Mothering Forum banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,636 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
<a href="http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20051021/D8DC3F4G0.html?PG=home&SEC=news" target="_blank">http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/200...=home&SEC=news</a><br><br><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/irked.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="irked">:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,968 Posts
First, I just want to say that I am in no way a fan of guns, or the companies that make them. I have never held a real gun and have no desire to do so. That being said, it is my understanding that the bill protects them from lawsuits where the product (gun) was used unlawfilly. It sounds kind of like the napster lawsuit in that the product would undeniably be used in an unlawful way irregardless of what it was designed for but the product itself was not unlawful and therefore the makers of the product should not be held accountable.<br>
Similar to the argument that I might not agree with what you say but would fight for your right to say it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,239 Posts
I don't believe the makers of guns should be sued because someone used their product unlawfully, any more than I think the maker of a baseball bat should be sued because someone used it to beat their neighbor to death. They are not responsible for the actions of the people that use their products.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,468 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>aniT</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">I don't believe the makers of guns should be sued because someone used their product unlawfully, any more than I think the maker of a baseball bat should be sued because someone used it to beat their neighbor to death. They are not responsible for the actions of the people that use their products.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/yeahthat.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="yeah that">: UNLESS, they are knowingly selling these products to people who shouldn't have them, but I don't think that's what's going on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,083 Posts
This is kind of like when the parents of obese children sue McDonalds. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/nut.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="nut">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,628 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>tayndrewsmama</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;"><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/yeahthat.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="yeah that">: UNLESS, they are knowingly selling these products to people who shouldn't have them, but I don't think that's what's going on.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
That is, in fact, what is going on.<br><br><a href="http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=4509" target="_blank">http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...articleId=4509</a><br><br><a href="http://www.csgv.org/news/headlines/nyt2_24.cfm" target="_blank">http://www.csgv.org/news/headlines/nyt2_24.cfm</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,173 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">Lawsuits seeking to hold the firearms industry responsible for the criminal and unlawful use of its products are brazen attempts to accomplish through litigation what has not been achieved by legislation and the democratic process," House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., told his colleagues</td>
</tr></table></div>
And James hits the nail on the head!!!!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,636 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Unagidon</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">That is, in fact, what is going on.<br><br><a href="http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=4509" target="_blank">http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...articleId=4509</a><br><br><a href="http://www.csgv.org/news/headlines/nyt2_24.cfm" target="_blank">http://www.csgv.org/news/headlines/nyt2_24.cfm</a></div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
thank you for getting it.<br><br>
folks, do you realize that manufacturers of teddy bears have more liability to their consumers than gun makers? and that is ok with you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,628 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>beccaboomom</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">And James hits the nail on the head!!!!!!!</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Maybe someone needs to hit James on the head. It is really just another attempt by another big business to transfer its costs and liabilities away from itself. It's something that big capitalists are always trying to do (Adam Smith himself pointed this out) but it is a cancer to capitalism, since it is the assumption of <i>their rightful risks</i> by capitalists that is the essence of competition and the market.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,425 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>mama ganoush</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">folks, do you realize that manufacturers of teddy bears have more liability to their consumers than gun makers? and that is ok with you?</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Nope, it's not okay with me. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/irked.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="irked">:<br>
Thanks for sharing the links ladies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,468 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Unagidon</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">That is, in fact, what is going on.<br><br><a href="http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=4509" target="_blank">http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...articleId=4509</a><br><br><a href="http://www.csgv.org/news/headlines/nyt2_24.cfm" target="_blank">http://www.csgv.org/news/headlines/nyt2_24.cfm</a></div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Oooh, whoops. Thanks for sharing. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/innocent.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="shy">:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,302 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Unagidon</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;"><a href="http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=4509" target="_blank">http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...articleId=4509</a><br><br><a href="http://www.csgv.org/news/headlines/nyt2_24.cfm" target="_blank">http://www.csgv.org/news/headlines/nyt2_24.cfm</a></div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Can you find an unbiased article, please? Both of these sites have obvious political agendas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,628 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>lotusdebi</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">Can you find an unbiased article, please? Both of these sites have obvious political agendas.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Yes, their political agenda is to promote gun control for the reasons they stated. The supporters of gun manufacturers support the abolition of gun controls for other reasons. What would an unbiased argument look like?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,636 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
