Gun ownership poll

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by bnorth

The one thing I hope we can all agree on is our dfferences on this subject stay in this section. As an example I think every post a fellow member made in the Covid thread is beyond moronic. Saying that I personaly think he is a great guy and would never hold that one small thing against him in the overall scheme of life. I truly wish you all a great day if we agree or not.

Differing opinions or ignorance of a subject matter may be frustrating sometimes, but is just discussion or debate. For me, it rarely affects a relationship. I don't speak to one acquaintance anymore due to Qanon, JFK Jr, Jewish space laser stuff. That is not just a difference of opinion.

But I will not tolerate racists, anti-Semites, or 'true' homophobes. That is not just a difference of opinion.
Just a bigot, I still have hope.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Differing opinions or ignorance of a subject matter may be frustrating sometimes, but is just discussion or debate. For me, it rarely affects a relationship. I don't speak to one acquaintance anymore due to Qanon, JFK Jr, Jewish space laser stuff. That is not just a difference of opinion.

But I will not tolerate racists, anti-Semites, or 'true' homophobes. That is not just a difference of opinion.
Just a bigot, I still have hope.

right i dated a girl who said she understand what mainstream historians say what happened in the holocaust and she asked what does the 'other' side say...i said there is no other side...

As for being responsible for no matter what for having a gun stolen under 'strict liability' you rarely would see that...i do support making people purchase insurance in order to own certain guns or to be able to carry them on your person as opposed to in your home ..

[Mark17]

To illustrate the absurdity, and the extreme lenghts some anti-gun people will go, there is a movement now for victims of shootings to sue gunmakers.

A company makes a legal product which is not defective and works as intended, but they are sued because a criminal uses it to hurt someone.

This kind of thing is why I'm generally suspicious of people who point first at the gun, rather than the criminal, when assigning blame.

[Deertick]

But it is OK for Congress to pass a law prohibiting gun manufacturers from being sued? I know that issue was at the tippy-top of Americans' list of priorities. No faith in the legal system?

[Carter08]

It’s ironic the same people that have a gun taken from them don’t want repercussion but guessing they want a female victim of rape to bear the burden of that crime. Sigh. Feels like we’re regressing.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Deertick

But it is OK for Congress to pass a law prohibiting gun manufacturers from being sued? I know that issue was at the tippy-top of Americans' list of priorities. No faith in the legal system?

I think a product, that is legal, must be defective in order to bring suit against it. If I get hit by a guy with a baseball bat, I think it would likewise be absurd for me to sue Hillerich & Bradsby.

When people propose 10,000% taxes on ammunition, or try to sue gun manufacturers out of business, it's just an end run around the 2nd Amendment.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I think a product, that is legal, must be defective in order to bring suit against it. If I get hit by a guy with a baseball bat, I think it would likewise be absurd for me to sue Hillerich & Bradsby.

When people propose 10,000% taxes on ammunition, or try to sue gun manufacturers out of business, it's just an end run around the 2nd Amendment.

Then they should have written the law to protect all manufacturers of any product, no?

And if you and 17 others were killed at 30 yds by a Louisville slugger, I would file an amicus curiae on your behalf. I think a hammer would be more of a threat though. More aerodynamic.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I think a product, that is legal, must be defective in order to bring suit against it. If I get hit by a guy with a baseball bat, I think it would likewise be absurd for me to sue Hillerich & Bradsby.

When people propose 10,000% taxes on ammunition, or try to sue gun manufacturers out of business, it's just an end run around the 2nd Amendment.

Same thing was said about cigarettes. I tend to agree though - if the law allows it, a manufacturer shouldn’t be sued for producing what is legal at the time. A seller that doesn’t follow the rules though, they should be held accountable.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Deertick

But it is OK for Congress to pass a law prohibiting gun manufacturers from being sued? I know that issue was at the tippy-top of Americans' list of priorities. No faith in the legal system?

This never happened. They did not pass a law prohibiting gun manufacturers from being sued.

A law was passed in 2005 to ease the burden of frivolous lawsuits,banning sueing gun manufacturers and dealers for a lawful sale or manufacture of an arm that a criminal later used in a crime (which were mostly losing in court already). Just like how you won't have success suing Dewalt because a family member was killed with a hammer. A gun company or dealer can be sued for pretty much everything else, like any other company, and they are.

There was one guy in here arguing using actual facts earlier, but most of the rest of the arguments from the other side have just used claims that are simply factually wrong, misunderstood existing regulations, and made claims about guns that are mechanically false.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by G1911

This never happened. They did not pass a law prohibiting gun manufacturers from being sued.

A law was passed in 2005 to ease the burden of frivolous lawsuits,banning sueing gun manufacturers and dealers for a lawful sale or manufacture of an arm that a criminal later used in a crime (which were mostly losing in court already). Just like how you won't have success suing Dewalt because a family member was killed with a hammer. A gun company or dealer can be sued for pretty much everything else, like any other company, and they are.

There was one guy in here arguing using actual facts earlier, but most of the rest of the arguments from the other side have just used claims that are simply factually wrong, misunderstood existing regulations, and made claims about guns that are mechanically false.

"To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued
against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms
or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the
misuse of their products by others."

Sounds pretty prohibity to me? Any other codified restrictions for any other industry, offhand? Who decides frivolous? People who also cite the "McD's coffee lawsuit?

They also throw "trade associations" into the mix. Wonder who wrote the text?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Deertick

"To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued
against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms
or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the
misuse of their products by others."

Sounds pretty prohibity to me? Any other codified restrictions for any other industry, offhand? Who decides frivolous? People who also cite the "McD's coffee lawsuit?

They also throw "trade associations" into the mix. Wonder who wrote the text?

The portion you pointed too is exactly what I said. It bars them from being sued because somebody else misused their product, a very narrow and specific type of frivolous lawsuit. Read the bill. Read what you quoted. It is not a general prohibition against sueing them, they can be sued and are sued. They are legally liable for all of their actions like anyone else and any other company. They just aren’t legally liable for the actions of other people. Just as a lawsuit against a knife manufacturer because a person stabbed someone will not succeed.

The reason the bill was for gun manufacturers specifically is because these frivolous lawsuits started to be used as a political bludgeon, to tie up manufacturers in expensive lawsuits to try and pull an end run around the 2nd. The left doesn’t seem to care about suing manufacturers of other objects used in murders, because it doesn’t further a political goal. There appears to be no political will from them to address homicides not committed with a gun.

As I have saud before, there are plenty of legitimate arguments against the 2nd and for regulation. It continues to baffle me why none of them are used, and instead claims that are simply factually false are made instead. Almost every claim to fact used to support an opinion being made by banners and regulators in this thread is simply and provably false, misstating existing regulations, being mechanically wrong, and refusing to learn what the terms they throw around actually even mean. Manufacturers and dealers are liable for all of their actions, and few industries have to go through as much monitoring as they do. Research what happens to FFL’s who break the rules. There is not a prohibition on suing them; you just have to sue them for their own actions and not the actions of people they are not affiliated with.