The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Major Harris]

Good. If more gun shop owners would refuse to sell guns the world would be a safer place.

We had a nice story here where a woman with a record tried to get someone to buy a gun for her, but the shop owner realized what was happening and refused.

[Bang]

No way can the people sue the manufacturer.

(and the most lib of them all, Bernie, agrees.)

Pandora's box would fly open, and suddenly car manufacturers are in the firing line, alcohol makers, hospitals,, pretty much any way and every way anyone can die would open up the company who made whatever product a person accidentally or deliberately killed themselves or someone else with as liable.

 

the manufacturer is not liable for how it's product is used, even if it's a product that's sole purpose is to cause death.
 

 

~Bang

Edited April 12, 2016 by Bang

[PleaseBlitz]

So I saw something on Twitter and I have an honest question. What is the reasoning behind wanting the gun maker held liable for the actions some does with their product? I have heard the libs propose this and just ignored it because they're liberals and usually against guns. But what is the actual reasoning they use for it?  

 

 

#1 to make guns more expensive so that they gun manufacturers will sell less of them; #2 so that gun manufacturers will be incentivized to make their product safer.  Also, I always love to see when people brag that they have thoroughly insulated themselves from opposing points of view to the point that they are completely ignorant of them.  Nice work!

 

 

 

We don't hold the auto maker or beer maker responsible for DUI's. 

 

Well, there is a difference from a person using a reasonably safe product in an unsafe manner, and a manufacturer creating and selling an unsafe product.  In most industries, people can't sue for the former, but can for the latter.  Recommended reading:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/products_liability

 

Also, society requires safety standards in automobiles, and we don't let any untrained jackass drive a car and we mandate insurance in case something bad happens.  Automobile manufacturers get sued ALL THE TIME (and lose) when their product harms someone.  In response, cars are much much safer.  Gun companies could make guns much safer, and do much more to keep them out of the hands of felons, but it refuses because that would harm profits for their shareholders.

Edited April 12, 2016 by PleaseBlitz

[Burgold]

See, that's the problem with suing a gun manufacturer.

 

What did the gun do?

It killed.

What was it designed to do.

Kill.

Case dismissed.

 

All the window dressing about 3 year olds killing their grandmothers or siblings is just window dressing. The gun did its job and fulfilled its purpose. It's like suing a brownie for making you fat.

[Chew]

So I saw something on Twitter and I have an honest question. What is the reasoning behind wanting the gun maker held liable for the actions some does with their product?  

 

Dumbest idea ever.  Do you sue Honda when some idiot runs a red light and kills 4 people?  Nope.  Do you sue Boeing when some asshole hijacks a plane and flies it into a building, killing thousands?  Nope.

 

You can't make guns any safer than they already are.  All the time, money, and effort going into suing gun makers needs to be redirected towards mental health and making the screening process more stringent.  

[PleaseBlitz]

See, that's the problem with suing a gun manufacturer.

 

What did the gun do?

It killed.

What was it designed to do.

Kill.

Case dismissed.

 

All the window dressing about 3 year olds killing their grandmothers or siblings is just window dressing. The gun did its job and fulfilled its purpose. It's like suing a brownie for making you fat.

 

So, based on this, if a manufacturer designs and sells a gun that just goes off randomly a few times per week, you think that would not be actionable because it was designed to kill, and that's what it did.  I'm pretty sure that's not how it works.  

 

It varies by state, but often the standard isn't "did it do what it was designed to do?" it's "could they have made it safer." 

Don Beyer's (D-VA) Op-Ed in today's Post:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-end-gun-safety-hypocrisy-with-the-atf-enforcement-act/2016/04/11/2769c910-fffe-11e5-b823-707c79ce3504_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

 

 

Those who oppose gun safety legislation often contend that the president and Congress should enforce existing gun laws before considering any new ones. National Rifle Association President Wayne LaPierre has said that under current federal law, President Obama “could take every felon with a gun, drug dealer with a gun, and criminal gang banger with a gun off the streets tomorrow and lock ’em up for five years or more”; House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who holds great power over whether gun legislation sees the light of day, has said that “the federal government is not doing the job they should be doing in enforcing our current gun laws.”

 

We should call their bluff. The truth is that Congress routinely blocks the power of the federal agency responsible for overseeing and investigating firearms sales: the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The ATF is unable to carry out its mission because of the multiple obstacles placed in its path. For example, a 2004 budget amendment blocked the agency from providing data on the tracing of guns used in crimes for any state license revocation action or civil lawsuit. Gun-trace data are critically important for sourcing illegally trafficked firearms and identifying corrupt gun dealers. Another amendment that year banned any requirement that gun dealers keep a physical inventory of their wares. In 2012, Congress said that the ATF couldn’t deny applications to import any shotgun simply because it lacked a sporting purpose. The list goes on.

 

So what if we didn’t pass new gun safety laws, but instead simply returned to the ATF the authority and autonomy to fully perform its duties? What if this key agency were enabled “to protect communities from violent criminals . . . the illegal use and trafficking of firearms . . . [and] acts of terrorism,” as its mission statement reads, without interference?

