The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity

[JoeB131]

Criminals do not get background checks when they steal or illegally buy a gun now.
NO law changes that as LAWS now on the books for that.
And how are they working to date?

Laws that aren't enforced are meaningless... I used to live in a town where prostitution was "illegal", but you had brothels and streetwalkers operating right in the open. Laws are only half the equation - enforcement is the other hald.

And how many deaths are saved because the criminals KNOW someone owns or has a gun on them?
You conveniently left that figure in the tens of thousands out.

Probably because it's nowhere near that. Most criminals break in when they think no one is home. The few times there are confrontations, it's because the bad guy got it wrong.

The fact is, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than an intruder.

Owning weapons for self defense saves more innocent lives than criminals kill with illegally owned guns or illegally obtained guns.

Then why is it that countries without guns- such as Japan, Germany (which lost most of its guns after WWII and Ike banned them, not Hitler) the UK have less murder, less crime...

Of course, teh fact they don't allow the obscene level of wealth inequality we have probably helps, too.

 

[westwall]

No dumb ass, Hitler banned guns in every country he invaded and upheld the strict gun laws in Germany.

Um, no, actually, he didn't. Germany had pretty lax gun laws and the Nazis made them more lax. Most of the countries he invaded didn't have widespread gun ownership to start with. (And yes, you do disarm a country when you invade it, unless you are George W. Stupid, and we saw how well that worked out.)

Again, Godwin's law.

My gosh but you are one ignorant SOB. I don't normally use wiki but in this case it is actually accurate. Unlike you!




The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:
Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4]
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]
The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]
The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5]
Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[6]

Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.[7]




Gun politics in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[westwall]

Criminals do not get background checks when they steal or illegally buy a gun now.
NO law changes that as LAWS now on the books for that.
And how are they working to date?

Laws that aren't enforced are meaningless... I used to live in a town where prostitution was "illegal", but you had brothels and streetwalkers operating right in the open. Laws are only half the equation - enforcement is the other hald.

And how many deaths are saved because the criminals KNOW someone owns or has a gun on them?
You conveniently left that figure in the tens of thousands out.

Probably because it's nowhere near that. Most criminals break in when they think no one is home. The few times there are confrontations, it's because the bad guy got it wrong.

The fact is, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than an intruder.

Owning weapons for self defense saves more innocent lives than criminals kill with illegally owned guns or illegally obtained guns.

Then why is it that countries without guns- such as Japan, Germany (which lost most of its guns after WWII and Ike banned them, not Hitler) the UK have less murder, less crime...

Of course, teh fact they don't allow the obscene level of wealth inequality we have probably helps, too.

Because they have smaller populations and they are homogenous. The US has blacks, hispanics, asians, and caucasians all vying for the same thing. Way back in the 1970's the anti gunners went to great pains to point out that Vancouver had four gun murders as opposed to Seattles 40 or so. When the statistics were actually checked an interesting thing was found out....when you removed the gang violence (which was mainly minorities) and the blacks and hispanic violence and just compared tha caucasian vs caucasian rates, they were exactly the same....five murders in both cities.

 

[bripat9643]

No dumb ass, Hitler banned guns in every country he invaded and upheld the strict gun laws in Germany.

Um, no, actually, he didn't. Germany had pretty lax gun laws and the Nazis made them more lax. Most of the countries he invaded didn't have widespread gun ownership to start with. (And yes, you do disarm a country when you invade it, unless you are George W. Stupid, and we saw how well that worked out.)

Again, Godwin's law.

Horseshit. Hitler imposed strict gun controls.

Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)

• Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
• All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
• Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
• Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
• The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
• Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.

Furthermore, Godwin's law is a scam intended to protect liberals from certain irrefutable truths.

 

[thereisnospoon]

There were 14 years between the one 2 years ago and the one previous to that.

And again, just this year, we had Aurora, the Sihk Temple, Sandy Hook and that mass shooting at the mall. And that guy who shot the four firemen.


