Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?
Other manufacturers get held liable when thier products malfunction, which gun owners would be held as well. If someone made a gun that had a propensity of blowing up in your hand after 20 shots, the manufacturer can be sued.
What you want is to hold a manufactuer liable for when their product functions as desgined, which is quite silly.
Gun makers and dealers don't deserve immunity. It's that simple - especially if one carefully reads the complete OP.
Gun makers and dealers don't deserve immunity. It's that simple - especially if one carefully reads the complete OP.
They don't have immunity from product malfunction, dumbass.
Can you sue Chevrolet for some guy hitting you while driving 110 MPH in his Corvette?
Gun makers and dealers don't deserve immunity. It's that simple - especially if one carefully reads the complete OP.
They don't have immunity from product malfunction, dumbass.
Can you sue Chevrolet for some guy hitting you while driving 110 MPH in his Corvette?
I suspect you didn't read the entire OP link.
Gun makers and dealers don't deserve immunity.
Gun makers and dealers don't deserve immunity.
Gun makers and dealers don't deserve immunity.
Couldn't deal with my thread, could you?
Apparently you can't deal with mine.
In 2005, former President George W. Bush signed into law the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - the "No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association" - which immunized gun makers and dealers from civil lawsuits for the crimes committed with the products they sell, a significant barrier to a comprehensive gun violence prevention strategy. Despite its recent reporting on proposed efforts to prevent another tragedy like the one in Newtown, major newspapers and evening television news have not explained this significant legal immunity, according to a Media Matters search of Nexis.
Faced with an increasing number of successful lawsuits over reckless business practices that funneled guns into the hands of criminals, the 2005 immunity law was a victory for the NRA, which "lobbied lawmakers intensely" to shield gun makers and dealers from personal injury law. As described by Erwin Chemerinsky, a leading constitutional scholar and the Dean of the University of California-Irvine School of Law, by eliminating this route for victims to hold the gun industry accountable in court, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was a complete deviation from basic "principles of products liability":
In 2005, former President George W. Bush signed into law the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - the "No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association" - which immunized gun makers and dealers from civil lawsuits for the crimes committed with the products they sell, a significant barrier to a comprehensive gun violence prevention strategy. Despite its recent reporting on proposed efforts to prevent another tragedy like the one in Newtown, major newspapers and evening television news have not explained this significant legal immunity, according to a Media Matters search of Nexis.
Faced with an increasing number of successful lawsuits over reckless business practices that funneled guns into the hands of criminals, the 2005 immunity law was a victory for the NRA, which "lobbied lawmakers intensely" to shield gun makers and dealers from personal injury law. As described by Erwin Chemerinsky, a leading constitutional scholar and the Dean of the University of California-Irvine School of Law, by eliminating this route for victims to hold the gun industry accountable in court, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was a complete deviation from basic "principles of products liability":
From the OP. This law needs to be overturned.
From the OP. This law needs to be overturned.In 2005, former President George W. Bush signed into law the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - the "No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association" - which immunized gun makers and dealers from civil lawsuits for the crimes committed with the products they sell, a significant barrier to a comprehensive gun violence prevention strategy. Despite its recent reporting on proposed efforts to prevent another tragedy like the one in Newtown, major newspapers and evening television news have not explained this significant legal immunity, according to a Media Matters search of Nexis.
Faced with an increasing number of successful lawsuits over reckless business practices that funneled guns into the hands of criminals, the 2005 immunity law was a victory for the NRA, which "lobbied lawmakers intensely" to shield gun makers and dealers from personal injury law. As described by Erwin Chemerinsky, a leading constitutional scholar and the Dean of the University of California-Irvine School of Law, by eliminating this route for victims to hold the gun industry accountable in court, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was a complete deviation from basic "principles of products liability":
Like any major public health problem, stemming gun violence will require multiple, overlapping strategies. Let me offer another one, overlooked until now, but potentially a dynamo: Repeal the little-known, but pernicious, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. In other words, reopen the door to lawsuits against gun sellers for wrongful conduct in the design and marketing of their weapons.
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.
Seriously, does your abject looniness know no bounds?Like any major public health problem, stemming gun violence will require multiple, overlapping strategies. Let me offer another one, overlooked until now, but potentially a dynamo: Repeal the little-known, but pernicious, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. In other words, reopen the door to lawsuits against gun sellers for wrongful conduct in the design and marketing of their weapons.
Congress should repeal the law that protects the gun industry from lawsuits. - Slate Magazine
It was done on tobacco - it can be done on guns.
Lets go after the X-acto Knife manufacturers now.Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?
Other manufacturers get held liable when thier products malfunction, which gun owners would be held as well. If someone made a gun that had a propensity of blowing up in your hand after 20 shots, the manufacturer can be sued.
What you want is to hold a manufactuer liable for when their product functions as desgined, which is quite silly.
Exactly. And no manufacturer can control how people will use their product. Lots of people have been killed by fireplace pokers. Haven't seen anyone going after them. And what about the rope manufacturers? How many people have been strangled with rope or hung themselves, yet anyone can walk into a hardware store and buy it. Hell, you can also buy knives everywhere and no one even IDs you. And that is the number one murder weapon.
Of course, the government and criminals fear people with guns because they are a force to be reckoned with in the event of an attack.
