Jump to content

Hillary Wants to "Go After" Gun Manufacturers


nannygovtsucks

Recommended Posts

"Negligent gun manufacturers should be held accountable when they endanger our families."




So if a gun store sells the gun, what she is saying is that they are to blame if somehow that weapon is later used in a criminal shooting. Is someone also to blame if they make a knife used in a stabbing? A brick used by someone to bash someone else in the head? A tire iron maker?



Even Sanders looks at her with, “What is this insane woman saying?”



The people responsible for people who are shot are the the people who shoot them.







Link to post
Share on other sites

This is rough for you. Trump wants to ban assault guns.

 

And how does that actually address what the OP stated? Oh, I see....... its an attempt at a distraction because you can't possibly have an answer to the question posed. Never mind, I should have guessed based on who its coming from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a company, any company, fails to implement safety features they have previously agreed in court are necessary, then they can be sued. I have no problem with this.

 

So if a gun has a properly working safety and the murderer thumbs off the safety, pulls the trigger and blows someone away...... is the gun manufacturer liable? Stop with your one little isolated case you continue to cling to thinking it makes your argument. There are literally hundreds of over manufacturers out there your case doesn't pertain to. Address the bigger question instead of picking your single cherry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Following Hillary's thinking, shouldn't then Obama be arrested for knowingly assisting gun manufacturers in doubling the sales of these 'weapons of death' in the past seven years?.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is rough for you. Trump wants to ban assault guns.

 

And how does that actually address what the OP stated? Oh, I see....... its an attempt at a distraction because you can't possibly have an answer to the question posed. Never mind, I should have guessed based on who its coming from.

 

 

Case by case basis. That's why it's important to sue gun makers as much as possible. The only way to find out if they are liable is through court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This is rough for you. Trump wants to ban assault guns.

 

And how does that actually address what the OP stated? Oh, I see....... its an attempt at a distraction because you can't possibly have an answer to the question posed. Never mind, I should have guessed based on who its coming from.

 

 

Case by case basis. That's why it's important to sue gun makers as much as possible. The only way to find out if they are liable is through court.

 

 

Completely disagree. That type of "throw enough shit against the wall, some of it is bound to stick" is just BS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

This is rough for you. Trump wants to ban assault guns.

 

And how does that actually address what the OP stated? Oh, I see....... its an attempt at a distraction because you can't possibly have an answer to the question posed. Never mind, I should have guessed based on who its coming from.

 

 

Case by case basis. That's why it's important to sue gun makers as much as possible. The only way to find out if they are liable is through court.

 

 

Completely disagree. That type of "throw enough shit against the wall, some of it is bound to stick" is just BS.

 

 

All kinds of different guns all kinds of different killings. Only way to sort it out is in court on a case by case basis, unless you just want to grant gun makers immunity from being sued.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

This is rough for you. Trump wants to ban assault guns.

 

And how does that actually address what the OP stated? Oh, I see....... its an attempt at a distraction because you can't possibly have an answer to the question posed. Never mind, I should have guessed based on who its coming from.

 

 

Case by case basis. That's why it's important to sue gun makers as much as possible. The only way to find out if they are liable is through court.

 

 

Completely disagree. That type of "throw enough shit against the wall, some of it is bound to stick" is just BS.

 

 

All kinds of different guns all kinds of different killings. Only way to sort it out is in court on a case by case basis, unless you just want to grant gun makers immunity from being sued.

 

 

People like YOU and Hillary are EXACTLY why the NRA pushed to get legislation passed to protect the gun industry. Its not about doing the right thing or "sorting" anything out. It pure punitive harassment in an attempt to effectively circumvent the 2A by removing the source of guns available to buyers. Its BS and you know it. At least fucking be honest what the intent is.

 

As NGS mentioned, would you likewise advocate suing Henckel for stabbings and Louisville Slugger for fatal head bashings? Of course not.

 

The fact of the matter is there is little to no evidence that there is any manufacturer liability. And its just absolutely false when people say that the gun industry cannot be sued for liability. But liability is not when someone takes a perfectly functioning gun, points it at someone's face and intentionally pulls the trigger. Any more than GM is liable if someone use a Denali to deliberately run over a crowd of school children waiting to cross at the school crossing.

 

If we used your assinine "logic", we should be suing car manufacturers left and right when someone kills someone else while they are stoned to the bejesus or DUI.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They already ARE exempt from being sued. What's your problem with that?....

 

That's not true. They are (rightly) exempt from being sued for the criminal actions of someone who uses the gun in a crime.

 

If a gun blows up in someone's face and inures them, gun makers are absolutely (rightly) able to be sued for possible liability for a defective product.

 

But a gun used by a gang banger using a perfectly working weapon to commit murder doesn't quite fall into the defective product category.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They already ARE exempt from being sued. What's your problem with that?....

