The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity

[LOki]

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!

Only a sick fuck would think that the purpose of guns is to kill people. You know, you. Guns are a tool. Table saws and baseball bats aren't made to kill either, but hey can

I think it's a bit disingenuous to deny that the purpose of guns is to kill people... not all guns, but certainly there are PLENTY of guns out there designed primarily for the purpose of killing people.

But it is also disingenuous to insist that because of that design intent, it is simply inappropriate or wrong to possess and use those guns for other lawful purposes.

And it is PURE SUPERSTITION to assert that because of that design intent, those who possess those guns will, or intend to use them for inappropriate purposes.

 

[Zander]

Lefty logic...

Automobiles cause drunk driving
Mini Skirts cause rape
Guns cause murder

 

[kaz]

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!

Only a sick fuck would think that the purpose of guns is to kill people. You know, you. Guns are a tool. Table saws and baseball bats aren't made to kill either, but hey can

I think it's a bit disingenuous to deny that the purpose of guns is to kill people... not all guns, but certainly there are PLENTY of guns out there designed primarily for the purpose of killing people.

But it is also disingenuous to insist that because of that design intent, it is simply inappropriate or wrong to possess and use those guns for other lawful purposes.

And it is PURE SUPERSTITION to assert that because of that design intent, those who possess those guns will, or intend to use them for inappropriate purposes.

The point made was a sweeping one that the purpose of guns is to kill people

And using guns for defense is not using them with the purpose of killing people either even if you have to do it as part of the act.

There was nothing disingenuous in disputing that.

Guns shoot a projectile. To equate that as having only the use of killing is sick just like saying the purpose of hammers is to kill people

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Is GM held liable when one of its cars is involved in an alcohol-related death?
No?
/thread

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I think it's a bit disingenuous to deny that the purpose of guns is to kill people... not all guns, but certainly there are PLENTY of guns out there designed primarily for the purpose of killing people.

The overwhelming vast majority of guns are never used to kill or threaten people, and this is even true of the types of guns that you would claim are “designed primarily for the purpose of killing people.” And the vast majority of those who own such guns never use them to kill or to threaten others.

If that's what they are designed for, then on the whole, then they are doing a very, very, very poor job of meeting their design purpose.

 

[Staidhup]

When did a gun or gun maker ever commit a murder? So how is it that the idealists feel a gun, or gun maker, could be held liable for another's actions? By the same principle then is it not safe to conclude every auto maker should be held liable for every fatality on our roads? Would some one slap these people on the back of the head and demand they think.

 

[LOki]

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!

Only a sick fuck would think that the purpose of guns is to kill people. You know, you. Guns are a tool. Table saws and baseball bats aren't made to kill either, but hey can

I think it's a bit disingenuous to deny that the purpose of guns is to kill people... not all guns, but certainly there are PLENTY of guns out there designed primarily for the purpose of killing people.

But it is also disingenuous to insist that because of that design intent, it is simply inappropriate or wrong to possess and use those guns for other lawful purposes.

And it is PURE SUPERSTITION to assert that because of that design intent, those who possess those guns will, or intend to use them for inappropriate purposes.

The point made was a sweeping one that the purpose of guns is to kill people

And using guns for defense is not using them with the purpose of killing people either even if you have to do it as part of the act.

There was nothing disingenuous in disputing that.

Guns shoot a projectile. To equate that as having only the use of killing is sick just like saying the purpose of hammers is to kill people

I think it's a bit disingenuous to deny that the purpose of guns is to kill people... not all guns, but certainly there are PLENTY of guns out there designed primarily for the purpose of killing people.

The overwhelming vast majority of guns are never used to kill or threaten people, and this is even true of the types of guns that you would claim are “designed primarily for the purpose of killing people.” And the vast majority of those who own such guns never use them to kill or to threaten others.

If that's what they are designed for, then on the whole, then they are doing a very, very, very poor job of meeting their design purpose.

