• Bernie Sanders Switches Sides on Gun Manufacturer Liability
    104 replies, posted
[QUOTE=sgman91;49498646]I agree, it's ridiculously stupid, but for some reason democrats have embraced it as a good idea.[/QUOTE] The left uses retarded methods to push what they think are great end goals literally all the time.
[QUOTE=woolio1;49498685]This makes more sense. What also makes sense is if gun manufacturers are selling to merchants who routinely violate the law in their own transactions, the manufacturers who are knowingly doing business with those merchants should have some sort of incentive to not do that. And that's what the article makes this sound like. It also gives gun merchants an incentive to not sell guns illegally, since they'd risk losing their suppliers and going out of business.[/QUOTE] If the merchant is a legal merchant, then they should be allowed to sell to them. If the merchant is routinely violating the law, then the government is responsible to shut them down or take away their license. By not doing that the government is saying that they are allowed to continue buying and selling guns.
[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49497956] This is like saying "we need to prevent car dealers from selling to unlicensed people" even though that's already illegal.[/QUOTE] It's not illegal to sell a car to a person who doesn't hold a valid driver's license. So long as they do not operate it on public highways they're more than welcome to own as many cars as they can afford.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;49498904]Gun manufacturers should be liable in accidental discharges and thus imperfections of guns resulting in deaths and injuries. In the tv series the good wife, gun manufacturer wasnt held liable in an accidental discharge resulting in guns registered owners, shopkeepers, death because a crime was going on, a robbery. You can thus see how complicated this issue is, and why it is a topic of discussion. That eas just an example, Lots of quirks and complications around.[/QUOTE] there is no such thing as an accidental discharge
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;49498904]Gun manufacturers should be liable in accidental discharges and thus imperfections of guns resulting in deaths and injuries. In the tv series the good wife, gun manufacturer wasnt held liable in an accidental discharge resulting in guns registered owners, shopkeepers, death because a crime was going on, a robbery. You can thus see how complicated this issue is, and why it is a topic of discussion. That eas just an example, Lots of quirks and complications around.[/QUOTE] There's no such thing as an accidental discharge, only negligent. A gun in good working order will not fire unless you pull the trigger. All guns are loaded. Never point at something you are not ready and willing to destroy. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire. Know your target and what is behind it. if you follow these rules you'll never have a problem.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49498724]The left uses retarded methods to push what they think are great end goals literally all the time.[/QUOTE] and the right doesn't? come the fuck on lad
Did you guys miss this part? [QUOTE]"If you are a gun shop owner in Vermont and you sell somebody a gun and that person flips out and then kills somebody, I don’t think it’s really fair to hold that person responsible, the gun shop owner,” Sanders said.[/QUOTE] He's clearly not suggesting what you think he's suggesting, if your first reaction to me telling you this is "this guy must be a dirty liberal trying to trick me", maybe you should reconsider whether your own biases are affecting your judgement here. I'm not really making an argument either way here but this: [QUOTE=butre]this isn't even trying to disguise that he wants to legislate gun manufacturers out of existence without actually doing so [/QUOTE] Sounds completely out of left field and not at all related to the above quote. You might be hearing what you want to hear. [QUOTE=butre;49498944]There's no such thing as an accidental discharge, only negligent. A gun in good working order will not fire unless you pull the trigger. All guns are loaded. Never point at something you are not ready and willing to destroy. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire. Know your target and what is behind it. if you follow these rules you'll never have a problem.[/QUOTE] Are you arguing that companies that produce defective products resulting in injury or death shouldn't be persecuted, or that guns never break or are never manufactured incorrectly? Read what Trebgarta posted and then read what you posted. He said "manufactures should be liable in accidental discharges and thus imperfections of guns resulting in deaths and injuries", by that he means "if the product is manufactured incorrectly (like, for example the safety doesn't work and/or the trigger is loose due to a screw or two being lost in construction) then the manufacturer should be held accountable". You seem to be operating on the thinking that what he said (or meant) is something like "People shouldn't be allowed to sell guns ever because firearms randomly go off all the time for no reason".