 

That's not true. They are (rightly) exempt from being sued for the criminal actions of someone who uses the gun in a crime.

 

If a gun blows up in someone's face and inures them, gun makers are absolutely (rightly) able to be sued for possible liability for a defective product.

 

But a gun used by a gang banger using a perfectly working weapon to commit murder doesn't quite fall into the defective product category.

 

 

Even in the case of the gang banger they could be responsible if it can be shown, for instance, that they should have reasonably known the buyer was a straw buyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

They already ARE exempt from being sued. What's your problem with that?....

 

That's not true. They are (rightly) exempt from being sued for the criminal actions of someone who uses the gun in a crime.

 

If a gun blows up in someone's face and inures them, gun makers are absolutely (rightly) able to be sued for possible liability for a defective product.

 

But a gun used by a gang banger using a perfectly working weapon to commit murder doesn't quite fall into the defective product category.

 

 

Even in the case of the gang banger they could be responsible if it can be shown, for instance, that they should have reasonably known the buyer was a straw buyer.

 

 

The gun manufacturer of the gun dealer? If you look "up-thread", this point is regarding the manufacturer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If a company, any company, fails to implement safety features they have previously agreed in court are necessary, then they can be sued. I have no problem with this.

 

So if a gun has a properly working safety and the murderer thumbs off the safety, pulls the trigger and blows someone away...... is the gun manufacturer liable? Stop with your one little isolated case you continue to cling to thinking it makes your argument. There are literally hundreds of over manufacturers out there your case doesn't pertain to. Address the bigger question instead of picking your single cherry.

 

Glock doesn't have a safety.. So should the Glock be outlawed? I don't think it's talking about safety issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

They already ARE exempt from being sued. What's your problem with that?....

That's not true. They are (rightly) exempt from being sued for the criminal actions of someone who uses the gun in a crime.

 

If a gun blows up in someone's face and inures them, gun makers are absolutely (rightly) able to be sued for possible liability for a defective product.

 

But a gun used by a gang banger using a perfectly working weapon to commit murder doesn't quite fall into the defective product category.

Even in the case of the gang banger they could be responsible if it can be shown, for instance, that they should have reasonably known the buyer was a straw buyer.

Is that like saying they just get a 'bad vibe' about a potential purchaser?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

They already ARE exempt from being sued. What's your problem with that?....

 

That's not true. They are (rightly) exempt from being sued for the criminal actions of someone who uses the gun in a crime.

 

If a gun blows up in someone's face and inures them, gun makers are absolutely (rightly) able to be sued for possible liability for a defective product.

 

But a gun used by a gang banger using a perfectly working weapon to commit murder doesn't quite fall into the defective product category.

 

 

Even in the case of the gang banger they could be responsible if it can be shown, for instance, that they should have reasonably known the buyer was a straw buyer.

 

 

The gun manufacturer of the gun dealer? If you look "up-thread", this point is regarding the manufacturer.

 

 

It applies equally I think. Sometimes manufacturers sell direct to the public. The idea behind the law is to protect companies from being bankrupted defending against nuisance lawsuits which have no real merit. The anti gun groups have lots of money behind them, and most retailers and even most manufacturers, do not have a lot of money. They could have been bankrupted fairly easily if the gun groups started targeting them with lawsuits every time someone commits a crime or suicide with a gun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If a company, any company, fails to implement safety features they have previously agreed in court are necessary, then they can be sued. I have no problem with this.

 

So if a gun has a properly working safety and the murderer thumbs off the safety, pulls the trigger and blows someone away...... is the gun manufacturer liable? Stop with your one little isolated case you continue to cling to thinking it makes your argument. There are literally hundreds of over manufacturers out there your case doesn't pertain to. Address the bigger question instead of picking your single cherry.

 

Glock doesn't have a safety.. So should the Glock be outlawed? I don't think it's talking about safety issues.

 

 

Glock actually has several inherent safeties. Impossible to fire unless you physically put a finger on the trigger and squeeze.

 

https://us.glock.com/technology/safe-action

 

In shooting about 3K rounds thru it, mine's never gone off accidentally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

They already ARE exempt from being sued. What's your problem with that?....

 

That's not true. They are (rightly) exempt from being sued for the criminal actions of someone who uses the gun in a crime.

 

If a gun blows up in someone's face and inures them, gun makers are absolutely (rightly) able to be sued for possible liability for a defective product.

 

But a gun used by a gang banger using a perfectly working weapon to commit murder doesn't quite fall into the defective product category.

 

 

Even in the case of the gang banger they could be responsible if it can be shown, for instance, that they should have reasonably known the buyer was a straw buyer.

 

 

Correct for a dealer/gunshop. Not a manufacturer. I fully advocate hammering the living shit out of a gunshop who knowingly sells to a straw buyer. But that's not Remington's problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

They already ARE exempt from being sued. What's your problem with that?....

