I agree, and I don't see any convincing arguments to the contrary. However, it is this fact which makes it likely that suing the gun manufacturer is not going to work.

When a Ford pickup truck is manufactured with a faulty gas tank, which then explodes and kills someone, there is grounds for a lawsuit against Ford - and there should be such avenues of recourse, because that is one of the few ways in which consumers can put direct pressure on the industry.

Likewise, if a gun explodes in your hand because of faulty manufacture, there is grounds for a lawsuit. But we can't sue Ford because we drove to work; neither do we have much hope of suing Colt because someone killed our sister with it.

After all, the gun was performing exactly as designed - shooting a projectile at high speed with the purpose of piercing flesh, damaging organs, and causing death.

Those who are arguing against this lawsuit are likely loathe to admit that guns, when used to kill another living creature (whether animal or human), are being used exactly as designed. Yet to deny that is to undermine their own side of the argument - for if a gun is being mis-used if it is used for murder, then there is ample ground for a lawsuit.

I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too.

When a gun blows up in a users hand it is a defect, thus the manufacture is liable. Being used by an individual to commit murder is not a defect. If I mis-use a car and get in a wreck it's not Fords fault, but if the gas tank explodes during normal everyday driving then Ford would be at fault. See a difference?

Like Abs said much earlier in this thread(I believe on page 3), "A gun is assigned no purpose other than to accelerate metallic projectiles at an incredible rate capable of penetrating most objects in its path"

That's it. That is what a gun does.

If I decide to shoot someone, or if I decide to run someoone over, than that is my choice. No one should be held accountable for my actions other than me. End of story!!!

yes, but cars on one hand are not made to be concealed and project a piece of metal at 1000 fps into something living. Its a small difference. Not all guns are made to hunt with, and even those that are still can be used to kill or maim or defend yourself. You know that sometime tomorrow a crime will incur for some reason or another in which a murder will happen with a firearm, this will most likely happen around 10-15 thousand times in a year in this country alone. How do you stop that? One way I am sure that you don’t stop it is pumping the market with a ridiculous amount of firearms with easy ways to gain access to them, but I guess law enforcement must love the unending battle of taking the guns of the streets. At what point should the gun makers that are in this for the profit for the most part become aware of this, and do anything about it, or do we simply want them to saturate us with millions of guns every year.

DaytonRocker said:



Assuming this statistic is accurate, it still is misleading for two reasons.

1) Preventing a crime with a gun does not always require using it. Simply brandishing the weapon can be quite an effective deterrent. It is more likely that a victim will report a perpetrator brandishing a weapon than admitting they used one to ward off an assailant.

2) Many of those folks who use guns to commission crimes are doing so as part of their livelihood. (Career criminals) Contrastingly, folks who use guns in self-defense do so as what is most likely (hopefully) a rare exception to their everyday lives. Thus, whereas your active criminal may use a gun several times a month, your average citizen would under much rarer circumstances be in a position where they would have to use a gun in self-defense. Thus, I would expect the rate of gun use to be higher in the committing of a crime than in self-defense.

It should be noted that some research has actually concluded the opposite. That is, their conclusion was that handguns are used more often in self-defense than to commit crime.

National Institute of Justice - "Guns in America"

Although some doubt was cast on the statistics, there is enough uncertainty all around that any definitive statement regarding the ratio of handgun-related criminal acts to self-defensive acts is disingenuous. There is simply too much margin for error.

Finally, it has no bearing on the culpability of gun manufacturers. You have not provided any evidence that they have violated any laws. "Flooding the market" is not illegal and you have not provided any evidence that gun makers endeavor to arm criminals.


nileriver said...



You assume that more guns is a bad thing.... Kennesaw Gun Law Ordinances......The Results

M L Iserman

But, the gun makers are not pumping the market with a ridiculous amount of firearms. Are they dumping them on the street for just anyone to pick up? No. They are being sold to people who have a legal right to own one. Or two, or twelve, if that's the customers want.

The gun makers are not "saturating" the market, to any more extent than legal gun purchasers are asking for them.

We can't help that guns are used in crimes. They always will be, as they're probably the most efficient means of weaponry. You can buy them easily enough, pick them to suit your needs, and kill relatively easily with them. As long as firearms still exist, they'll be the number one tool used in crimes. So, unless you're planning to destroy every gun ever made, and then make sure that nobody has the technology to make any more of them, people will always be killed. So, the best thing we can do is have the average Joe Bloggs learn to use firearms to protect himself, his family, and whoever else he feels he needs to.