So the UK- 14 year gaps between incidents. We can't go 14 days without an incident.

And before guns were banned in the UK there was ONE. Since guns have been banned there have been three!

You can't count too well can you.

Actually, the UK never had a lot of guns to start with... that's the point. So, yeah, they rarely if ever have them.

They've had four in the last few decades, we've had four in the last six months...

Seriously, you really think our system is better, then?

You're easy.....
Gun Crime Soars in England Where Guns Are Banned - Katie Pavlich

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

They ARE held liable EXACTLY like other manufacturers. If I purchase a gun, and when I fire it, it - for example - explodes in my hand due to defective manufacture, I can sue the maker and win.

On the other hand (so to speak), if I go nuts and stab someone with a butcher's knife from my kitchen, the person I stab isn't going to sue the Ginsu Company. If I beat that person to death with a baseball bat, his family isn't going to sue Louisville Slugger.

A manufacturer - ANY manufacturer - is liable for injury and death directly caused by their manufacturing process. They are NOT liable for harm done with their products after their purchase.

There is nothing "unprecedented" about this law. It merely brought the legally-perceived liability of gun manufacturers into line with that of every other manufacturer of legal products in the United States.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why is there no longer expectation of individual responsibility? Individual accountability?

Blame the gun. Blame the car. Blame the ping pong ball. Blame the Jart. Blame the booze. Blame the bar that served the booze. Blame the friend that let the friend drive the car after drinking the booze.

Blame the enablers and the enabling devices. The individual perpetrator is just an innocent bystander.

Actually, I DO blame the bar that served the drunk, but only in conjunction with the drunk himself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Guns most often function as designed.

Us humans... not so frequently.

What makes you so sure that isn't the way we're designed?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

Read the law and the subsequent court orders. Strict liability is for unintended consequences, such as eating a snickers bar that had poison chemicals that killed you down the line.

But guns are made to to kill. Killing is not an unintended consequence. Similar to the immunity that alcohol and tobacco receive!

And look at the lawsuits against the tobacco companies. The plaintiffs couldn't win simply by saying that the product is carcinogenic, because the answer to that is "Duhh". They had to try to prove that the tobacco companies had lied to people about that fact, and thus misled the public about the consequences of the legal and intended use of their product.

It would be akin to a gun manufacturer advertising to everyone that when you pull the trigger, their gun shoots water, or a big bunch of flowers pops out of the barrel.

 

[JustTheFacts]

You know what, guy, I don't define living in fear that some crazy fuck with an automatic weapon is going to shoot up a mall I might be shopping at as being "Free".

Now, besides going full Godwin (a sign of a losing argument- Germans had the right to own weapons) ...

The fact is, most average citizens don't need guns. BUt you have an industry that is very good at peddling fear and making us all less safe.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy.

I've known enough people who had to bury a spouse or child because they killed themselves with a gun they bought to protect their family.

Enough of this madness.

Simple enough solution. Make the gun sellers liable for those deaths, and see how "devoted" they are to the second amendment when they are losing money.

If Hobby Lobby is willing to lose money on principle, why not Bushmaster?

pretty good argument except for the ridiculous bolded part.

Why would a gun maker be liable for what an entirely different entity chose to do with one of their products? Prove their intent.

There is no simple solution and people on both sides who scream that their "side" is entirely right and the other "side" is entirely wrong just need to shut up.

The fact is 99% of gun owners will NEVER need to use a gun for self defense of any sort, so those who claim they feel safer with them are just being silly.

By the same token, I don't owe anyone an explanation for why I own guns. I like guns, they're fun to shoot, and make a good investment.

I have no idea why gun owners go crazy with all these stretches as reasons they own guns. I own them because I can, period.

Now, what say we actually concentrate on getting guns out of the hands of people who ought not have guns in their hands?