That's not true. They are (rightly) exempt from being sued for the criminal actions of someone who uses the gun in a crime.

 

If a gun blows up in someone's face and inures them, gun makers are absolutely (rightly) able to be sued for possible liability for a defective product.

 

But a gun used by a gang banger using a perfectly working weapon to commit murder doesn't quite fall into the defective product category.

Even in the case of the gang banger they could be responsible if it can be shown, for instance, that they should have reasonably known the buyer was a straw buyer.

Is that like saying they just get a 'bad vibe' about a potential purchaser?

 

 

No, more like two guys walk into the store, person A is the "buyer" and fills out the paperwork, but takes direction from person B as to what to look at what to buy and what to offer. When they go to pay, person B pulls out the cash for the gun and hands it to person A. If a seller sees this and still sells the gun, they should be prosecuted, sued, or both. The reality is that it rarely happens, and when it does, the ATF almost never dies anything about it. I wish the ATF would do something about it, because it is a law which if actually enforced, could make a difference. As opposed to the usual nonsense, like banning AR15s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

If a company, any company, fails to implement safety features they have previously agreed in court are necessary, then they can be sued. I have no problem with this.

 

So if a gun has a properly working safety and the murderer thumbs off the safety, pulls the trigger and blows someone away...... is the gun manufacturer liable? Stop with your one little isolated case you continue to cling to thinking it makes your argument. There are literally hundreds of over manufacturers out there your case doesn't pertain to. Address the bigger question instead of picking your single cherry.

 

Glock doesn't have a safety.. So should the Glock be outlawed? I don't think it's talking about safety issues.

 

 

Glock actually has several inherent safeties. Impossible to fire unless you physically put a finger on the trigger and squeeze.

 

https://us.glock.com/technology/safe-action

 

In shooting about 3K rounds thru it, mine's never gone off accidentally.

 

 

5k+ rounds out of both of my glocks..... still no AD's

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

They already ARE exempt from being sued. What's your problem with that?....

That's not true. They are (rightly) exempt from being sued for the criminal actions of someone who uses the gun in a crime.

 

If a gun blows up in someone's face and inures them, gun makers are absolutely (rightly) able to be sued for possible liability for a defective product.

 

But a gun used by a gang banger using a perfectly working weapon to commit murder doesn't quite fall into the defective product category.

Even in the case of the gang banger they could be responsible if it can be shown, for instance, that they should have reasonably known the buyer was a straw buyer.

Is that like saying they just get a 'bad vibe' about a potential purchaser?

 

 

No, more like two guys walk into the store, person A is the "buyer" and fills out the paperwork, but takes direction from person B as to what to look at what to buy and what to offer. When they go to pay, person B pulls out the cash for the gun and hands it to person A. If a seller sees this and still sells the gun, they should be prosecuted, sued, or both. The reality is that it rarely happens, and when it does, the ATF almost never dies anything about it. I wish the ATF would do something about it, because it is a law which if actually enforced, could make a difference. As opposed to the usual nonsense, like banning AR15s.

 

 

Ding, FUCKING DING!

Link to post
Share on other sites

More Hillary BS. Pick out a "Bad Guy" and tell the world that you will "go after" them. She is doing that for other big corporations leaving the US and setting up headquarters overseas too. Maybe she needs to look at the bug picture and recognize that the US is screwing these businesses. Of course she will never do this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If a company, any company, fails to implement safety features they have previously agreed in court are necessary, then they can be sued. I have no problem with this.

So if a gun has a properly working safety and the murderer thumbs off the safety, pulls the trigger and blows someone away...... is the gun manufacturer liable? Stop with your one little isolated case you continue to cling to thinking it makes your argument. There are literally hundreds of over manufacturers out there your case doesn't pertain to. Address the bigger question instead of picking your single cherry.

 

Mine is the bigger question. The crackpot paranoia coming out of your addled brain has no basis in reality.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, more like two guys walk into the store, person A is the "buyer" and fills out the paperwork, but takes direction from person B as to what to look at what to buy and what to offer. When they go to pay, person B pulls out the cash for the gun and hands it to person A. If a seller sees this and still sells the gun, they should be prosecuted, sued, or both. The reality is that it rarely happens, and when it does, the ATF almost never dies anything about it. I wish the ATF would do something about it, because it is a law which if actually enforced, could make a difference. As opposed to the usual nonsense, like banning AR15s.

 

 

Ding, FUCKING DING!

 

 

Your wistful support for the ATF is dishonest posing. Your elk have been busy thoroughly obstructing the ATF, big-time.

