Seems to me no one should be held liable for making any product that gets misused by others as long as its clear how to properly use them. (And putting labels on guns that read, "for defensive purposes only" seems a bit much.

What do you think?

Is this just another example of the kind of sleazy gold-diggers that make tort reforms necessary or is there a real obligation for gun makers to do more?

This is completely different from tobacco lawsuits.

The gun industry, while far from a model of corporate ethics, has had nothing on the scale of deception and betrayal that the tobacco companies showed. They did not trick anyone into thinking that guns were not dangerous. They did not market guns to children. They did not produce a product that they knew was a killer while their customers did not, causing them to unwittingly destroy their bodies. The gun industry produced a produce that, when use legally and properly, cause harm to no one. Gun companies cannot be held responsible for shooting deaths any more than knife companies be held responsible for stabbing deaths or bat companies for bludgeoning deaths.


The only reason we have these cases is because the anti-gun lobby is pouring money into it. However, I doubt it'll go far, unless there's some crazy evidence that no one's seen so far.

Firearms are a regulated product just like tobacco and alcohol. All three of which are regulated by the ATF agency under the Department of Justice. I’m sure we all know this. The Bill of Rights provides its citizens the right to own one of these products under certain circumstances of which will forever be refuted due to conflicting interpretations. Although I agree manufacturing companies are not liable in anyway for the misconduct of firearms there is still an issue of how guns are irresponsibly sold. Not everyone can sell tobacco and alcohol with out proper licensing yet firearms can be as easy to purchase as blue willow dishes. Case in point is an old friend of mine purchasing an AR-15 assault rifle at a gun show with no paper work or background check. Just the possibility of any convicted felon with a history of violence could acquire such a weapon in a public market with straight up cash I see as problematic and a threat to society. Our right to bear arms, as far as I’m aware, is the only manufactured consumer based commodity granted to us by our Constitution. We do not have the right to own or drive a car, we do not have the right to own or fly an airplane, so on and so forth. But because there are controversial attitudes in legislation of how firearms ought to be controlled our judicial system is consistently dealing with gun related crimes. Now the sale of firearms are treated differently in every state but those states that are more lenient on the transfer of firearms are indirectly supporting a black market of firearms in other parts of America that have an elevated risk of gun related violence. The ATF has done several busts on bootlegged firearms in the past but a more solid solution to keeping our abodes safer from gun violence will have to require a unified change in attitude at the national level. So, suing gun manufactures through a civil lawsuit is not likely produce any change of attitude toward firearms and appears more to be for retribution. I would suggest that victims write letters to their representatives and demand that new laws be made.

I was not aware there was another lawsuit, handgun control inc. must be involved what exactly are the trying to sue them for THIS time? should we sue ford chevy and the other car companies because people use their cars for drive-bys? or hit and runs? should we sue philips and other tool companies for people misusing their products? no.



he probably had to pay several thousand for it as well. background checks can't work. with 1000 dollars and a few hours on the street I could have a fully auto tec-DC9 (used in columbine)


actually, most guns on the black market are stolen. AMERICANS FOR GUN SAFETY FOUNDATION REPORT SHOWS 170,000 FIREARMS STOLEN EVERY YEAR. keep in mind almost 80% of people in prison are in for non-violent drug charges.

in the states with less restriction on ownership and purchase of firearms crime is lower then average. by the way, washington dc has the most and strictest gun laws in the country, and their crime rate is through the roof:


people shouldn't sue the companies that make the guns, and we shouldn't make new laws, but rather but rather should sue those that shoot them. (and only if it wasn't self defense) and make it more costly for people to shoot someone in anger.

chris rock has a great idea: raise the price on bullets. if it cost you 1000 dollars a bullet you would be less likely to shoot someone.

I was right beside him at the time, it was a $1000 straight up. It was a quick auction with about 5 people standing around. Anybody could have purchased the rifle.



