, the factory owner is making an extra profit by not paying all the "real" costs.
OK , thanks for the clarification . I would have to agree blanket immunity is the other side of the slippery slope . I also agree , only knowing what has been stated , that I would not want to grant blanket immunity to the seller of 150 firearms . I just don't want to see open season on manufacturers , no matter how removed they might be from a criminal act .
One more clarification if you please - "externalities" (?) .
The same principle would apply to a gun seller and/or manufacturing selling 150 handguns to one guy, assuming they had reason to know that they would be resold to criminals. They are taking the full revenue, but not paying all the costs to society i.e. health and other costs of the victims being shot.