[pbaj12]

Originally Posted by ices ↗

Well, people sue fast food companies for money for "making" them fat.


So who are they going to sell to to make up for all those $$$ loss? I hear the cartels in mexico are huge fans of their toys.

Just because someone wins in court, doesn't make it right. If an adult makes a choice going against common sense..why should someone else have to answer for it? We should just leave the warning labels off everything and let the problem sort itself out.

I doubt law enforcement make up much of company's sales compared to civilians and the federal government.
The cartels have endless amounts of money and can get just about any small arms they want. Plus they have the US government dealing them weapons as it is.

[Broadjumper]

Originally Posted by pbaj12 ↗

If a person shoots someone with a gun, then you think the manufacturer should be responsible?

I didn't say that, the question is WHY should they be immune to lawsuits if there's legitimate legal grounds for one? If a weapon is needlessly (negligently) dangerous or if they've distributed them carelessly, then why shouldn't they be liable to be sued?

[Broadjumper]

Originally Posted by pbaj12 ↗

Just because someone wins in court, doesn't make it right. If an adult makes a choice going against common sense..why should someone else have to answer for it? We should just leave the warning labels off everything and let the problem sort itself out.

That's what liability insurance is for. The point here is NO industry should be exempted from liability lawsuits...

[pbaj12]

Originally Posted by Broadjumper ↗

I didn't say that, the question is WHY should they be immune to lawsuits if there's legitimate legal grounds for one? If a weapon is needlessly (negligently) dangerous or if they've distributed them carelessly, then why shouldn't they be liable to be sued?

If a gun went off on it's own and hit someone, then the company should be liable. If a person took their gun and shot someone, the person should be liable. That's how I see it at least.

[Broadjumper]

Originally Posted by pbaj12 ↗

If a gun went off on it's own and hit someone, then the company should be liable. If a person took their gun and shot someone, the person should be liable. That's how I see it at least.

Ah, so to follow that line of thought, everything we buy or come into contact with should be labelled Use At Your Own Risk...

Got it...

Tell me, ever have ANY product fail on you and cause an injury? Ever have a family member contract a disease from asbestos? Or suffer and/or die from a poorly designed medical product or procedure?

I'm NOT in favor of over litigiousness, but no single industry deserves special congressional exemptions from due process...

[pbaj12]

Originally Posted by Broadjumper ↗

Ah, so to follow that line of thought, everything we buy or come into contact with should be labelled Use At Your Own Risk...

Got it...

Tell me, ever have ANY product fail on you and cause an injury? Ever have a family member contract a disease from asbestos? Or suffer and/or die from a poorly designed medical product or procedure?

I'm NOT in favor of over litigiousness, but no single industry deserves special congressional exemptions from due process...

No, when a person misuses a product and harms someone else..the person who misused the product should be liable not the manufacturer of the product. If I buy a beer, break the bottle then stab someone, should Miller be responsible? No, I should be.

A product failing and causing harm is completely different from a product being misused and causing harm.
If a doctor put a medical device in someone wrong, should the company who makes the device be sued?

The problem with being sued is each party pays their costs. Is it fair if 10,000 people individually sue a company for a loved one getting killed by someone and the company has to shell out hundreds of dollars per person for their answer to the court? Then waste however much money on lawyers?

[Broadjumper]

Originally Posted by pbaj12 ↗

No, when a person misuses a product and harms someone else..the person who misused the product should be liable not the manufacturer of the product. If I buy a beer, break the bottle then stab someone, should Miller be responsible? No, I should be.

A product failing and causing harm is completely different from a product being misused and causing harm.

There's a HUGE difference between misuse and dangerous or negligent product design. I NEVER said gun manufactures should be held specifically liable for the death or murder of another person who misused he gun.

If a doctor put a medical device in someone wrong, should the company who makes the device be sued?

If the doctor is determined to be at fault, or course he should be held liable. But if it's a design flaw, who's fault is that? Again, the POINT here is that neither a doctor or a device manufacture are exempt from a lawsuit, why are gun manufacturers?


The problem with being sued is each party pays their costs. Is it fair if 10,000 people individually sue a company for a loved one getting killed by someone and the company has to shell out hundreds of dollars per person for their answer to the court? Then waste however much money on lawyers?


That's the way our system works, for better or worse. Again WHY are gun manufacturer the ONLY industry exempt from liability lawsuits? What makes them so special? It's bullshit, it totally robs people of their right to seek redress

[pbaj12]

Originally Posted by Broadjumper ↗

That's the way our system works, for better or worse. Again WHY are gun manufacturer the ONLY industry exempt from liability lawsuits? What makes them so special? It's bullshit, it totally robs people of their right to seek redress

What industry has tons people suing them for making a product that a criminal used to kill someone with?

They are exempt because people were targeting them for something they had no control over. Why should they be liable for their product functioning correctly but being used for a criminal purpose?


They aren't exempt from liability lawsuits, they are exempt from them under circumstances.

"To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm caused solely by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended."

[Broadjumper]

Originally Posted by pbaj12 ↗

What industry has tons people suing them for making a product that a criminal used to kill someone with?

They are exempt because people were targeting them for something they had no control over. Why should they be liable for their product functioning correctly but being used for a criminal purpose?


They aren't exempt from liability lawsuits, they are exempt from them under circumstances.

"To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm caused solely by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended."

Yeah, I read that too, but you're still wrong. They are almost 100% insulated from tort liability, with narrow exceptions such as actions against transferors of firearms who knew the firearm would be used in drug trafficking or a violent crime by a party directly harmed by that conduct. Aside from they, they are completely free from any liability for who buys or sells a product which is primarily designed to kill.

No other industry is afforded such protections, and neither should this one be.

[pbaj12]

Originally Posted by Broadjumper ↗

Yeah, I read that too, but you're still wrong. They are almost 100% insulated from tort liability, with narrow exceptions such as actions against transferors of firearms who knew the firearm would be used in drug trafficking or a violent crime by a party directly harmed by that conduct. Aside from they, they are completely free from any liability for who buys or sells a product which is primarily designed to kill.

No other industry is afforded such protections, and neither should this one be.

Why is a gun company responsible for person 1 shooting person 2?

Should Toyota be responsible when person 1 has road rage and crashes their Prius into person 2?