It was about a year and a half ago, maybe two years ago, more than 600 deadly assault firearms were confiscated in a bust in Las Vegas. Practically all of them were purchased in other states from private owners or gun shows and were being sold at a higher price because no paperwork was involved. Sorry, no link to provide, it was a while ago and I'm working off of memory here. Heck, it was only recently I was at a friend's house where I was offered two 10mm Berrettas for $300. Do I know if they are hot or not? No, but I do know that where I live there is a high supply of almost any type of gun. I could probably get $500 for each of those in a bigger city. Whether they are stolen or not that type of transaction is typical of a black market trade.



At least with vehicles we are required to have a driver's license, title, registration and insurance. Of course insurance is probably not going to cover anything criminal. But the point here is that there is no such paperwork required for owning or using a gun. With the exception of a concealed weapons permit there isn't any mandatory licensing or registration need to buy or sell a gun.



I'm aware of that.



States with lower restrictions are typically the less populated states. Consequently, there is lower gun related crime. Lets look at Japan for example, guns are an absolute NO over there and their violent crime rate is quite low. I imagine that Japan has an effective way controlling any imports of firearms. This ties into my suggestion that there will have to be a unified effort across the nation to assure that firearms are properly sold to those who are responsible enough not to have it laying out in front of their kids or showcased in a truck gun rack waiting to be stolen.



Yep, that way there will be no innocent by-standers.

I can see some logic to the lawsuit.

First off, if firearm manufactures have not done anything to manipulate laws put into place to regulate firearms, then I'd say they are off the hook.

But then there's the NRA and its movement into politics that comes under question. If it can be shown that the NRA has intentionally, and with the funding/support of firearm manufacturers, thwarted regulation in an attempt to *encourage* a black market firearms trade, maybe there's a case.

It seems to me to be ridiculous to argue that firearms might be harmful to the health and welfare of people. Where automobiles are built primarily for transportation, firearms are built to shoot projectiles into targets--period. No other purpose. It's a self-evident point.

I doubt anything is going to come of this, but then I don't know what evidence will come forth. I do think it'll be a good inquiry though, and maybe it'll settle some issues--like how much responsibility goes with funding a lobbying group?

Enacting laws that restrict this sort of inquiry is a bad idea. I'm thinking about corporations that would use the restrictions to get away with all sorts of things that hurt communities.

Gun makers cannot be held responsible for the actions of the owner of their products. Guns are for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill or injure. What other purpose is the hand gun for? BTW, guns are only one of MANY instruments that can be used to kill. Are we going to next sue the base ball bat manufacturer? The cutlery industry? What about the automobile industry, you do remember the estranged wife who ran over her husband multiple times for adultery, right?

It's the PEOPLE who have to held accountable for their actions, not the manufacturers of the inanimate objects they use to carry out their crimes.

There was a "Law and Order" episode that made a connection between a gun maker and ultimate criminal use, via a corrupt dealer and the design of the weapon. The maker was proven to be aware that the guns were getting into the wrong hands and yet they did nothing to limit the dealer's access to their guns, and it was also proven that they purposely left in place an older design that made conversion to full auto an easy task.
That kind of thing is an indication that a maker can be lacking in responsiblity.
Other than that, I see the person holding the weapon as the culprit, not the gun, or its maker.

This is ridiculous, hey if I drink to much orange juice I'll get unhealthy, let's sue Tropicana, and I guess since the Tampa Bay Devil Rays play in Tropicana Field, they owe me money too, right?

Billy Jean: Guns are also used in tournaments in which paper and metal targets are shot, they don't just injure or kill.

CP

I understand that. But HANDGUNS serve really no other purpose than for self defense. I'm a HUGE gun advocate! I keep a revolver in my nightstand next to my bed and go to the firing range once a month. Rifles are more appropriately used in shooting competitions and hunting.

I say, sue the hell out of them.

Tobacco companies print warnings (regardless of whether they are required to or not) and educate the public about the dangers of smoking (i.e. advertisements, commercials, etc). Yet, they've been bled dry. I think that is a farce. The average person in the US was born in 1972. You'd have to be an idiot not to know smoking is bad for you. But the tobacco companies are still paying while they're educating.

The gun manufacturers have done exactly SQUAT to help curb violence with guns. The make them as fast as thugs can steal them. They are only accountable to the NRA.