 

Tuesday I will introduce the ATF Enforcement Act, which would restore the agency’s ability to enforce existing gun laws by removing legislative limitations on its operations, enforcement and day-to-day functions. My bill would also allow the person picked to be ATF director to bypass the Senate confirmation process by moving the appointment power to the attorney general. For years, congressional allies of the gun lobby have blocked nominees by both Democratic and Republican presidents. Only one nominee has been confirmed since the position was made subject to Senate approval in 2006.

 

More at link, but behind a pay wall. 

Edited April 12, 2016 by PleaseBlitz

[Burgold]

Dumbest idea ever.  Do you sue Honda when some idiot runs a red light and kills 4 people?  Nope.  Do you sue Boeing when some asshole hijacks a plane and flies it into a building, killing thousands?  Nope.

 

You can't make guns any safer than they already are.  All the time, money, and effort going into suing gun makers needs to be redirected towards mental health and making the screening process more stringent.  

You can absolutely make guns safer. Trigger locks, smart guns that only let preprogrammed owners shoot, etc.

So, based on this, if a manufacturer designs and sells a gun that just goes off randomly a few times per week, you think that would not be actionable because it was designed to kill, and that's what it did.  I'm pretty sure that's not how it works.  

My sarcasm misfired.

[Chew]

You can absolutely make guns safer. Trigger locks, smart guns that only let preprogrammed owners shoot, etc.

I should've been more specific "can make guns any safer than they already are withoutalong them A LOT more expensive."

What's the difference between a trigger lock and a safety? Are they two different things?

[Burgold]

I'm not the best resource, but trigger locks seem to be external. Something you put over the gun to prevent the trigger from being fired.

[Chew]

I'd be all for that.  But what will that help when a bad and/or mentally ill person wants to use a trigger locked gun to kill people?  if the gun was bought legally by them, than they'd have the key to the trigger lock.

[Burgold]

I'd be all for that.  But what will that help when a bad and/or mentally ill person wants to use a trigger locked gun to kill people?  if the gun was bought legally by them, than they'd have the key to the trigger lock.

The idea of gun control is to reduce risk. You will never eliminate it altogether. Have we eliminated adultery, rape, theft, kidnapping, assault, murder, etc?

 

We still try to make it more difficult on the bad guys. That's a good thing. Read a statistic once where a high percentage of guns used in robberies were stolen. I don't know what "a high percentage" means, but if that's true we should try to make it harder.

A gun safe makes a gun harder to steal. A trigger lock makes it harder to use (at least immediately)... smart technology might be even better.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Burgold

[Larry]

I think I'm noticing a disconnect, here. 

 

One said is arguing that one shouldn't be able to squeeze money out of a gun manufacturer, every time somebody robs a convenience store. 

 

And I agree with that. 

 

But I don't think that's the law that's being debated, here. 

 

As I understand it, the current law that people are discussing states that gun manufacturers can never be sued. 

 

No matter what they do.  No matter how good the case.  No matter how well it's been proven. 

 

Now, me?  I think that suing a gun manufacturer, and winning, ought to be tough. 

 

I don't think it should be prohibited. 

[Major Harris]

Can we get the old PleaseBlitz back? The 'things to do in a denver hotel room' dude?

We have enough Predicto.

[Bang]

Guns could be made safer, and laws can help,, like trigger guards, and/or smart-guns.

But in so far as suing the manufacturer... I can still unlock my trigger guard and go shoot up a school, for example. I can follow every law up until i shoot the first person.

The gun does kill, and the gun is designed to do nothing but fire a proectile with enough force and accuracy to kill.

No argument.
the person using the gun to kill a home invader.. this is what the law allows for, but if the manufacturer is liable for the would-be invader's death,, it doesn't make sense. It disarms the homeowner who is being invaded. Because if the manufacturer can be found liable, then that person is obviously culpable.

 

I'm probably not the best resource at all for this, but it seems to me that if you can sue, you can sue,, circumstance is secondary. person x is still dead, be they an innocent victim of a murderer or a burglar in the wrong house.

It can get way way sticky trying to assess when a manufacturer of a gun can be sued, and when not. i don't think that is fair to the manufacturer.

 

Pesticides are meant only to kill, and if I use them properly, only pests die.. but if my kid gets hold of it and drinks it or accidentally sprays it in his mouth or eyes..,, is the manufacturer liable for his poisoning?

i don't think they are.

Same as i dont' think they are if i intentionally mix some Round-up into your tea and poison you.

 

~Bang

Edited April 12, 2016 by Bang

[zoony]

Put your feet up on the Ac and accidentally shoot your junk

[btfoom]

I think I'm noticing a disconnect, here. 

 

One said is arguing that one shouldn't be able to squeeze money out of a gun manufacturer, every time somebody robs a convenience store. 

 

And I agree with that. 

 

But I don't think that's the law that's being debated, here. 

 

As I understand it, the current law that people are discussing states that gun manufacturers can never be sued. 

 

No matter what they do.  No matter how good the case.  No matter how well it's been proven. 

 

Now, me?  I think that suing a gun manufacturer, and winning, ought to be tough. 

