Why is this New Law a problem
 

Read this http://g.msn.com/0MN2ET7/2?http://ww...EmailThis&CE=1
Basicly it says that congress passed a law that says we cannot sue the gun company who made the gun if it is used to committ a crime. why would this even have to be a law?
This just goes to prove that common sense aint so common. For example, would you sue Ford if a drunk Driver ran over and killed your wife/husband while he was driving a ford?
Would you sue Dell becuase the cops raided your house and busted you with kiddie porn on your Dell computer?
The fact of the matter is that a manufactureer has no control over how the consumer uses their products. I fhtey misuse a product the responsibility should be theirs to bear. However if the product is faultly and somebody is hurt due to that fault then the company can and shoudl be held liable. This new law, just makes sense to me. I hate the fact that it ever had to become a law to begin with. People should be smart enough to know that just dont walk around and kill people. At least I have never seen it do that before. Anyybody else have an opinion on this?

I wish it were common sense to recognize that gun control doesn't work, but people have been brainwashed by groups like the Brady Campaign. It upsets me to meet so many intelligent people who really believe that guns can make a person violent. I'm writing a paper to be accompanied by a presentation on the failures of gun control and the need for widespread armament for a class filled with extremely liberal (in both good and bad ways) students and a professor whose reaction I can't possibly predict. Should be a fun term project.

That was what the debate was about. I can't remember the case (help, anyone?), but the manufacturer of a handgun was sued when a kid killed himself unloading the gun. The reasoning was that the safety had to be off to unload the gun. Now ultimately, I believe it was the kid's fault. I don't think the gun company should have been sued for this, but I do think that they should have to conform to standards in manufacture, including the option for the safety to be on or off during loading and unloading.

I do think it was frivolous lawsuit, don't get me wrong. But I also think that the law was written by the gun lobbies, and it conveniently avoids the ultimate issue, which is that gun manufacturers need to be regulated in some fashion. All this law does is make them less accountable for what they do.

Another question for you: do you think the manufacturer of the guns has a responsibility to watch where its guns are sold? Take one example: Manufacturer A makes an inexpensive, effective revolver. Manufacturer A knows that Retailer B buys 1000 of these revolvers a month. Manufacturer A also knows that Retailer B only legitimately sells 300 of those each month. If one of those guns from Retailer B is used in a murder, and it was not sold legitimately by Retailer B, can Manufacturer A be held accountable? Why or why not?

Several cities have had successful lawsuits against some manufacturers.
They were brought in to sue for damages to citizens and to recoup healthcare costs due to gun crime.
Similar to the tobacco lawsuits.

I can see the law is there to stop the inevitable cascade of suits.

Bankrupting gun manufacturers is stated strategy of the gun control side for defacto gun control in leu of getting an actual gun ban.

So bottom line: This law is only a problem if you hate guns and want to get rid of them.

Actually, there have been several lawsuits, scores even, of gun manufacturer's by municipalities, but fortunately, NOT ONE OF THEM HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL.

Not one. They have all been either thrown out, over turned on appeal, or found not liable at trial. Gun industry litigation costs have been outrageous, and the tax payers, who fund the attempted, but failed extortion by municipalities were soaked.

The "Brady Campaign to Gut and Eliminate the Second Ammendment" is batting ZERO, with not a victory in it's history.

As far as this law is concerned, I am conflicted. First, as mentioned, it is absolutely insane that a law of this nature is needed. This is a law which cures a symptom, without addressing the actual disease. That being civil litigation. We really NEED TO change our civil litigation, tort liability system in this country. One thing and one thing only will resolve the problem...THE LOOSER pays all costs incurred by both parties. Since that is unlikely in my lifetime, perhaps protecting individual industries is a good starting strategy.

-bear

Well, the Supreme Court recently ruled that internet companies that make file-sharing software (which do have legitimate uses) ARE liable for the criminal use of their products in terms of swapping of copyrighted materials... Thus it has been established in law that companies can be held liable for the criminal mis-use of their products.

Correction: doesn't work in the United States.

I think it's absolutely retarded that these kinds of laws have to be made, but I'm glad they're being made. Too many people are winning or attempting to win the most ludicrous lawsuits around, and quite frankly, it's fucking with the ways I want to enjoy life.

How about this... The loser pays up to their own court costs to the winner. Otherwise you're basically giving the corporations and other deep pockets a blank check to do whatever they want because no one will sue them for fear of losing and getting saddled with a shit load of legal fees.