 

Flashback: How Republicans and the NRA Kneecapped the ATF

Thirty years ago, the National Rifle Association saved its biggest adversary from extinction. It got just what it wanted.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/atf-obama-gun-reform-control-alcohol-tobacco-firearms>

 

 

Table 2. p11 Sources of Firearms Trafficking Identified in ATF Investigations

Source: Number of investigations Percent

--Firearms trafficked by straw purchaser or straw purchasing ring 709 46.3

--Trafficking in firearms by unlicensed sellers* 314 20.5

--Trafficking in firearms at gun shows and flea markets 212 13.9

--Trafficking in firearms stolen from FFL 209 13.7

--Trafficking in firearms stolen from residence 158 10.3

--Firearms trafficked by licensed dealer, including pawnbroker 133 8.7

--Street criminals buying and selling firearms from unknown sources** 95 6.2

--Trafficking in firearms stolen from common carrier 31 2.0

--Unlicensed manufacture of common firearms or NFA weapons 16 1.0

--Other sources (e.g. selling firearms over Internet, illegal pawning) 18 1.1

Number of investigations included = 1,530

Note: Sum may exceed 100 percent since investigations may be included in more than one category.

* As distinct from straw purchasers and other traffickers.

** These were investigations in the early stages where trafficking channels were not yet fully clear.

https://www.atf.gov/file/11886/download

 

ATF's struggle to close down firearms dealers

Modest resources, restrictive rules allow troubled outlets to stay open for years

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/02/01/12117/atfs-struggle-close-down-firearms-dealers>

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

If a company, any company, fails to implement safety features they have previously agreed in court are necessary, then they can be sued. I have no problem with this.

 

So if a gun has a properly working safety and the murderer thumbs off the safety, pulls the trigger and blows someone away...... is the gun manufacturer liable? Stop with your one little isolated case you continue to cling to thinking it makes your argument. There are literally hundreds of over manufacturers out there your case doesn't pertain to. Address the bigger question instead of picking your single cherry.

 

Glock doesn't have a safety.. So should the Glock be outlawed? I don't think it's talking about safety issues.

 

 

Glock actually has several inherent safeties. Impossible to fire unless you physically put a finger on the trigger and squeeze.

 

https://us.glock.com/technology/safe-action

 

In shooting about 3K rounds thru it, mine's never gone off accidentally.

 

 

5k+ rounds out of both of my glocks..... still no AD's

 

 

Amateurs and children tend to exaggerate just a bit..

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

They already ARE exempt from being sued. What's your problem with that?....

 

That's not true. They are (rightly) exempt from being sued for the criminal actions of someone who uses the gun in a crime.

 

If a gun blows up in someone's face and inures them, gun makers are absolutely (rightly) able to be sued for possible liability for a defective product.

 

But a gun used by a gang banger using a perfectly working weapon to commit murder doesn't quite fall into the defective product category.

 

 

Even in the case of the gang banger they could be responsible if it can be shown, for instance, that they should have reasonably known the buyer was a straw buyer.

 

 

Correct for a dealer/gunshop. Not a manufacturer. I fully advocate hammering the living shit out of a gunshop who knowingly sells to a straw buyer. But that's not Remington's problem.

 

 

Remington may be supplying such a dealer. Industry insiders say it is common knowledge that manufacturers look the other way.

The NRA has a long history of freeing up up sales to criminals, in a variety of ways.

A gun sale is a gun sale to them, with virtually no penalty for supplying the criminal market, and no way to look at industry figures.

 

Here's a hint from a few days ago. The ATF is prevented from proper inspection of retailers, so an accurate overview is impossible. But here's a micro look at what is exposed once a close look is taken at a retailer supplying too many crime guns:

 

Rare Gun Store Inspection Casts Doubt on Government Tallies of Lost and Stolen Firearms

A dealer in Arkansas gets audited, and national totals for lost or stolen firearms start to seem suspiciously low.

http://www.thetrace.org/2016/03/missing-guns-ffl-arkansas/>

Federally licensed gun dealers (FFLs) in Arkansas reported 2,951 guns lost or stolen last year, according to ATF statistics released on March 5. In a state with 2,000 gun dealers, that makes for an abnormally high total: Texas, a state with five times as many FFLs, reported just 1,024 guns lost or stolen.

According to ATF spokesman Brian Garner, 98 percent of the missing Arkansas guns stemmed from a single unnamed dealer.

... That lack of accountability is compounded by the Tiahrt Amendments, which since 2003 have prohibited the ATF from requiring FFLs to submit inventories to the government.

...Former ATF agent Jay Wachtel, who specialized in trafficking and studied the role licensed gun dealers play in supplying the black market, says that FFL inspections are often the result of crime gun traces. If a high number of traces of crime guns point back to a particular seller, then inspectors will follow up. When confronted by inspectors about missing weapons, the dealer has to declare whether the weapons were lost or stolen. And if a dealer is in fact crooked, “obviously they aren’t going to tell the inspector they were illegally selling guns,” Wachtel says. “They’ll say, ‘Oh my god, they must have been stolen!’”