Meanwhile, regardless of the reason, innocent people die everyday because some idiot that shouldn't have a gun has one and uses it. And what do the gun manufacturers do? Make more of them. And still do not contribute one ounce of energy to help prevent gun violence.

They are culpable because they are complicit in my opinion. Maybe when you hit them where it hurts, bullets will stop hitting where it hurts.

Come on! How is it the manufacturer's fault that some pscycho killed someone with their gun. If someone buys a kitchen knife off of me for BBQ and stabs someone should I be sued, that's not fair.

CP

What do you propose they do?! You can't put adds out saying "Owning a hand gun is bad for your health." That's a farce and you know it! It's up to YOU as the CONSUMER to take responsibility with a WEAPON. It in it's self charges the individual with the knowledge that what you hold in your hand can take the life of another human being. There is NO avoiding that FACT. There is NO comparison to the cigarette industry.

No, people will still feel the need to defend themselves. However, that would be very effective in creating a highly profitable black market gun underground for criminals.

Let's not kid ourselves. Anti-gun activists will of course support frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers, because it will advance their agenda.

We don't have an epidemic of knife killings.

If someone gets within 5 feet of me, he/she can stab me or hit me over the head with a blunt object.

If someone gets within 50 feet of me, he/she can shoot me. The entire gun versus knives/baseball bats/tire irons/ is statistically bogus.

Knives and other inanimate objects are designed to do something besides harm people. Guns are designed to harm people. Handguns serve no other purpose but to kill or seriously injure people. Yet, the gun makers make no effort and have never made an effort to help our society with this problem. They simply make more guns. They are complicit.

Actually, a good portion of guns are built for target practice. You can't sue someone because someone misused their product, guns aren't built for murder, murdering someone with a gun is misusing that gun, a company can't be held responsible for the misuse of their product.

CP

Stats and sources please. I want to see what qualifies as "a good portion" of the 300,000,000 guns in circulation.

So the answer is to decrease supply and increase the price? You're a smart guy, what do you think the results of that will be? The demand will still be there.

Just think about it, what are the percentage of guns that are used to kill people. Then what is the percentage used for sport, I guarentee that the sport shooters out-number murderers, don't you?

You also didn't respond to 90% of what was in my post. Don't you think it is ridiculous to sue for a misuse of a product?

CP

Car manufacturers have spent a considerable amount of their profits on R&D. we have airbags, sensors, and devices that make cars safer. The cars can be misused, but the cars are not designed to kill people. They serve a useful purpose. Yet, they make every effort to make the public safer.

Tobacco companies, although forced, actively educate the public - who already knows this information by now - about the dangers of smoking.

Drug companies spend their money to make drugs safer. Drugs can be abused, but they are not designed to kill people. So, the drug companies educate the public.

These are just a few examples of what companies can do to help prevent problems in our society when their products are misused. The gun makers haven't lifted a finger - ever - to make the product they sell safer. And some of their products are specifically designed to kill people.

Ok, so we make gun manufacturers put a big tag on their product that says "this product may harm you or someone else".

Will this placate the vast legions of money grubbing morons who can't or won't take responsibility for themselves and their actions?

Sadly, I don't see that happening in today's society.

DR, what would you do to make guns safer, thus perhaps avoiding the need for lawsuits?

That's not what I asked, if a drug gets misused, should that company be subjected to a lawsuit? And are you trying to tell me that no actions have been taken to educate the public about gun safety? That just isn't true.

CP

Gun manufacturer's HAVE developed safety features for guns. The safety switch, lower quantity clip capacity, trigger locks with keys, gun lock boxes, and the new electronic gun ring that you wear on your finger and only when it's in a certain position and proximity of the trigger, will it allow the gun to be fired. There are also MANY gun safety courses offered throughout the nation available to the public.

I wouldn't guarantee crap and I wouldn't sign on to your theory for all the bullets in South Central LA.

Not every gun in circulation is actively used and not every gun is used for the only two choices you provided. Some guns are tucked away for safety. Some are in collectors cases. Some are in the glove boxes of some gang banger who hasn't committed his first gun crime yet. You don't know the answer to your own questions any more than I do.