The end result of which is the fact people will kill each other, so we should give them better tools to do it with. I agree society at large is volatile, but that same statement should show why you should not give every person a gun. You can try a keep guns from certain individuals, but they gain access to them anyways. I mean if we want law to be, just let people shoot each other, that sounds great i mean it really does, but that wont stop your problem, it will get many people dead though.

It just seems we will always skate around suffering, just allow it to exist without the benefit of it, that is you can learn from it. From my cold dead hands sounds more and more like a realistic statement.

Violence is a severe problem in America, we scapegoat it on things, but the overall gain of such activities is 0%. I feel that we are heading in a very bad direction overall, i imagine humans will give up most all of their personal freedom for some perceived form of protection, yet the crime will persist. Punishment on crimes will get worse and worse, the amount of money required to house people in our prison system will require more and more money, people will be released in a more negative stance then when they went in, and at the top of it we can have a society that is nothing more then a savage nation living in denial shooting each other for a product.

I am glad I will be moving to Canada in a few years after I get our of the guard, that is if i live that long in the Vietnam that is America. Did you know that Canada has a house where such drugs as heroin can be used legally, progressive is Canada.

NR,
What does this have to do with the question "Victims of gun violence are arguing that they should get to sue gun manufacturers for their suffering. With this issue beginning to pick up steam, which direction should we head here?"

DR: Let's say hypothetically that you're right, guns purpose is to kill people, but not murder them! Murder is the wrong way to use a gun, murderers are no using the gun in self-defense [it's main purpose].

CP

*sigh*...litigious America



guns don't kill people, people kill people. Just like you are not fat because mickyD's makes Big Macs. Your ### is fat because you eat too many of them.

sorry AD, some things just make me rrrrrrrrrr!

Until the constitution is amended and firearms are banned, any maniac can buy a gun and shoot it.

Gratuitous profanity removed -Jaime

We have to be the sickest of our race, EVER! Lawsuits blow out of peoples pockets like a bat out of hell. People, if you don't like guns, don't get guns. Obviously, your government isn't strapping the law hard enough on guns if this is a never ending problem. Bare in mind, millions of items are purchased every MINUTE in a illegal transaction. In fact, you go through the internet for a solid 30min and come back to this post and let us know all the illegal things you can buy. From Feminised cheebah seeds (dutch-seeds.com), to any type of computer software (local newsgroups near you...), to pornography (cover little joey's eyes! It' might make him a rapist!), to games (oh god, was there blood in that game?! Tommys going to shoot up his school)... etc, etc... I'm sure with a good list of gun names (my buddy loves guns, i just like to shoot 'em.. LEGALLY) you can buy a nice selection from ebay..

If you all feel the urge to sue a gun making co. for it's creation, then you are seriously mistaken. I can't remember the last time I saw a gun that loaded live ammunition that wasn't lethal. Smuggling and theft is your problem, not gun makers. I swear by the life of a gun. Just like i love smoking, it's my choice. I have the right to bare arms. I wish to keep my right to bare arms. Even if guns were completely illegal in the states, you would STILL have people getting guns. Almost all drugs (except the 2 that do the absolute least for you) are illegal in the states. You can still get those. Do you really fool yourself and think otherwise with Guns?

And if you honestly believe that tobacco Co. anti-drug funded commercials should mean a damn thing to gun makers... One is a drug, the other is a cold metal object for killing. You tell me what the you're going to do with one and the other. Apple don't taste much like oranges, do they?!

Sue them for what? Guns are like cars knives or any other item that can be used correctly – or not. You must know that the incidence of “gun crime” has absolutely nothing to do with the number legal of guns in an area or state. The truth is we create our own problem by letting criminals who posses and use illegal guns out on the street again and again.

In fact there is strong evidence that what we need are MORE legal guns on the street. Read “More Guns Less Crime” by John Lott. It will open your eyes.

This is beyond ridiculous. The gun companies are being sued for nothing else but the effectiveness of their products. RIDICULOUS. I have yet to see evidence of gun manufacturers selling their products to known criminals on the black market. And can someone please present any evidence that a killer would change their mind if guns were illegal? I'm from NYC, stationed in Texas, and people here often ask me, "Is NYC as dangerous as they say?" I always say the same thing: Not really, because every thug assumes that you are just as homicidal as he is. If 9 out of 10 people carried guns, 9 times out of 10 a criminal would have a harder time with them. And a person who is not a criminal will not become one due to possession of a firearm. A gun will not get into your head and make you do things. As for crimes of passion, they will still happen, gun or no gun. A person with enough rage will find ways to use anything as a weapon.

I am with you 100% Looms. That is why the anti-gun liberals hate Lott. His book clearly shows that liberalizing gun laws to allow concealed carry by more citizens LOWERS violent crime, and especially crimes against women.