 

...Similar spikes occurred in 2014 when ATF audits of firearms dealers in New York and Texas sent those states’ numbers of guns missing from stores soaring (New York reported 4,017 lost or stolen guns that year, and Texas reported 2,510). Ditto in 2013, when internal audits of gunmakers in Kentucky and New York revealed higher than expected numbers of missing firearms from those states.

http://www.thetrace.org/2016/03/missing-guns-ffl-arkansas/>

Link to post
Share on other sites

In possibly related news, why was Marriot responsible for this creep?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/erin-andrews-lawsuit-55-million_us_56d9ce8de4b03a4056787538

 

It was obviously the fault of whoever built that wall!

 

And the people who manufactured the tools used to build the wall. Can't forget tool manufacturers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had my XDm for two years and have put 2,000 plus through it...

 

Any weapon caused jams/misfires? I'm cheap, and usually by factory reloads from GA arms 1K rounds at a time. I can get them for less than half the "new box" price, and I get a couple cool ammo cans, too. I like the XDs - a lot, and am thinking about adding another .45 to the safe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have had my XDm for two years and have put 2,000 plus through it...

 

Any weapon caused jams/misfires? I'm cheap, and usually by factory reloads from GA arms 1K rounds at a time. I can get them for less than half the "new box" price, and I get a couple cool ammo cans, too. I like the XDs - a lot, and am thinking about adding another .45 to the safe.

 

 

I have the XDm in 9, and love it. It eats anything at all, including my own powder puff plinking rounds without any failures to feed or eject. My brother has the XDs in .45 and it is a neat gun, but not a lot of fun to shoot. The grip texturing is aggressive and the recoil is considerable in such a small light gun chambered in .45, so you end up with your hands pretty beat up after a box of ammo. If I were to buy something in that size, it would probably be the M&P Shield in 9mm, much more comfortable to shoot, better trigger, and just as concealable. 9mm +p will stop just about anything, so you aren't giving up much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I have had my XDm for two years and have put 2,000 plus through it...

 

Any weapon caused jams/misfires? I'm cheap, and usually by factory reloads from GA arms 1K rounds at a time. I can get them for less than half the "new box" price, and I get a couple cool ammo cans, too. I like the XDs - a lot, and am thinking about adding another .45 to the safe.

 

 

I have the XDm in 9, and love it. It eats anything at all, including my own powder puff plinking rounds without any failures to feed or eject. My brother has the XDs in .45 and it is a neat gun, but not a lot of fun to shoot. The grip texturing is aggressive and the recoil is considerable in such a small light gun chambered in .45, so you end up with your hands pretty beat up after a box of ammo. If I were to buy something in that size, it would probably be the M&P Shield in 9mm, much more comfortable to shoot, better trigger, and just as concealable. 9mm +p will stop just about anything, so you aren't giving up much.

 

 

Thanks Len - I appreciate the insight. Next time y'all are thru this way, we'll set up a skeet range in the backyard and bust some clays!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I have had my XDm for two years and have put 2,000 plus through it...

 

Any weapon caused jams/misfires? I'm cheap, and usually by factory reloads from GA arms 1K rounds at a time. I can get them for less than half the "new box" price, and I get a couple cool ammo cans, too. I like the XDs - a lot, and am thinking about adding another .45 to the safe.

 

 

I have the XDm in 9, and love it. It eats anything at all, including my own powder puff plinking rounds without any failures to feed or eject. My brother has the XDs in .45 and it is a neat gun, but not a lot of fun to shoot. The grip texturing is aggressive and the recoil is considerable in such a small light gun chambered in .45, so you end up with your hands pretty beat up after a box of ammo. If I were to buy something in that size, it would probably be the M&P Shield in 9mm, much more comfortable to shoot, better trigger, and just as concealable. 9mm +p will stop just about anything, so you aren't giving up much.

 

 

Thanks Len - I appreciate the insight. Next time y'all are thru this way, we'll set up a skeet range in the backyard and bust some clays!

 

 

That would be awesome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No failure to feed on the guns part.

I did have problems when I worked up my hardcast lead hand loads for Idpa. I ended up going down to 4.2 grains of Bullseye to eliminate lead fouling the chamber. I started at 4.6 grains, but could only get a hundred rounds before fouling caused failure to have the cartridge fully go into battery.

 

When using full metal jacket of any kind it has never failed. I love the gun, and the ergonomics of the grip.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I have had my XDm for two years and have put 2,000 plus through it...

 

Any weapon caused jams/misfires? I'm cheap, and usually by factory reloads from GA arms 1K rounds at a time. I can get them for less than half the "new box" price, and I get a couple cool ammo cans, too. I like the XDs - a lot, and am thinking about adding another .45 to the safe.