This isn't totally about individual responsibility. If someone eats too many Big Macs, lawsuits are ridiculous. But when guns are misused, the person misusing the gun doesn't die. Somebody else does. The lack of action from the gun makers causes people who have NOTHING to do with the problem to die. As long as it's not your wife, kid, or parent, who cares? Right?

As far as what the gun makers can do, I don't know. But something is better than nothing. Just because you can't think of an answer, it doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

Gun makers can't stop murders! There is almost no difference between eating to many Big Mac ["misusing" a McDonalds product] and shooting someone with a gun, misusing a gun. As I said guns aren't made for murders, it isn't the manufacturer's fault that someone gets murdered, it's the murderer's fault.

CP

I disagree. Murder is killing someone and guns are designed to accomplish that.

Of course, some guns can be used for hunting. And for sport. But handguns serve no purpose other than to seriously or fatally harm someone. As far as murder, suicide, self-defense, that's up to the lawyers to decide. But somebody is dead and the only thing the gun makers have to do is make more guns.

Killing in self-defense isn't murder, self-defense is what guns are for. Anything other than sport and self-defense, is misuse of firearms. If I take this computer with me into the bath and get shocked, should I be able to sue Dell, of course not, it's the same thing.

CP

You're wrong. It's up to 12 peers of the accused to decide!

Your second sentence here makes no sense. If a person dies in a car accident the car manufacturer is going to make another car. It's irrelevant. This is a consumer market, you know, supply and demand.

Do you people even read before you post?

I don't want to restate points made, so please read above. Cars are not DESIGNED to kill people. Guns are. Yet, the car makers (as an example) do more to make cars safer that make an actual difference. I think the gun makers should be held to an even higher standard because many of their products SERVE NO OTHER PURPOSE than to harm someone not holding that gun. Of course, some guns are used for sport, but that is not their design. Unless someone wants to start the debate how the second amendment protects the collective right of the states to be target shooters.

PLEASE!!! A car can be a weapon. As I stated earlier, look at the woman who ran over her husband NUMEROUS times because she caught him committing adultery. Look at drunk driving, one of the saddest epidemics in this country. I have read your other posts but your ignoring the fact that a gun and a car both hold life and death in the hands of the people who operate them. If you aren't RESPONSIBLE in the way YOU CONDUCT your actions YOU are accountable. STOP trying to push the blame onto the ones NOT responsible. This is becoming the BLAME GENERATION and it's going to hurt our nation down the road. We're developing an ideal that you don't have to be held responsible for your actions, just find a scape goat.

We should not protect gun manufacturers from litigation. If it is found that they are deliberately marketing guns in such a way to help get around existing gun laws or get into the hands of criminals in the black market, they should be held accountable for damages caused by illegally marketed guns. If a car company hides defects in a product it is help accountable in the courts for damages as a result of covering up the defect.

Companies should be held accountable when they willingly place public safety in jeopardy.

If gun companies are not caught in wrongdoing, they should not be held accountable for malicious use of their products.

That makes no sense. So, if I go to a gas station and buy a gallon of gas and use it to burn down a building and killing people, do the victims or victims families sue 1. the gas station? 2. the gas company? 3. the country in which the gas originated from? 4. the maker of the lighter or matches which I used to light the gasoline?

NO. You hold ME responsible. How can a company be responsible for HOW their product is used?! I DON'T understand your reasoning! The manufacturer can't follow the consumer around, telling them "No No! Don't do that with our product!" THAT'S NOT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. The OVERWHELMING majority of LEGAL gun owners in this country are RESPONSIBLE ADULTS with a knowledge and respect for the potential power in which they have by owning a gun. Those that wish to ignore this undeniable fact THAT GUNS KILL BECAUSE A PERSON PULL THE TRIGGER are just wanting to push their own agenda's of gun control and eventual gun removal from society. People kill people, it's irrelivant by what means they do it by. If you take another human life, YOU are held responsible and YOU live with that fact for the rest of your life.

DR, come on, we already said that guns have other purposes. Murder is a misuse of a gun. Again, think about it, if every product misuse lead to a lawsuit, everyone would be in court. Should guns have a warning label that says, Warning: The discharging of firearms aimed at another individual could cause death or serious injury. Come on. What do you want the manufacturers to do? It's bad enough that someone gets killed but why sue an innocent individual trying to make a living?