And anyone who says that no one should be prevented from owning a gun is nuts.

A good first step is prosecuting that girl who bought a gun for the felon who shot those firemen as an accomplice to murder.

A great second step would be to outlaw private sales. Again, anyone who thinks anyone ought be able to buy a gun without a background check can be dismissed as a fool.

Is there anything we can come together on as a people any more?

Criminals do not get background checks when they steal or illegally buy a gun now.
NO law changes that as LAWS now on the books for that.
And how are they working to date?
And how many deaths are saved because the criminals KNOW someone owns or has a gun on them?
You conveniently left that figure in the tens of thousands out.
Owning weapons for self defense saves more innocent lives than criminals kill with illegally owned guns or illegally obtained guns.

You know. I own 57 firearms. Two of which are fully automatic . And frankly b ecause of idiots like you who refuse to acknowledge that the second amendment was never meant as a free for all and that there is nothing wrong with a little intelligent gun control I find myself caring less and less about the right to bear arms.

You and your ilk are as stupid as the ban everything crowd. Thats a fact.

 

[Clementine]

Manufacturers are only liable if they manufacture defective items. If gun makers are held liable for the drug cartels using their stolen weapons to murder, then all knife manufacturers, baseball bat manufacturers and so on... would be held liable because someone used their product in an illegal manner. Should we sue cities when people jump or push others from building or bridges? Do we sue the makers of cleaning products because people ingest their products? How about alcohol manufacturers? We already sue cigarette companies, even though they make a legal product.

This is getting out of hand. Manufacturers are not at fault for crazy or hateful people who harm others. To even suggest that gun makers are liable seems to suggest that the worthless pieces of shit who pull the trigger and murder are not at fault.

As long as any manufacturer follows the law, leave them alone. Hell, look at the harm done to citizens by illegal aliens who shouldn't even be here. Going by the OP's logic, time to sue Obama, California and all liberals who blatantly break immigration laws to coddle illegal aliens and encourage them to come here. Many people, some of whom were children, have been raped, murdered or killed in drunk driving accidents at the hands of illegal aliens. Where is the outrage?

 

[westwall]

No dumb ass, Hitler banned guns in every country he invaded and upheld the strict gun laws in Germany.

Um, no, actually, he didn't. Germany had pretty lax gun laws and the Nazis made them more lax. Most of the countries he invaded didn't have widespread gun ownership to start with. (And yes, you do disarm a country when you invade it, unless you are George W. Stupid, and we saw how well that worked out.)

Again, Godwin's law.

Horseshit. Hitler imposed strict gun controls.

Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)

• Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
• All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
• Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
• Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
• The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
• Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.

Furthermore, Godwin's law is a scam intended to protect liberals from certain irrefutable truths.

Indeed it is, i love how the clown trys to seek refuge in the crap when we are talking about the NAZI implementation of gun control.

What a troll.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

Read the law and the subsequent court orders. Strict liability is for unintended consequences, such as eating a snickers bar that had poison chemicals that killed you down the line.

But guns are made to to kill. Killing is not an unintended consequence. Similar to the immunity that alcohol and tobacco receive!

Guns are only made to kill only when someone uses them for killing. In my opinion, my guns were made for target shooting... Something that I enjoy.

Let's put it this way. Guns are made to expel a projectile forcefully in a direct line from the barrel when the trigger is pulled. This CAN be harmful, or even fatal, to living organisms who happen to be in the path of said projectile.

But you're right. The left always tries to make out that guns are somehow different from other items, because their primary purpose is inherently damaging to anything in its path, and in fact is to BE damaging. But you could actually say the same thing about a baseball bat: its purpose is to be swung forcefully at an object, transferring a large amount of kinetic energy to that object at the moment of impact. Sounds pretty dangerous and potentially lethal, doesn't it?

And the left will say, "Yes, but they're not made with the intention of a living creature being that object! They're made to play a GAME!" Well, and guns are very frequently purchased and owned for no more than the entertainment involved in firing them at inanimate objects. The fact that the left doesn't understand or share the enjoyment of doing so isn't relevant; lots of people don't enjoy playing or watching baseball, either.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Like when someone gets blind drunk and plows his Chevy into a crowd?

Bars can be held liable for serving drunks

That's also wrong.

Not really. I don't have a problem with expecting socially responsible behavior from purveyors of potentially harmful items. I expect bars to pay attention to whether or not their patrons are becoming a danger to themselves and others, I expect stores to pay attention to whether or not the people attempting to purchase alcohol and tobacco are underage, and I have no problem with expecting gun retailers to - for example - do the required background checks to make sure they're not selling a firearm to a violent felon.

However, holding a bar responsible for whether or not they pour someone full of tequila and then let him waltz out to his car is not the same as holding Budweiser responsible because the guy plowed his car into a school bus.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Time to tax guns and ammo.

We already do. Sales tax is charged on all legitimate purchases.

What you want is an excessive tax....which would amount to an infringement on my right to bear arms.

Screw you!

You nutters and preppers talk tough but when we threaten your penis substitutes, you turn into little girls.

Riiiight. Couldn't be because people don't like having their RIGHTS threatened, or anything. It's gotta be a sexual thing.

And tell me, how do you react when someone threatens your treasured right to fuck strangers from bars without consequences, aka the "right" to abortion? I haven't heard that much squealing since the cat got caught in the car engine.

 

[Cecilie1200]

[

No. The gun companies have never made the claim that guns are "safe" to use. The reason why the tobacco companies have had their asses rightfully handed to them is because they said for decades that tobacco use was safe when they knew that the truth was the opposite.

if you misuse a gun, you or someone you care about, will die. A gun is a tool. it is no better or worse than the person using it. They are inherently lethal when in use, just like automobiles or airplanes. To assert otherwise is incorrect.

The Tobacco companies got their asses handed to them because when their internal documents came out, it was shown they deliberately marketted their dangerous product to children.

And who knows what we'd find out if we got to look at all the internal documents of the gun industry... probably enough to hang them with.

No, idiot, they lied about the harmful effects of tobacco. If it were good for you no one would care if children used it.

And gun manufacturers, by contrast, have never tried to pretend that their products squirt lemonade when you pull the trigger. Hell, they market them on how much power they generate. They've been quite honest about exactly what their products are and do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What if you designed a knife that can be smuggled passed the TSA?

Glock.

They already make them. You've never heard of ceramic knives?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Now there is a case in Las Vegas about a black man that had a Glock 17, the police went to apprehend him, the black man pulled his Glock 17, held it sideways, and started firing, the gun jammed, and resulted in the black man getting multiple shot plugged into him by the police, now I don't know legal stuff, but the black man is suing Glock for being physically paralyzed from the waste down because his gun failed, if it would have functioned as intended he would have been able to kill both police and got away without any return gunfire, thus not being paralyzed from the waist down now, I don't think he has a case.

I doubt it. Guns occasionally jam. It's not a manufacturing defect; it's just an occasional hiccup in the functioning.

 

[Cecilie1200]

because the TV broadcasts are flooded with commercials from the gun manufacturers glorifying violence?

No wait, that's the video games..............

The Japanese play the same violent videogames we do.

And they had 11 gun murders last year.

Oh, but they don't have guns available to the public, that's the difference.

There are other ways to murder people, you moron.

Apparently, people didn't kill each other before the invention of the gun. I'll bet the guys in the Pelopponesian Wars would be shocked to hear that . . . if they hadn't been killed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

[

There are other ways to murder people, you moron.

Yes, there are...

And none of them are as efficient as a gun...

One guy with a bomb can kill thousands of people in a few seconds, try that with a gun.

Poison's pretty good, too, although you don't get quite the movie-special-effect thing with that.