 

 

I have the XDm in 9, and love it. It eats anything at all, including my own powder puff plinking rounds without any failures to feed or eject. My brother has the XDs in .45 and it is a neat gun, but not a lot of fun to shoot. The grip texturing is aggressive and the recoil is considerable in such a small light gun chambered in .45, so you end up with your hands pretty beat up after a box of ammo. If I were to buy something in that size, it would probably be the M&P Shield in 9mm, much more comfortable to shoot, better trigger, and just as concealable. 9mm +p will stop just about anything, so you aren't giving up much.

 

 

Thanks Len - I appreciate the insight. Next time y'all are thru this way, we'll set up a skeet range in the backyard and bust some clays!

 

 

That would be awesome.

 

 

I like sporting clays (Kind of like golf with a shotgun). Missed a bunch last time, though. So, I am going to sue the clay target makers.

 

We all deserve to be victims.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should someone "go after" this Mom, who left a .45 on the floor of her truck?

 

It seems she is rather open about how her 4 year-old child feels about guns.

 

That is certainly going to leave a mark.

 

Sounds like someone needs to take over parenting for her, and maybe give her a bit of time in a 10'x10' safe space. I have very little tolerance for people who hurt children or put them at risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should someone "go after" this Mom, who left a .45 on the floor of her truck?

 

It seems she is rather open about how her 4 year-old child feels about guns.

 

That is certainly going to leave a mark.

 

Sounds like an issue for CPS. Should the gun maker be prosecuted or sued?

 

Every year, negligent mothers leave their infants in the heat of the summer with sometimes fatal results. Should the automaker be sued?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Should someone "go after" this Mom, who left a .45 on the floor of her truck?

 

It seems she is rather open about how her 4 year-old child feels about guns.

 

That is certainly going to leave a mark.

 

Sounds like an issue for CPS. Should the gun maker be prosecuted or sued?

 

 

In my opinion - No.

 

Feel free to interpret that, however you would like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should someone "go after" this Mom, who left a .45 on the floor of her truck?

 

It seems she is rather open about how her 4 year-old child feels about guns.

 

That is certainly going to leave a mark.

 

Sounds like willful negligence, and should be addressed as such. Of course, since the Moms got shot - I suspect that such lax behavior won't be a recurring theme in those households.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Should someone "go after" this Mom, who left a .45 on the floor of her truck?

 

It seems she is rather open about how her 4 year-old child feels about guns.

 

That is certainly going to leave a mark.

 

Sounds like an issue for CPS. Should the gun maker be prosecuted or sued?

 

 

In my opinion - No.

 

Feel free to interpret that, however you would like.

 

 

I'll interpret that as a "no". Feel free to disagree with my interpretation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Should someone "go after" this Mom, who left a .45 on the floor of her truck?

 

It seems she is rather open about how her 4 year-old child feels about guns.

 

That is certainly going to leave a mark.

 

Sounds like an issue for CPS. Should the gun maker be prosecuted or sued?

 

 

In my opinion - No.

 

Feel free to interpret that, however you would like.

 

 

I'll interpret that as a "no". Feel free to disagree with my interpretation.

 

 

I have had my statements "interpreted" to mean something other than I said/wrote.

 

Just being clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Should someone "go after" this Mom, who left a .45 on the floor of her truck?

 

It seems she is rather open about how her 4 year-old child feels about guns.

 

That is certainly going to leave a mark.

Sounds like willful negligence, and should be addressed as such. Of course, since the Moms got shot - I suspect that such lax behavior won't be a recurring theme in those households.

 

How about a more interesting example. The beltway shooters got their gun from a shop with notoriously poor practices, and some of the victims sued the gun manufacturer for knowingly continuing to sell their guns to a bad FFL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks#Civil_and_regulatory_actions

The suit claimed that Bull's Eye Shooter Supply ran its gun store in Tacoma, Washington, "in such a grossly negligent manner that scores of its guns routinely "disappeared" from its store and it kept such shoddy records that it could not account for the Bushmaster rifle used in the sniper shootings when asked by federal agents for records of sale for the weapon." It was alleged that the dealer could not account for hundreds of guns received from manufacturers in the years immediately prior to the Beltway sniper attacks. It was also claimed that Bull's Eye continued to sell guns in the same irresponsible manner even after Muhammad and Malvo were caught and found to have acquired the weapon there. Bushmaster was included in the suit because it allegedly continued to sell guns to Bull's Eye as a dealer despite an awareness of its record-keeping violations.

Is it reasonable to sue a gun manufacturer in this situation?

 

Of course, one could also wonder why an FFL can get a 250 page file with the ATF and only be shut down when they are linked to a serial shooter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Should someone "go after" this Mom, who left a .45 on the floor of her truck?

 

It seems she is rather open about how her 4 year-old child feels about guns.

 

That is certainly going to leave a mark.

Sounds like willful negligence, and should be addressed as such. Of course, since the Moms got shot - I suspect that such lax behavior won't be a recurring theme in those households.

How about a more interesting example. The beltway shooters got their gun from a shop with notoriously poor practices, and some of the victims sued the gun manufacturer for knowingly continuing to sell their guns to a bad FFL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks#Civil_and_regulatory_actions

The suit claimed that Bull's Eye Shooter Supply ran its gun store in Tacoma, Washington, "in such a grossly negligent manner that scores of its guns routinely "disappeared" from its store and it kept such shoddy records that it could not account for the Bushmaster rifle used in the sniper shootings when asked by federal agents for records of sale for the weapon." It was alleged that the dealer could not account for hundreds of guns received from manufacturers in the years immediately prior to the Beltway sniper attacks. It was also claimed that Bull's Eye continued to sell guns in the same irresponsible manner even after Muhammad and Malvo were caught and found to have acquired the weapon there. Bushmaster was included in the suit because it allegedly continued to sell guns to Bull's Eye as a dealer despite an awareness of its record-keeping violations.

Is it reasonable to sue a gun manufacturer in this situation?

 

Of course, one could also wonder why an FFL can get a 250 page file with the ATF and only be shut down when they are linked to a serial shooter.

Not being a fan of lawsuits, I am loathe to agree with going after a manufacturer, unless s product was defective and it can be proven the manufacturer was negligent in correcting the defect.

 

That is different from knowingly selling to an unscrupulous dealer. To me, that is what you are describing

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not being a fan of lawsuits, I am loathe to agree with going after a manufacturer, unless s product was defective and it can be proven the manufacturer was negligent in correcting the defect.

Noone is suggesting anything different, that I have seen.

Currently the gun manufacturing industry is specifically shielded so that they cannot be sued for negligence if a crime is committed.

 

People are talking about removing this shield.

 

Other people complain that frivolous lawsuits could send small operators to the wall.

 

The obvious fix would appear to be to tighten up the ability of people to sue in general, not to protect particular industries.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is different from knowingly selling to an unscrupulous dealer. To me, that is what you are describing

Wilful negligence is wilful negligence, whether it is related to a safety issue, or how you sell your guns, or who you let access your guns etc etc.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not being a fan of lawsuits, I am loathe to agree with going after a manufacturer, unless s product was defective and it can be proven the manufacturer was negligent in correcting the defect.

Noone is suggesting anything different, that I have seen.

Currently the gun manufacturing industry is specifically shielded so that they cannot be sued for negligence if a crime is committed.

 

People are talking about removing this shield.

 

Other people complain that frivolous lawsuits could send small operators to the wall.

 

The obvious fix would appear to be to tighten up the ability of people to sue in general, not to protect particular industries.

If an FFL was actually notoriously unscrupulous they would not hold an FFL license.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That is different from knowingly selling to an unscrupulous dealer. To me, that is what you are describing

Wilful negligence is wilful negligence, whether it is related to a safety issue, or how you sell your guns, or who you let access your guns etc etc.

Does wilful negligence include not revoking an FFL from those who break the law?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Not being a fan of lawsuits, I am loathe to agree with going after a manufacturer, unless s product was defective and it can be proven the manufacturer was negligent in correcting the defect.

Noone is suggesting anything different, that I have seen.

Currently the gun manufacturing industry is specifically shielded so that they cannot be sued for negligence if a crime is committed.

 

People are talking about removing this shield.

 

Other people complain that frivolous lawsuits could send small operators to the wall.

 

The obvious fix would appear to be to tighten up the ability of people to sue in general, not to protect particular industries.

 

If an FFL was actually notoriously unscrupulous they would not hold an FFL license.

 

Well, obviously the court thought they should have known, because they had to pay the plaintiffs.

Does wilful negligence include not revoking an FFL from those who break the law?

I am not familiar with the regulations the ATF is bound to follow regarding the cancellation of these licenses.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's just say you are an axe manufacturer, and a woman named Lizzy Borden happens to find one of your products in a barn, or some such place. Or crazy shit - she goes to the local hardware store and buys an axe without a background check and a waiting period - the guy just says "That'll be 45 cents, Lizzy", and she walks out.

After the horrific murders, no one confronted the axe manufacturers or the hardware stores. No. They blamed Lizzy.

How crazy is that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not being a fan of lawsuits, I am loathe to agree with going after a manufacturer, unless s product was defective and it can be proven the manufacturer was negligent in correcting the defect.

Noone is suggesting anything different, that I have seen.

Currently the gun manufacturing industry is specifically shielded so that they cannot be sued for negligence if a crime is committed.

 

People are talking about removing this shield.

 

Other people complain that frivolous lawsuits could send small operators to the wall.

 

The obvious fix would appear to be to tighten up the ability of people to sue in general, not to protect particular industries.