 

I don't think it should be prohibited. 

 

Actually, that is a common mis-conception that goes to some people's misunderstanding of the law.

 

Read about how it is certainly legal and possible to sue them, but they are 'protected' to an extent by the  Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which preempts—or blocks—state or federal lawsuits against gun manufacturers except in limited cases, such as where the guns were defective, or where the manufacturer was involved in criminal conduct.

This federal law makes sense and simply reiterates what is already well-established products liability law. For a manufacturer or retailer to be liable in tort for the harm caused by a product, the plaintiff must establish that the manufacturer or retailer did something that actually caused the harm.

 

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-hard-truth-about-suing-gun-manufacturers-15378

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/06/446348616/fact-check-are-gun-makers-totally-free-of-liability-for-their-behavior

 

 

I can certainly see how some people would want to use this to say they can't be sued, but they can (and certainly have been).

[Larry]

Actually, that is a common mis-conception that goes to some people's misunderstanding of the law.

 

Read about how it is certainly legal and possible to sue them, but they are 'protected' to an extent by the  [/size]Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which preempts—or blocks—state or federal lawsuits against gun manufacturers except in limited cases, such as where the guns were defective, or where the manufacturer was involved in criminal conduct.

This federal law makes sense and simply reiterates what is already well-established products liability law. For a manufacturer or retailer to be liable in tort for the harm caused by a product, the plaintiff must establish that the manufacturer or retailer did something that actually caused the harm.

 

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-hard-truth-about-suing-gun-manufacturers-15378

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/06/446348616/fact-check-are-gun-makers-totally-free-of-liability-for-their-behavior

 

 

I can certainly see how some people would want to use this to say they can't be sued, but they can (and certainly have been).

1) If it merely reiterates an already-existing principle, then why pass the law?

2) And why apply said law to only one industry?

Edited April 12, 2016 by Larry

[Bang]

I could definitely say that a manufacturer could be held liable for a defective product ..  if a gun has a defective part that keeps causing it to blow up in the face of who fires it, or a hair trigger that keeps shooting it when the gun is laid down, or a defective safety switch....; then yeah. Definitely they should be no more protected than any company selling a dangerously defective product.

 

~Bang

Edited April 12, 2016 by Bang

[Chew]

 

Seeing as how i'd fall over if I leaned any further to the left, my fellow liberal friends and coworkers often disappoint me when it comes to the gun debate.  So many of them are "hippy-hipsters," who have NEVER been around firearms, must less ever served in the military.....yet they're so against gun ownership.  

 

I thought liberals were open to any and everything....yet they're awfully judgy of a culture they don't know or understand.  

 

Random:  when did the term "long guns" become a thing?  First started hearing it after San Bernadino. Sounds like some Anderson Cooper/CNN bull****.  And I love Anderson Cooper and CNN lol

[btfoom]

1) If it merely reiterates an already-existing principle, then why pass the law?

2) And why apply said law to only one industry?

 

Just to make sure, which 'law' are you asking about?  Thanks.

[Larry]

Just to make sure, which 'law' are you asking about?  Thanks.

The one you described? You know, in the post I quoted?

[Burgold]

 

 

Random:  when did the term "long guns" become a thing?  First started hearing it after San Bernadino. Sounds like some Anderson Cooper/CNN bull****.  And I love Anderson Cooper and CNN lol

 

Long guns were a term used to talk about canon on ships dating all the way back to the 18th century. Been a thing for a while, but probably not the the thing you were talking about.

 

[Bang]

I think in media terms 'long gun" covers everything that is not a handgun. Shotguns and rifles being totally different except in that they're long and they're guns.

 

~Bang

[mcsluggo]

 

 

Seeing as how i'd fall over if I leaned any further to the left, my fellow liberal friends and coworkers often disappoint me when it comes to the gun debate.  So many of them are "hippy-hipsters," who have NEVER been around firearms, must less ever served in the military.....yet they're so against gun ownership.  

 

I thought liberals were open to any and everything....yet they're awfully judgy of a culture they don't know or understand.  

 

Random:  when did the term "long guns" become a thing?  First started hearing it after San Bernadino. Sounds like some Anderson Cooper/CNN bull****.  And I love Anderson Cooper and CNN lol

 

 

i think that "gun control people" get fairly conveniently lumped together often, with a poster child representation by the screaming moonbat that wants the very mention of guns outlawed in all instances including by the police or the military.

 

 

i think most "gun control" people would be content with something way way way less than that, to say the least.   For me personally, a recognition that a discussion of gun rights doesn't end with the gun owner, but also applies to how others' rights are impacted  ("your right to freedom of expression ends at the tip of my nose" type of discussions).   this means that gun rights are not an absolute, and untouchable, blank check.   It is hard for me to see (or want) much of a restriction on hunting rifles and shotguns, for instance.   However, i see no reason why handguns and rapid fire guns shouldn't be discussed separately from hunting weapons.    

[Major Harris]

i think that "gun control people" get fairly conveniently lumped together often, with a poster child representation by the screaming moonbat that wants the very mention of guns outlawed in all instances including by the police or the military.

This is true.

We lump the other side as well.