CP

That's easy.

Start becoming a part of the solution. They have not done that and that's my point.

Their products are not designed to get us to work. Their products are not designed to cut our food so we don't choke. Their products are not designed to help us change flat tires or entertain 30,000 fans at Wrigley field by putting cork in it.

They have made no meaningful progress in reducing gun violence by helping to ensure their products are used responsibly. For example, almost all the beer companies are actively involved in using their products responsibly. They work with law enforcement and spend a ton of money in educating the public. Yet, the sole purpose of their product is not to hurt people. The gun companies should be held to at least that standard.

If gun companies made a serious effort to become part of the solution instead of staying part of the problem, all your arguments would be more easily acceptable. But that's not the case. They wash their hands of the thousands of people killed with their products every year. Hitting them where it hurts could save the life of someone you love that could be killed via gun violence.

That doesn't answer the question at all. You basically just said that gun companies don't contribute to society and that companies should become part of the solution, you didn't really delve into how. Just because guns don't help society that much doesn't mean anything. Big Macs don't help society that much. What is the difference between those ridiculous Big Mac lawsuits and this issue.

Second: Understanding that guns are not meant for murder, but self defense and sport, and realizing that murdering is a misuse of guns do you think that companies should be held responsible for someone not using their product correctly.

Should Bowie knife manufacturers be sued for stabbing deaths?

CP

A gun is assigned no purpose other than to accelerate metallic projectiles at an incredible rate capable of penetrating most objects in its path. While some guns may be more suited for shooting persons, some more suited for hunting and some more suited for target practice, the gun has no essential purpose until the owner assigns it one.

Gun manufacturers, unless shown to have interfered with the regulation and distribution of their product, have no responsibility in how their weapons are used. It may become a movie prop, or might be used to hunt Christmas dinner. Or, unfortunately, it may be used in a murder or otherwise violent crime.

The companies which manufacture these weapons has no way of saying what purpose any gun they make will serve. Even those purchased by the armed forces may not be used in combat. The person who uses a gun for malevolent purposes is the only one directly responsible for the illegal use of that firearm. Manufacturing the weapon is not illegal and certainly does not assign the intent of murder to any firearm. At best those who choose to illegally traffic weapons, circumventing established regulations and laws, should face the consequences of a lawsuit. Not the manufacturing companies.

Huh? Where?


Self defense from what? People with guns?

aquapub - I was doing a little research and can't figure out what case or cases to which you are referring for the premise of this debate. I found a very useful link that outlines all the cases that have been brought against gun manufacturers and their current status: VPC Litigation Link (scroll down a little to see the chart).

You'll notice MOST of these cases have been dismissed and a majority of others are pending Motions to Dismiss or Summary Judgment motions (which basically say there are no legal issues here for the court to decide, let's kick this case).

SO - what case are we debating? Or are we just debating the concept?

Finally, I found safe-use/rights & responsibilities information at both Smith & Wesson's website and Colt's website (S&W link, Colt's link ). Could these be considered the same as the manufacturers warning on cigarettes and alcohol?

I've not purchased a gun, but can anyone tell me if you are given any information like that in the safety links I listed along with your purchase?

The guns I've purchased have included info notecards with the instruction manual that cover the basics, i.e. Don't point it at people, treat every gun as if it's loaded, and how to properly clear a weapon so as not to shoot yourself, etc..

edited to add: For all the bad press the NRA may receive, it has some of the best and most recognized gun safety, firearm instruction, hunter safety and child safety (Eddie Eagle) programs around.

DR: Can you provide any proof, that as a result of anti-smoking Phillip Morris commercials, teen smoking has gone down? Do teens see those commercials and think to themselves "gee, smoking is bad. I had better not do that". Will any gang-bangers think similar thoughts about drive-bys after seeing an anti-gun commercial?