[QUOTE]He said he considered it a different situation when “gun manufacturers do know that they’re selling a whole lot of guns in an area that really should not be buying that many guns, that many of those guns are going to other areas, probably for criminal purposes.”[/QUOTE] Kinda strange. Like how can they know? Perhaps people are buying guns to protect themselves from the criminals etc.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;49499040]and the right doesn't? come the fuck on lad[/QUOTE] No, the right tends to use effective methods (when passed successfully) to push selfish end goals.
[QUOTE=Zyler;49499087]Did you guys miss this part? He's clearly not suggesting what you think he's suggesting, if your first reaction to me telling you this is "this guy must be a dirty liberal trying to trick me", maybe you should reconsider whether your own biases are affecting your judgement here. I'm not really making an argument either way here but this: Sounds completely out of left field and not at all related to the above quote. You might be hearing what you want to hear. Are you arguing that companies that produce defective products resulting in injury or death shouldn't be persecuted, or that guns never break or are never manufactured incorrectly? Read what Trebgarta posted and then read what you posted. He said "manufactures should be liable in accidental discharges and thus imperfections of guns resulting in deaths and injuries", by that he means "if the product is manufactured incorrectly (like, for example the safety doesn't work and/or the trigger is loose due to a screw or two being lost in construction) then the manufacturer should be held accountable". You seem to be operating on the thinking that what he said (or meant) is something like "People shouldn't be allowed to sell guns ever because firearms randomly go off all the time for no reason".[/QUOTE] you should inspect and function test a gun before ever loading it
[QUOTE=butre;49499140]you should inspect and function test a gun before ever loading it[/QUOTE] ok...? Does that mean if someone sells you a defective gun they shouldn't be held liable for it? Is it the fault of the person who bought the gun if a defective product created incorrectly by the manufacturer ends up killing someone accidently? Like what if somebody bought a car and as soon as they drive it out of the dealership the engine blows up? Is it their fault for not checking the engine beforehand?
[QUOTE=Zyler;49499168]ok...? Does that mean if someone sells you a defective gun they shouldn't be held liable for it?[/QUOTE] Not more so than any other product manufacturer? Guns fail over time with use if not properly maintained, at what point does it become the manufacturer's responsibility when wear and tear starts having an effect?
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49499174]Not more so than any other product manufacturer? Guns fail over time with use if not properly maintained, at what point does it become the manufacturer's responsibility when wear and tear starts having an effect?[/QUOTE] I suppose it depends on whether the fault in the product was due to a manufacturing error or due to natural wear and tear. I'm just saying there certainly is such a thing as an accidental discharge caused by manufacturing errors, how could there not be? These things are mass produced in a factory and sometimes there's a few screws loose or whatever.
I don't think you understand how guns work at all.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49499183]I don't think you understand how guns work at all.[/QUOTE] You could explain it you me if you wanted to. So am I to believe that manufactured firearms are never ever built with any fault whatsoever and that the only cause of malfunction that could ever possibly exist is due to natural wear and tear? No product ever produced in a factory is ever manufactured with any fault or mistake, no shipments are ever recalled, any and every single malfunction is entirely due to the mishandling of the firearm and never due to manufacturing errors? If this is what you're suggesting (and if you're not suggesting this then please clarify) then you are completely false because manufacturing errors leading to accidental discharges DO happen: [url]http://www.remington.com/pages/news-and-resources/safety-center/safety-warning-recall-notice-remington-model700-modelseven.aspx[/url] [QUOTE][B]DESCRIPTION OF THE HAZARD[/B]: Remington has determined that some Model 700 and Model Seven rifles with XMP triggers could, under certain circumstances, [B]unintentionally discharge[/B]. A Remington investigation has determined that some XMP triggers might have excess bonding agent used in the assembly process. While Remington has the utmost confidence in the design of the XMP trigger, it is undertaking this recall in the interest of consumer safety to remove any potential excess bonding agent applied in the assembly process. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Zyler;49499189]You could explain it you me if you wanted to. So am I to believe that manufactured firearms are never ever built with any fault whatsoever and that the only cause of malfunction that could ever possibly exist is due to natural wear and tear? No product ever produced in a factory is ever manufactured with any fault or mistake, no shipments are ever recalled, any and every single malfunction is entirely due to the mishandling of the firearm and never due to manufacturing errors?[/QUOTE] How is the gun going to accidentally fire if the trigger isn't pulled?