 

 

I guess you missed this attempt to suggest something different:

 

 

 

...

 

 

Cite or it didn't happen. The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does not protect them from suits for product defects. Just suits for things like suicides, which are the main topic of this thread.

 

 

"(5) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or

 

That definitely does protect them from lawsuits for product defects even when a child does not know the meaning of "volitional"

 

The main topic of the thread was to create a discussion on the best way if any, to mitigate the cost of gun violence.

 

 

 

Of course, that attempt did require overlooking a few critical words.

 

I'd like to see our tort laws reformed to a "loser pays" system but meanwhile, protecting industries that appear to need it seems sensible.

 

I see no one has taken up my call to sue the tool manufacturers who contributed to building that wall in the Marriot hotel referenced in post 39.

 

If that happens, I'll be on board with a Protection of Lawful Commerce in Tools law to protect them from the nonsense. But I don't expect that to happen. This kind of nonsense surrounds one type of tool only.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see our tort laws reformed to a "loser pays" system but meanwhile, protecting industries that appear to need it seems sensible.

Papering over the problem just makes it less likely to get fixed.

I see no one has taken up my call to sue the tool manufacturers who contributed to building that wall in the Marriot hotel referenced in post 39.

Your case assigning negligence to the tool manufacturers has not been made clear.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'd like to see our tort laws reformed to a "loser pays" system but meanwhile, protecting industries that appear to need it seems sensible.

Papering over the problem just makes it less likely to get fixed.

I see no one has taken up my call to sue the tool manufacturers who contributed to building that wall in the Marriot hotel referenced in post 39.

Your case assigning negligence to the tool manufacturers has not been made clear.

 

 

The chances of a fix are nil. Our trial lawyers will $peak to that if it should ever come up. So it makes sense to focus on the one and only industry subjected to these ridiculous lawsuits.

 

That second point is true. I only focused on the tool manufacturers who contributed to building the wall, but there are other culprits here. The tool manufacturers who supplied the stalker are responsible for his actions as well.

 

 

My case is every bit as clear as the usual case against gun manufacturers: other people did bad things using their tools, so they're responsible!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'd like to see our tort laws reformed to a "loser pays" system but meanwhile, protecting industries that appear to need it seems sensible.

Papering over the problem just makes it less likely to get fixed.

I see no one has taken up my call to sue the tool manufacturers who contributed to building that wall in the Marriot hotel referenced in post 39.

Your case assigning negligence to the tool manufacturers has not been made clear.

 

The chances of a fix are nil. Our trial lawyers will $peak to that if it should ever come up. So it makes sense to focus on the one and only industry subjected to these ridiculous lawsuits.

 

That second point is true. I only focused on the tool manufacturers who contributed to building the wall, but there are other culprits here. The tool manufacturers who supplied the stalker are responsible for his actions as well.

 

 

My case is every bit as clear as the usual case against gun manufacturers: other people did bad things using their tools, so they're responsible!

 

I think you'll find if you read the manual of your own stalker-tools, you will find a mention in there that photography is not legal under all situations, and you should carefully check local laws first.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Guest Dabnis

President Hillary + liberal controlled SCOTUS = "You ain't seen nothin yet, Billy Bob" (My quote)

 

She likes the Australian plan, but in true Democrat fashion, hers will be much more restrictive.

 

The light at the end of the tunnel is the train, coming at us, full bore, or in steam train lingo, "Balls to the wall"

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Negligent gun manufacturers should be held accountable when they endanger our families."

 

 

So if a gun store sells the gun, what she is saying is that they are to blame if somehow that weapon is later used in a criminal shooting. Is someone also to blame if they make a knife used in a stabbing? A brick used by someone to bash someone else in the head? A tire iron maker?

Even Sanders looks at her with, “What is this insane woman saying?”

The people responsible for people who are shot are the the people who shoot them.

Don't worry so much, the woman is a liar - remember?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

She is about to sit in the Oval Office, as is BO, who said "You can keep your own Doctor & Plan"

 

We now have Obamacare, & she too, will have a "Pen & a phone" & most importantly, a liberal controlled SCOTUS.

 

Democrat liars survive anything. "How can we fool them, again, today, yuk, yuk". ( Likely Bubba quote)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

Ah, another history lesson. I think we were discussing Hillary?

 

Oh, wait!!!, I forgot, "They all do that, so it is OK to lie" (Likely Hillary quote)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

Ah, another history lesson. I think we were discussing Hillary?

 

Oh, wait!!!, I forgot, "They all do that, so it is OK to lie" (Likely Hillary quote)

 

Without a doubt Hillary is a liar. Don't think she is lying about this one.

 

 

Absolutely not, she has made her position on gun confiscation crystal clear, unlike many of her positions on "Other things"

 

"I can't recall"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...