Politics Gun violence in CT

Pretty much every other consumer product manufacturer with deep pockets may be subject to liability for improper/illegal use of the product. That doesnt mean a plaintiff would win.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act enacted in 2005 carves out this unique exclusion for gun manufactures.

 

You might recall the case of a sniper running around Washington DC metro area in 2002 and shooting random victims.

The family of one victim sued Bushmaster and the gun shop from which the weapon was stolen and got a $2.5 million settlement.
Gunmaker, Store Agree To Payout in Sniper Case (washingtonpost.com)

 

just seems like barking up the wrong tree to me. the only thing i can think of comparing it to is suing a car manufacturer when someone speeds and kills someone. even that doesn't seem justifiable in my eyes.

if you could sue them effectively they would be run out of business. how convenient would it be to go after the gun manufacturer who has millions since the thug who shot your kid has zero bucks.

i mean these companies do design and produce a ton of firearms and accessories to the military and police as well.

also, i'm not doubting the nra is in with gun manufacturers. they aren't the best gun lobby, just the biggest.

 

the analogy is cigarette manufacturers.
that analogy is likely why those stalwart republicans jammed through that special liability exemption for their buddies.

 

How do quantify "the best" in this instance? And, if not the NRA, what lobbying organization has been more effective in stymieing gun control legislation, in your opinion?

 

they probably have been the most effective for sure. gun owners of america, or jews for the preservation of firearms have a better platform i guess you could say (from a gun rights perspective).

basically the nra lobbies to make the gun control bills less severe and ends up supporting them when a compromise is made. which is essentially allowing for a bit more gun control each time. these other groups dont really compromise, but they dont have the big bucks or power to be that relevant either.

 

Maybe it's time to compromise.

 

Compromising? From what I can see, there's been no compromise on the part of the NRA since 1968.

National Rifle Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Or maybe post hoc face-saving.

 

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership is an affront to Jews and/or any rational thinker anyywhere.

Their extreme ideology that reasonable, constitutional gun control puts the US on the road to genocide and totalitarianism with comparisons to Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union and Pol Pot Cambodia is ignorant and offensive.
--- merged: Jan 17, 2013 4:31 AM ---
JFPO: gun control is responsible for genocide.

 

a little primer on the impact of the nra: on how atf was gutted.

Flashback: How Republicans and the NRA Kneecapped the ATF | Mother Jones

for example:

and the list goes on.

 

It's bad and dishonest math, too.

Even if I compare the white gun-related murder rate in the USA to the total gun-related murder rate in Belgium, the USA figure is something like 6X higher.

She, of course, was discussing murder rate in general to try and compare apples and oranges and confuse the matter - but the murder rate is still nearly twice as high in the USA (even after using the "whites only" filter in the USA but not in Belgium).

 

This could be a turning point for the debate.

 

While I agree with the sentiment, that MSNBC thing is terrible. It really is as bad as Fox, isn't it? Did they ever get to - you know - journalism ... and maybe interviewing someone from the NRA or anything? I gave up watching the talking heads.

Are there any news programmes?

 

To be honest, it's been so long since I watched ours that I don't know whether they are any better.