In order for it to actually pull and release the hammer to trigger the primer in the bullet casing the gun would have to function, if parts were not working correctly causing the hammer not to pull, it couldn't fire. Even with most defects I could think of you'd still have to use some action in order to fire the weapon. Bullets don't just go off randomly for no reason.
[QUOTE=bisousbisous;49499193]How is the gun going to accidentally fire if the trigger isn't pulled?[/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.remington.com/pages/news-and-resources/safety-center/safety-warning-recall-notice-remington-model700-modelseven.aspx[/URL] [QUOTE]Pro® (“XMP®”) triggers, manufactured from May 1, 2006 to April 9, 2014. DESCRIPTION OF THE HAZARD: Remington has determined that some Model 700 and Model Seven rifles with XMP triggers could, under certain circumstances, unintentionally discharge. A Remington investigation has determined that some XMP triggers might have excess bonding agent used in the assembly process. While Remington has the utmost confidence in the design of the XMP trigger, it is undertaking this recall in the interest of consumer safety to remove any potential excess bonding agent applied in the assembly process. [/QUOTE] Apparently excess bonding agent used in the binding of the trigger part. [editline]10th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=soulharvester;49499200]In order for it to actually pull and release the hammer to trigger the primer in the bullet casing the gun would have to function, if parts were not working correctly causing the hammer not to pull, it couldn't fire. Even with most defects I could think of you'd still have to use some action in order to fire the weapon. Bullets don't just go off randomly for no reason.[/QUOTE] Here's some more examples: [URL]http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2015/07/taurus_agrees_to_voluntary_rec.html[/URL] [QUOTE] Firearms manufacturer Taurus has agreed to a voluntary recall of nearly 1 million pistols as part of the settlement of a lawsuit that alleges nine handgun models had defects, including one that caused some to inadvertently fire when dropped. "This is not an anti-firearms lawsuit. This is a defective product lawsuit," said Birmingham attorney Todd Wheeles, co-lead counsel representing plaintiffs in the 2013 federal lawsuit. "This hopefully will help save lives by taking defective firearms off the street."[/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/09/robert-farago/pro-tip-send-back-your-defectiverecalled-gun/[/URL] [QUOTE] Some models of the pistol – a Springfield Armory XD-S – had been recalled by the manufacturer because of a safety concern. Springfield Armory warns that defective pistols could accidentally discharge under “exceptionally rare” conditions. According to charging papers, Navarro said he was aware of the recall but had not sent his pistol in for repairs. Police say he was worried the repairs would take too long. Navarro “knew the weapon was defective and placed a greater concern with his own inconvenience over safety,” the investigating officer said in charging papers. Investigators tested the pistol following the shooting and could not cause it to fire without the trigger being pulled.[/QUOTE] So yes, manufacturing and/or design errors do occasionally lead to unintended accidental discharges.
#1 What are the "certain circumstances"? Do you still have to perform an action with the trigger in order to fire? Is there any case in which someone actually harmed themselves, property, or others due to this? #2 "The lawsuit alleges that there were safety defects in the nine models that caused them to fire when the trigger is pulled even though the safety in the "on" or "safe" position and others when dropped or bumped, a notice that will be published and sent to customers states. The alleged defects are attributable to the lack of a "trigger safety blade" within the semi-automatic pistols, the lawsuit claims." "fire when dropped." What stops something else from causing the trigger to depress when you drop it? You're not in control of the weapon at this point, design flaws are the least of your concerns when a perfectly working pistol could very well go off if dropped just as easily. #3 "Investigators tested the pistol following the shooting and could not cause it to fire without the trigger being pulled" And " “The evidence in this case shows that Robert Navarro retrieved a loaded firearm … pointed it at the chest of Albert Garza, and manipulated the firearm causing it (to) fire the bullet that killed Albert Garza,” the investigating officer said in court papers. “Manipulated” as in pulled the trigger? One imagines so. Of course, Mr. Garza would still be with us if his “friend” had followed the four safety rules. My point: the fact that Navarro failed to return his pistol is being used against him in a court of law, as evidence – additional evidence – that he was not a responsible gun owner." In all of these cases it sounds like you still have to point and action the trigger in order to fire the weapon. If you someone is shot because you pointed the weapon at them, and assumed the safety would save them, you are retarded. These are not toys. That's negligent discharge. The actual gun parts of the gun works just fine. These weapons do not just spontaneously go off, an action must set them off, if you aim them at something you are not prepared to destroy, and touch the trigger or drop the weapon and it discharged, you are absolutely at fault, not the weapon. Obviously safety devices are not fool proof, this is why we have gun safety rules that are drilled into people every time anyone who knows what they're doing is shooting with or teaching them how to use said weapons. Obviously weapon manufacturers have to go by the same rules any other businesses should have too when it comes to defective parts, but defective parts don't cause someone to aim at and discharge the weapon at someone. In the case where the person shot their friend in the chest, they should probably have not had it loaded, and they should have never aimed it at them. Stupidity can not be solved by suing gun manufacturers.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49499288]#1 What are the "certain circumstances"? Do you still have to perform an action with the trigger in order to fire? Is there any case in which someone actually harmed themselves, property, or others due to this? #2 "The lawsuit alleges that there were safety defects in the nine models that caused them to fire when the trigger is pulled even though the safety in the "on" or "safe" position and others when dropped or bumped, a notice that will be published and sent to customers states. The alleged defects are attributable to the lack of a "trigger safety blade" within the semi-automatic pistols, the lawsuit claims." "fire when dropped." What stops something else from causing the trigger to depress when you drop it? You're not in control of the weapon at this point, design flaws are the least of your concerns when a perfectly working pistol could very well go off if dropped just as easily. #3 "Investigators tested the pistol following the shooting and could not cause it to fire without the trigger being pulled" And " “The evidence in this case shows that Robert Navarro retrieved a loaded firearm … pointed it at the chest of Albert Garza, and manipulated the firearm causing it (to) fire the bullet that killed Albert Garza,” the investigating officer said in court papers. “Manipulated” as in pulled the trigger? One imagines so. Of course, Mr. Garza would still be with us if his “friend” had followed the four safety rules. My point: the fact that Navarro failed to return his pistol is being used against him in a court of law, as evidence – additional evidence – that he was not a responsible gun owner." In all of these cases it sounds like you still have to point and action the trigger in order to fire the weapon. If you someone is shot because you pointed the weapon at them, and assumed the safety would save them, you are retarded. These are not toys. That's negligent discharge. The actual gun parts of the gun works just fine. These weapons do not just spontaneously go off, an action must set them off, if you aim them at something you are not prepared to destroy, and touch the trigger or drop the weapon and it discharged, you are absolutely at fault, not the weapon. Obviously safety devices are not fool proof, this is why we have gun safety rules that are drilled into people every time anyone who knows what they're doing is shooting with or teaching them how to use said weapons. Obviously weapon manufacturers have to go by the same rules any other businesses should have too when it comes to defective parts, but defective parts don't cause someone to aim at and discharge the weapon at someone. In the case where the person shot their friend in the chest, they should probably have not had it loaded, and they should have never aimed it at them. Stupidity can not be solved by suing gun manufacturers.[/QUOTE] But the guns were defective, surely a manufacturer who produces defective products should be held liable for doing so, correct? Do basic consumer protection laws become obsolete when we talk about firearms or something? [QUOTE]Obviously weapon manufacturers have to go by the same rules any other businesses should have too when it comes to defective parts, but defective parts don't cause someone to aim at and discharge the weapon at someone.[/QUOTE] No they don't cause someone to aim a gun at somebody, but they can still cause accidental deaths or serious injury in specific circumstances such as when somebody is holding a gun, cleaning it, showing it to somebody or attempting to defend themselves. That's why the instructions on the gun recall notification page say to stop using the rifle immediately, to put it down and not attempt to do anything with it until it's properly fixed by the professionals. In the remington example, It could randomly go off at any time, like right into your face when you're looking at it or right into your foot while you're holding it in your hands. Even in the situation you used, the XMP pistol could misfire as a result of being knocked while in somebodies hand or accidentally being dropped, this is not a safe product and it is absolutely the fault of the manufacturer if the fault is known about and the product isn't recalled. I don't understand what your argument is, you say that "obviously weapon manufacturers have to go by the same rules any other businesses should have too when it comes to defective parts". Well those rules include being liable for faults in the design or manufacturing of products they produce that might cause serious injury or death. The whole premise of this argument stems from one guy saying that gun manufacturers should be liable for faults in their products that lead to injury or death and another guy saying that guns never have faults for any reason and so gun manufacturers should not be liable for injuries or deaths resulting from faults in their products. You agreed with my assessment that gun manufacturers should be held liable for defective parts, which is essentially the same argument made by me and the other guy. You don't seem to have an argument because you aren't actually disagreeing with me. Ironically, this whole discussion stems from a misunderstanding of Bernie Sanders views on gun regulation, where he literally argued that "weapon manufacturers have to go by the same rules as any other businesses should have too when it comes to defective parts" (again, a statement you agree with), and which, according to posts earlier in the thread, is not enforced at the moment in the United States and currently weapon manufacturers DO NOT in fact go by the same rules as any other business as they are not prosecuted for failure to acknowledge faults in their products that lead to death or serious injury. Any other difference in opinion here is due to misinterpretation or insignificant differences in rhetorical points.
they say to put down the rifle immediately to prevent additional lawsuits. they say right there in the recall that they're confident it's not a problem.
[QUOTE=butre;49499424]they say to put down the rifle immediately to prevent additional lawsuits. they say right there in the recall that they're confident it's not a problem.[/QUOTE] I don't know what to tell ya man. You're reading between the lines and assuming things that aren't stated in the text. What about the XMP pistols and other examples? With the XMP situation, there's an actual example of the gun going off accidentally and getting somebody killed. If accidently dropping a gun causes it to go off and knee-cap somebody, then it's not a safe product at all. Not to mention, if having defects with the gun didn't cause problems why would they need to recall them in the first place?
[QUOTE=Zyler;49499422]But the guns were defective, surely a manufacturer who produces defective products should be held liable for doing so, correct? Do basic consumer protection laws become obsolete when we talk about firearms or something? No they don't cause someone to aim a gun at somebody, but they can still cause accidental deaths or serious injury in specific circumstances such as when somebody is holding a gun, cleaning it, showing it to somebody or attempting to defend themselves. That's why the instructions on the gun recall notification page say to stop using the rifle immediately, to put it down and not attempt to do anything with it until it's properly fixed by the professionals. In the remington example, It could randomly go off at any time, like right into your face when you're looking at it or right into your foot while you're holding it in your hands. Even in the situation you used, the XMP pistol could misfire as a result of being knocked while in somebodies hand or accidentally being dropped, this is not a safe product and it is absolutely the fault of the manufacturer if the fault is known about and the product isn't recalled. I don't understand what your argument is, you say that "obviously weapon manufacturers have to go by the same rules any other businesses should have too when it comes to defective parts". Well those rules include being liable for faults in the design or manufacturing of products they produce that might cause serious injury or death. The whole premise of this argument stems from one guy saying that gun manufacturers should be liable for faults in their products that lead to injury or death and another guy saying that guns never have faults for any reason and so gun manufacturers should not be liable for injuries or deaths resulting from faults in their products. You agreed with my assessment that gun manufacturers should be held liable for defective parts, which is essentially the same argument made by me and the other guy. You don't seem to have an argument because you aren't actually disagreeing with me. Ironically, this whole discussion stems from a misunderstanding of Bernie Sanders views on gun regulation, where he literally argued that "weapon manufacturers have to go by the same rules as any other businesses should have too when it comes to defective parts" (again, a statement you agree with), and which, according to posts earlier in the thread, is not enforced at the moment in the United States and currently weapon manufacturers DO NOT in fact go by the same rules as any other business as they are not prosecuted for failure to acknowledge faults in their products that lead to death or serious injury. Any other difference in opinion here is due to misinterpretation or insignificant differences in rhetorical points.[/QUOTE] "cleaning it, showing it to somebody" Do you know nothing about gun safety? The first step when you pick up a gun is to make sure it is empty of ammunition.
[QUOTE=bisousbisous;49499511]"cleaning it, showing it to somebody" Do you know nothing about gun safety? The first step when you pick up a gun is to make sure it is empty of ammunition.[/QUOTE] Okay sure, you pick up the gun and check whether it is empty of ammunition and it goes off and shoots somebody (you or someone nearby), happy?
[QUOTE=bisousbisous;49499511]"cleaning it, showing it to somebody" Do you know nothing about gun safety? The first step when you pick up a gun is to make sure it is empty of ammunition.[/QUOTE] He's proven multiple times that he has no idea what the fuck he's talking about, doesn't read his own sources, and doesn't seem to understand that absolutely no one here is arguing that they shouldn't have to abide by the same laws as other product manufacturers. See example: [QUOTE=Zyler;49499522]Okay sure, you pick up the gun and check whether it is empty of ammunition and it goes off and shoots somebody (you or someone nearby), happy?[/QUOTE] No, because the first rules of gun safety are to never point the gun at something you are not willing to destroy, and to always treat the weapon as if it were loaded. Anyone who violates these rules should not be in possession of a fire arm. You for some reason have it in your head that people are just running around pointing their guns at people pulling the triggers and thinking "no worries, I've got the safety on lol!".
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49499523]He's proven multiple times that he had no idea what the fuck he's talking about, doesn't read his own sources, and doesn't seem to understand that absolutely no one here is arguing that they shouldn't have to abide by the same laws as other product manufacturers.[/QUOTE] What are you arguing then? Your vague allusions fail to make an argument and are inconsistent with what Butre wrote in response to Trebgarta's post initially. Do you believe that gun manufacturer's should abide the same laws as other product manufacturers? Yes, good. Do you believe that gun manufacturers have in the past created defective products? Yes, good. Do you believe that it is is possible for those defective products to cause accidental injuries or deaths? I certainly hope so. Do you believe that, like all other product manufacturers, gun manufacturers should be held liable when a fault in their manufactured goods causes unintended and accidental serious injury or death? Yes? No? What point are you making exactly and what problem do you have with my argument? The only possible alternative is that you believe that any and all instances where accidental serious injury or death is caused by manufactured defects are actually the fault of the consumer and the manufacturer should not be held liable, which means, as a direct consequence, that you believe that gun manufacturers do not have to abide by the same laws as other products manufacturers. Does that make sense? Do you have any confusion with this thought process?
gun manufacturer's have gotten away with not being universally hated, unlike big tobacco what accountability legislation sounds like to me is similar to the kind of legislation that gets put on tobacco products
My problem is that you're arguing to add pointless legislation that would in no way prevent product defects any more than they currently do, and trying to punish gun manufacturers for the stupidity of their users. Someone practicing proper gun safety would never discharge a weapon at another person, regardless of defects. People who fail to practice well established fire arm safety rules are the ones at fault for any accidental deaths, not the gun makers. In what world do you live in where Honda is held liable because someone rammed one of their vehicles into a group of people because they they didn't know how to drive it safely?
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;49499547]gun manufacturer's have gotten away with not being universally hated, unlike big tobacco what accountability legislation sounds like to me is similar to the kind of legislation that gets put on tobacco products[/QUOTE] Tobacco regulation essentially amounts to a big label on the packaging saying "If you use this, it will kill you". If a firearm came with something similar, it would be a safety manual containing things like "When picking up the firearm, always check whether it is loaded with ammunition". I would assume that would be the kind of thing gun advocates would like since it encourages gun safety, which they seem to be major proponents of. Hopefully most store-bought firearms already contain these kinds of instructions anyway. Accountability Legislation would more be something like this: [QUOTE=lolo;49497911]I think he's referencing the situation that had occurred at Stag Arms Inc. where some guns were found by Federal Agents without serial numbers and some had just mysteriously disappeared, but all that happened in terms of punishment was just a fine and the owner just had to sell the company to some one else with no other charges.[/QUOTE] [editline]11th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=soulharvester;49499557]My problem is that you're arguing to add pointless legislation that would in no way prevent product defects any more than they currently do, and trying to punish gun manufacturers for the stupidity of their users. Someone practicing proper gun safety would never discharge a weapon at another person, regardless of defects. People who fail to practice well established fire arm safety rules are the ones at fault for any accidental deaths, not the gun makers.[/QUOTE] You're misinterpreting the whole purpose of the proposed legislation in the first place, it isn't changing the way gun manufacturers are found guilty or non-guilty based on manufacturing defects (and if the manufacturer doesn't recall a line of products that have a known defect, they should be liable just like any other product manufacturer). It's proposing legislature that makes it so that gun manufacturers can actually be prosecuted for knowingly selling guns to ISIS or some shit or selling weapons without serial numbers or without doing background checks. Basically, at the moment gun manufacturers can break laws and just get a slap on the wrist, this legislation would make it so they get punished for breaking laws. It isn't introducing new laws to prosecute gun manufacturers, simply making it so existing laws are actually enforced. People in this thread are just talking out of their ass. [QUOTE=soulharvester;49499557] In what world do you live in where Honda is held liable because someone rammed one of their vehicles into a group of people because they they didn't know how to drive it safely?[/QUOTE] That's not and never was the proposed legislation or anything related to what people were arguing about in this thread. Some people just decided to talk out of their ass and decided that "manufacturer liability" legislation meant punishing manufacturers of firearms for anything anybody who buys a gun decides to do. They did this because they read the title and assumed what it meant without reading the actual whole article, despite the fact that the article itself addresses this very point. Like I said in my very first post here, he's not suggesting what you think he's suggesting. See here: [QUOTE]"If you are a gun shop owner in Vermont and you sell somebody a gun and that person flips out and then kills somebody, I don’t think it’s really fair to hold that person responsible, the gun shop owner,” Sanders said.[/QUOTE] See how it addresses the exact thing you were talking about? Do you see how I was trying to get this point accross the entire time? A gun manufacturer "acting irresponsibly" isn't just "making guns" it's doing nefarious shit that is actually, you know, irresponsible. This includes shit like the afforementioned selling weapons without serial numbers. It's bad and we should stop it because it's really negligant on the part of the manufacturers. If you disagree with this specific point, then that's fine. But at least try to know what you're arguing against before you go on a tirade about how anyone who disagrees with you is uninformed and "has no idea what the fuck [they're] talking about".
No all I saw you doing was assuming that bullets were magic that would self-combust if a screw was loose. And since when would anyone in the U.S. be okay with gun manufacturers in the U.S. illegally exporting goods to terrorist groups? You're literally trying to tell us that we need to punish gun manufacturers for doing things that they aren't doing. Also he said he specifically wouldn't hold the gun shop owner responsible, he said nothing about the manufacturer in that quote, which is what this is about.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.