Wow. You guys. Just, wow.

I thought I was pretty clear.

I mean, I did say: "...it is PURE SUPERSTITION to assert that because of that design intent, those who possess those guns will, or intend to use them for inappropriate purposes."

Maybe I failed you for not posting it thus:
PURE FUCKING SUPERSTITION!!!eleven!!!

Apparently, you don't actually believe that the arguments in support of the uninfringible Right of the People to keep and bear arms can survive the simple acknowledgment of the facts of reality.

Well, you're wrong. And if you can't acknowledge the facts of reality, then NONE of your arguments are really meaningful... even when your conclusions are (by mere coincidence) correct; even when your audience agrees with you.

This isn't church.

Until you can acknowledge the facts of reality regarding guns, please resign yourself to the unconstitutional, anti-rights , gun control advocating side of the issue where the verifiable facts of reality are meaningless, logical fallacy has merit, and resolute devotion to superstition is valued above valid reasoning.

Thank you.

 

[GHook93]

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!

Only a sick fuck would think that the purpose of guns is to kill people. You know, you. Guns are a tool. Table saws and baseball bats aren't made to kill either, but hey can

Say what you want, but the purpose of a gun is to kill or harm a target!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Avatar4321]

The fact that there are two threads on this stupid argument is messed up.

 

[kaz]

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!

Only a sick fuck would think that the purpose of guns is to kill people. You know, you. Guns are a tool. Table saws and baseball bats aren't made to kill either, but hey can

Say what you want, but the purpose of a gun is to kill or harm a target!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

or hit a target, like skeet shooting. Or for self defense.

 

[LOki]

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

Why is it that you just can't identify how gun makers are not held just as liable for their products as other manufacturers?

 

[hazlnut]

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

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

The bartender can be liable.

 

[LOki]

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

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

The bartender can be liable.

But not the distillery. Not the auto maker. RIGHT?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Why was it the federal government's business to impose this law on the states? What happened to the 10th amendment your lot loves so much?

Gun sales are part of interstate commerce and therefore fall under Federal jurisdiction.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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

What other manufacturers are liable when people commit crimes with their products?

You didn't' read it, did you?

He probably did...but was too drunk to understand it.

 

[asaratis]

You people that think laws controlling the sales of guns will keep criminals from getting guns are just plain STUPID! Stop being emotional and start looking at THE FACTS concerning gun laws and violence.

The cities with the more stringent gun laws have the higher crime rates.

Y'all just can't get past using the truism that 'a criminal can't shoot you if he doesn't have a gun' (so let's take away all the guns).

 

[kaz]

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

What other manufacturers are liable when people commit crimes with their products?

You didn't' read it, did you?

He probably did...but was too drunk to understand it.

Adolph Lakhota hasn't backed it up with any examples, either

 

[Politico]

Another day. Another gun massacre.

Another day another dumbass Liberal.

 

[kaz]

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

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

The bartender can be liable.

If he knowingly serves alcohol to an intoxicated customer. He has to do something. That's all this law says, gun manufacturers can't be sued for uses of guns to commit crimes they had nothing to do with and no control over. Just serving a drink doesn't make the bartender liable

 

[Politico]

Guns sales are big money. Less gun sales mean less money. Therefore, it's all about money and how that money is used to influence legislators. There is no doubt that criminals, mentally ill, and domestic abusers should not have access to firearms. So, if gun manufacturers, suppliers, and the NRA were held liable each time a gun was used in a crime - I bet gun control laws would change in a hurry.

Just about every time you post here, you display your utter stupidity or your asinine belief that strict gun laws will stop gun crime in the USA. You ignore facts and preach the liberal talking points that are professed most strongly by overpaid politicians that don't need to carry a gun because their paid bodyguards do so for them.

You're not just an idiot. You give idiots a bad name!

Excuse him. He's still trying to work out the fake Indian thing.