Grokster basically modified the standard of Betamax to say a company is liable if, though the product does have non-infringing uses, those are not the uses for which the product is offered. Basically, Grokster was making software so users could illegally copy copyrighted stuff... that you could also legally copy stuff with their software was secondary.

Unless you know of a company that makes and markets guns specifically for illegal uses... there's not really an analogy.

I'll take that as a good start. Something has to be done to prevent these 'exploratory' law suits. There must be consequences for wasting someone else's time and money on the quest for a payday.

-bear

You've hit the nail right on the head - it's a fact that many people aren't aware about. The barrage of ill-conceived lawsuits against gun manufacturers was designed to parallel the attacks on the tobbacco manufacturers years ago. The core difference between gun manufacturers and tobbacco manufacturers is that the majority of gun manufacturers don't have the money to endure a sustained barrage of lawsuits - and most of them would go bankrupt in the process.

I disagree.

Are we saying that if I have the safety on a gun -and the gun goes off -then the gun company is free to make these mistakes? Sounds like a fucked up law.

No.

That is NOT what is being said.

You can still sue for defective guns just like you can sue for defective cars.

But you should not be able to sue Ford because a drunk driver killed your spouse and was driving an F150.

Yet that is EXACTLY what they are doing to the gun manufacturers.

You need to read the particulars of the law itself. The "anti-gun" crowd publicize that it protects gun manufacturers from making a defective product, but that's not true at all.

A manufacturer can still be sued if the gun has, say, a bad safety like in your example. Read the law itself and you'll see.

Which act is it? Nobody is clear where the actual text of the bill is. Here's a list. Normally I would look through and find it but nothing here really resembles what people are talking about. Perhaps it's a rider on another bill.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query

S 397 is the senates version of the bill.

Slightly off topic, but this reminds me of Micheal Moore's "Crusade" to get.. K-Mart, I believe, to stop selling hand gun ammuntion because it was used in the Columbine school shootings.

I vote we take it a step further and shut down the companies that smelted the metals used in making the bullets... :rollseyes:

Maybe being a scuba diver gives me a different perspective, but I had to undergo training to use scuba gear. Yes, I have pretty extensive firearms training, but I am not required to have it to buy a firearm.

I think if the gun industry were smart, they'd do what the scuba industry did. There is no regulation over scuba, it is self-regulating (except for federal rules governing the transportation of compressed gas cylinders).

I'm not suggesting that the firearms industry needs no regulation (I favor a background check, for example) but that they would do themselves a world of good if they would require basic firearms certification like the scuba industry requires scuba certification. It shows that you know how to safely use the equipment. It may not guarantee you WILL safely use the equipment, but at least you know how!

I think you make a valid point. It may discourage stupid people from purchasing weapons becuase they would have to go through a lot of trouble to legaly purchase a weapon.

Or they'd just purchase one illegally, as stupid people are wont to do sometimes.

Look up the history of poll tests and poll taxes. All the same arguments can be applied to conditionals placed on the 2nd Amendment. Certain localities would certainly use such a requirement as a de facto ban.
"You can't get a gun until you've completed a certified safety course."
"Okay, so where can I take one?"
"You can't, we haven't certified anyone yet"

I think you present some very valid arguments. The only thing I'd like to point out is that SCUBA diving isn't specifically protected from infringement IN ANY way like firearms ownership is in the second ammendment. Nor is driving, skydiving, nose picking, or abortion.

I'm just saying it (the duece) probably should be changed somewhat, and provisions to do just that exist, and have been exercised in the past, to reflect this reality, if, and only if, the people decide it should be done.

-bear

Thats what I did my English Comp II research project/presentation. The teacher was a super liberal fem-nazi, and half my class wasnt much better. It was enjoyable to one, work them up a little bit. And two, have the proper information to answer their questions, dispel a few myths, and hopefully let the class leave a tad more enlightened.

I would like to point out that I imagine the issue of people not knowing how to safely use a gun probably did not exist when a larger percentage of house holds contained guns, and at a reletivly early age, dad took you outback/to the shooting range, and laid down the rules.

In reality, they can be summed up in a few simple statements:
1) Treat every firearm as if it is loaded.
2) Do not point the firearm at anything you arnt willing to shoot.
3) Safety on and finger off the trigger until you are ready to discharge the firearm.

Even with a defective safety, can anyone explain to me how a gun could accidentally go off and kill or injur someone while following these three rules?