regardless of where one stands on guns, and ld-we have long agreed to disagree on this <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/winky.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Wink"> , what is truly horrifying to me is how, once again, this administration just allows <b>corporations</b> to write public policy. Enron and Halliburton write our energy policy (and dictate most of our foreign policy these days), Merck and Pfizer write our medicare and prescription drug policies, and now Smith and Wesson write our nation's gun laws.<br><br><br>
America, the best democracy corporate lobbyists can buy. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/angry.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="angry">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,302 Posts
Honestly, MamaG, I don't have a position on this one yet. I'm currently trying to find the specific bill language. The articles I've read in various newspapers (I'd consider The Washington Post to be more unbiased than the sites you listed, Unagidon) don't have the information that I'm trying to find.<br><br>
Basically, if this bill simply protects gun manufacturers and dealers from being held responsible for what someone else does with a gun, then I support the bill.<br>
If this bill prevents people from suing gun manufacturers in cases where the gun is poorly-made and blows up in your hand (or something like that), then I'm opposed to the bill.<br>
If this bill prevents prosecution of gun dealers who sell to people who aren't legally permitted to have guns (i.e. criminals), whether knowingly or due to true negligence, then I'm opposed to the bill.<br><br>
I won't hold Beretta responsible for what someone does with a gun anymore than I'll hold Ford responsible for what someone does with a car.<br><br>
I'll keep looking for the bill, so I can read it myself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
794 Posts
Somebody with some money has got to hurt before something is done with irresponsibility...so it may as well be the source of the trade. We have tried screening sellin guns to the wrong people and obviously it is unsuccessful....if the money makers from this get a pinch in the pocket, they would have some accountability. Just like the tobacco companies....to get warnings on tobacco somebody had to be pinched.... <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/greensad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="greensad">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,302 Posts
<a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c1092jBjDM::" target="_blank">http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c1092jBjDM::</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,636 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
well, right off the bat, this is very much open to debate:<br><br>
"The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,302 Posts
Reading the bill cleared up a lot of my questions. See here:<br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">5) QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTION-<br><br>
(A) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified civil liability action' means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief' resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include--<br><br>
(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;<br><br>
(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;<br><br>
(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including--<br><br>
(I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product, or aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or<br><br>
(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code;<br><br>
(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product; or<br><br>
(v) 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.</td>
</tr></table></div>
I do oppose lawsuits that hold gun manufacturers and dealers responsible for what criminals due with those guns, in cases where the manufacturers and dealers followed the law (which are most of the cases, as far as I can tell). It has been a method that anti-gun groups have used specifically to bankrupt the gun industry, and I find that to be reprehensible as well as unjust.<br><br>
However, I am concerned that this bill was written too broadly. Especially since reading this:<br><br><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/10/21/house_clears_bill_giving_gun_firms_lawsuit_protection/" target="_blank">http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...it_protection/</a><br><br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">Two years ago, Guzman's family sued Kahr Arms, accusing the gun manufacturer, based in Blauvelt, N.Y. of negligence for not conducting adequate background checks on employees. Attorneys for the family say that the gun used to kill Guzman was stolen from the company's Worcester manufacturing facility by an employee with a criminal record.</td>
</tr></table></div>

<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">The gun had been stolen from the plant, sold on the black market, and then used in a shooting.</td>
</tr></table></div>
This lawsuit will now likely be dismissed due to the new bill. There isn't enough information for me to determine the responsibility of the gun manufacturer in this case. I want to know: What kind of criminal record did the employee have? What security measures were in place to prevent this from happening? This is a lawsuit that I think should go through the courts, so these questions can be answered, and the liability of the manufacturer can be determined. I would want the same for any other company. This case is different than the cases that the I think the bill was intended to prevent. And I consider it a great injustice that Guzman's family won't get their day in court.<br><br>
So, while I generally approve of this bill, I do have some serious reservations about how far-reaching it is.<br><br>
Hey, MamaG! I've done great with not quoting any founding fathers in this thread! Don't ask me to start now! (Re: the 2nd amendment) <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/winky.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Wink">
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top