You also stated, that big mac eaters hurt only themselves, while gun owners only hurt others. This is not entirely correct:

1) I knew a guy in Junior High, while cleaning his (loaded) handgun, accidentally shot himself in the neck. He died before getting to the hospital

2) I once heard about a crook who robbed a convenient store. While making his get-a-way, he tucked his gun in his pants. The gun went off, permanently removing his left nut

As most have said, it is not the companies fault if the owner misuses it's products.

A lot of Gun retailers (not pawn shops) like Outdoor Sports offer pamphlets for gun safety courses in your area and the one in my area, where I go target practice has men there who are MORE than willing to assist or instruct you on the basics of gun safety and operation of a fire arm.

With all respect to DR, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.....But the lack of coming up with ANY feasible idea to force gun manufacturers to take responsibility for the rate of gun related deaths would lead me to believe that you favor using litigation to do an end run around the 2nd Amendment, and restrict gun ownership.
Tell me if I'm wrong, but whereas battles have been fought at the polls and in the courts over regulating or outlawing private ownership of handguns, the lawsuits claiming product misuse may be the gun control advocates latest tactic.

Wrong on both counts.

We can debate the second amendment in another thread, but the second amendment is 0 fer 225 years in the Supreme Court in trying to state it protects an individual right. So, that is a bogus point.

Secondly, it's not a matter of restricting gun ownership. It's a matter of getting guns into the hands of responsible adults. Not anybody over 18 with a pulse and clean record. So, my contention is that the gun makers have been negligent in ensuring that their product is used wisely.

Again, my argument isn't about making the gun makers pay for people's stupidity. I'm supporting making them pay for damages because they make no measurable difference in helping to protect the public from their product. This isn't about failure on their part - this is about the complete lack of serious effort. Hiding behind the NRA and second amendment hardly qualifies as "helping".

edited to add:


I design software. I don't do guns. So, it's not my responsibility to develop a system for the gun makers. They have plenty of money and resources to do that themselves. They just aren't trying.

The above quotes kind of seal the deal......They CAN"T be held liable for not being charitable, or being really nice guys. The manufacturers have done NOTHING illegal. Should be case closed.

Way back when, I meant if they were caught in wrongdoing. Oops.

FIRST OF ALL, handguns cannot be sold to anyone over the age of 21. Rifles to anyone over 18. Have you ever filled out a background form to purchase a gun before? There is a whole slew of questions to be answered concerning mental health, alleegance to the country, drug use and a few in there to slip you up. I don't know if you're aware of it or not, but EVERY citizen has a file on them, via the FBI(thanks to Hoover) and they KNOW who's purchasing guns legally in this country. But they cannot see into the future and figure out how someone's going to use that weapon. Nor is it the manufacturers duty to deem who is eligable to own a gun, it's the GOVERNMENT. If you pass the BACKGROUND CHECK you have every right to own a gun. Now, to carry a concealed weapon is another story all together.

If I sell arsenic as a snack food that's criminally negligent. If I sell guns to kill people that's fair. As long as guns are legal producing them is not a crime. You could give someone cool whip until they went to a diabetic coma, cool whip isn't responsible unless Whipped topping is illegal or they marketed it as something to eat 80 gallons of to feel great.

And that's all good. I have no problem with that. In fact, after some training, I'm all for conceal and carry.

But what if you do all that and sell the gun to me? How about if, oops...you lose your gun? How about your gun get's stolen? Maybe loan it out to someone? There are ZERO consequences for those situations. And your average gang-banger isn't getting his gun from a sports shop.

All what you describe is helpful and good, but the gun manufacturers have nothing to do with that. Our legislators have done that - with the NRA kicking and screaming. But the gun makers keep on selling deadly product and wash their hands of the outcome. They leave it up to society to deal with the aftermath.

edited to add:

We're not talking about a crime. We're discussing why gun makers shouldn't be sued. I'm making the claim that they are being negligent - not criminal.

What if my car is stolen by a dumb kid or a drunk driver and kills someone? Am I held responsible? No. If you loose your gun and it results in the death or injury of someone, well then, yes I think the owner should bear some responsibility.



SHOW SOURSES. I don't believe you, the NRA is a very responsible organization and MANY good and decent Americans who are responsible gun owners are members of the NRA, including me. Why wouldn't we support measures to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals?