My old classmates from stinkytown are going to love these.

is another page on Facebook. I forgot to credit them. That's where I got this image.

attractive to children, just like the detergent makers who are sued for their packaging. But the gun manufacturer can't be sued because of the influence of a multi-dollar corporate industry, whose financial interests you promote.

At least now we can expose the "rights" trope as pure artifice.

I provide links to articles below. The gun companies receive special protection from liability because of the influence on the gun lobby. Why do you feel compelled to defend that?

Reading the text of the law is meaningless. What matters is how courts interpret the law, and they have broadened it to include a wide variety of situations. The articles linked below establish that.

What enables you to defend a two tiered justice system? How is it that the right of your fellow citizens to equal protection under the law mean so little to you?

If your child is killed by one product vs. another. you have no legal redress.
But your message is understood, corporate gun profits are more important to you than the rights of your fellow citizens.

profits above equal protection and human life, noted. Tobacco companies survived litigation. They still make lots of profits, and lots of people still smoke. The legal activists were beaten by the Republican pols who whore themselves out to the highest bidder. That's who you celebrate above and and have chosen to align yourself with on this issue.

Next time you make a pro-rights about guns, be aware that we now know that your argument is fictitious and that you don't care about your fellow citizens' rights at all. I love when hypocrisy is exposed.

I don't have a gun and have no occasion to go near one. Tobacco companies didn't go bankrupt. Nor would gun makers. Just don't try any rights BS in the future now that you've shown what you really care about.

Yeah, you'll always win. That's what happens when you ally yourself with a multi-billion dollar corporate industry above your fellow citizens. Billions of dollars in profits result from from the fact that more Americans have died from gun shot wounds since 1960 than in all of our nation's wars. The gun lobby and their lackeys in the pro-2A movement have worked hard to promote policies that make that possible.

Is also important, as is the 14th. It would be nice if you cared a bit about those more than profits by gun companies.

Legal battles against tobacco did not bankrupt cigarette companies. All law suits will do against gun companies is cut into their profits and force them to install safety mechanisms. They won't get rid of guns. Suits against tobacco and alcohol companies prove that to be true. So whether you realize it or not, you are privileging corporate profits above the rights of your citizens. That is the effect of the legal exemptions gun companies face, even if not your intent. You can be sure ensuring unfettered corporate profits and continued campaign contributions were the motivations of the legislators who approved the legal exemptions.

As Glassunion points out below, some other companies have similar (though less encompassing) legal exemption as well. I am equally outraged at those. It is an effort to circumscribe our rights as citizens in order to protect corporate profits. It's also a function of the kind of institutional corruption that characterizes our political system because of campaign financing.

Lawsuit have to make sense to be be successful. A gun company will need to be found negligent in some way to face penalty, as was the case with tobacco companies. Simply developing cancer from smoking wasn't enough for the states to win their landmark case. They won because they found evidence the big three were deliberately making products more addictive. The same would be true for gun companies. I would argue a pink gun is indeed a form of negligence, but a jury might not see it that way. But those are matters of fact that deserve to be adjudicated in court. They have plenty of resources for armies of attorneys. To imagine they would face extinction because of lawsuits is a stretch, to say the least.

A lawyer would make a case about the pink pistol if that family were not deprived of their right to seek legal redress.

The pink gun was merely one example. You ignore the larger point and in doing so confirm your disregard for citizens' rights. Your only interest is guns, not rights. You like the 2nd amendment because current interpretation under Heller justifies your gun obsession. You clearly don't care about the rights of others. I will not take back my comments about your concerns for corporate profits. You reveal them again here.

You ignored the fundamental argument that lawsuits do not bankrupt industries in order to focus on a particular example, one that would require a finding by a jury to prevail. You ignore everything that challenges your love of guns. You cannot and do not mount a persuasive or consistent argument.


America--not I--is failing because of the influence of corporate money that privileges profits above human life. Guns are one of many areas where that is the case. You have done nothing but confirm you support that power structure, at least as long as it suits your fetish for gun proliferation. You site rights as a justification for guns, but do not support rights that don't meet your own self-interests. Aligning yourself with corporate power is a handy way to secure your self-interests. It's hardly surprising that you and the GOP are so committed to their unfettered profits.


I have no illusions of every changing your mind. You aren't honest enough to examine your own ideological inconsistencies. I expect you'll go to you grave clinging to your right-wing views on guns. Change won't depend on you. It will happen despite you and your allies in the gun lobby.

When it didn't bankrupt tobacco or liquor companies? That someone has that opinion is hardly evidence. Prior examples are far more instructive.

Why would litigation bankrupt the gun companies when it didn't bankrupt tobacco or alcohol? Do you know of any whole industry bankrupted by lawsuits? I don't.

And it is truly unfortunate that means more to you than the rest of our constitutional rights. It really doesn't matter what you claim your motivation is. You seek to justify a view that privileges your own interests above everything else, including human life. That is the result of your position on guns. Therefore that is what you support. It's like someone who supports a war, and works hard to bring about that war, claiming they have nothing to do with the causalities that result. It's denial.

The law is a perfectly acceptable means of tactic of resistance. That's how segregation was outlawed.
It didn't end white people. It just meant they weren't the only ones in society with basic civil rights. You insist that others not have the right to political expression because it might cost you more money. Your values are crystal clear.

Or was it customized by a third party afterwards?

........ if you can track 'em.

Another reason that 100% universal background checks should be required for ALL firearms sales!

If a child plays poorly with beer could you sue the brewer?
If a child plays poorly with the family car can you sue the manufacturer?
If a child plays poorly with a kitchen knife can you sue the maker?

and people do all the time. Only gun manufacturers are protected from litigation because of the financial power of the gun lobby. Then the courts or a jury decides if the case has merit. In the case of gun companies, they are exempt from lawsuit.

A gun manufacturer can be sued. Kahr Arms was sued and recently settled out of court.

which has nothing to do with your OP - an accidental death is not a crime.

to see how the law has been applied. Law is what judges interpret it to be. Not what you think it is based on your own reading.

a pink gun that attracts kids is a design flaw.

If it did, they would have had immunity. No other industry enjoys such immunity from the justice system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

All three cases cited by the poster would be losers if there was a lawsuit. So would the top image in the OP. It's nonsense.

You aren't guaranteed to win, but there isn't any special immunity for prosecution for those other industries. The fact that gun fanatics continue to defend the immunity that the gun industry gets is mind-boggling.

Gun owners are responsible for the safe storage of their weapons. Letting a child play with a gun is grossly negligent and if the child dies as a result, the gun owner would be civilly (and probably criminally) liable.

It speaks to the special protection against liability congress has granted gun companies.

But you shouldn't be able to sue the gun manufacturer for negligence on the part of a gun owner. That's no different than sueing a car manufacturer because a drunk driver killed someone.

so why give the gun manufacturers special protection not afforded to car manufacturers? And why do you feel compelled to defend restrictions on equal protection of Americans citizens in pursuit of unfettered profits for gun companies, when no other manufacturer experiences that level of privilege?

The law is protecting gun companies that knowingly allow illegal sales of their weapons. It has been used to shield them from a wide variety of law suits, as articles I have linked to in this thread demonstrate.

there were certain groups who were determined to use the courts to sue gun manufacturers out of business.Groups were making an effort to abuse the court system to sue gun manufacturers into bankruptcy by claiming every gun that was misused by anyone was the fault of the gun maker.

here is the wording from the law:

This post contains links to articles: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2327888

But how can a child collect damages when they are dead?

The point is the companies enjoy special protections because of the influence of the gun lobby. The closest equivalent would be tobacco companies. Their product is by nature deadly, but they aren't held liable simply because of use of their product. Lawsuits hinged on wrong doing on their part. But such cases cannot be brought against gun companies.

the Sand Hook parents can't sue because the death of their children was the result of a crime. The manufacturers were not responsible for the shooter getting the gun.


That is not the same as designing a dangerous product that would entice children to play with it - that is a design flaw and the law allows such suits.

the law is specific - if the death is not the result of a crime then there can be a suit. It is in black and white.

We can play lawyer all day, but you are only avoiding the central issue: How can you defend special protection for gun makers? Doesn't your conscience tell you that is wrong? Do you really care so little about the rights of your fellow citizens?
If not for lawsuits, cars would still be death traps and auto makers would still be calculating deaths vs. profit margins. Gun companies will never improve product safety as long as they are shielded from liability claims. You continually defend them in ways that only lead to more deaths. They could stop making pink guns. They could implement trigger locks, but they won't do so if they don't face potential loss of profit. Profit is all any company ever cares about. Of course businesses are entitled to make profit, but they should be on equal footing under the law. And, more importantly, citizens and consumers should have equal access to legal redress.


The issue in the last case a matter of fact, which normally falls to juries to decide. If that is not an accident, nothing is. That's an appalling justification for you to get behind, truly reprehensible.

that is not a reasonable standard - no other manufacturer is held to that standard.

This law came about due to the overreach of gun control groups - they planned a concerted campaign to drive gun makers out of business through an avalanche of frivolous law suits. Their goal was to turn the legal system into a weapon.

Perhaps the solution is to tighten the language - be more specific as to what constitutes a valid law suit.

BTW - are you aware that the law you are condemning actually requires gun manufacturers to provide trigger locks:

The gun industry should be subject to the same liability laws as anyone else. The same laws that govern cars, and cigarrettes, and ball-point pens. I don't support frivolous lawsuits against any industry. But I think that a judge and jury should decide, not the gun lobby.

to be more specific in what is allowed and not allowed.

As long as it is clear that the gun manufacturers are protected from acts of crime or criminal negligence like every other business, I don't see a problem.

No special protection for the gun industry, period.

Until then, no...you know there would be no shortage of funding for an organization that explicitly stated an intention to sue a firearms manufacturer every time one of their weapons was used in a crime with the express purpose of bleeding them out via legal expenses, even though any cases that did make it by a jury would likely be overturned on appeal.

Not sure what you mean.

The last twenty times I heard that line it came from Alex Jones-listening Ron Paul supporters.

Why do script bottles have child proof caps? Why do household cleaners have the same caps? Why do the manufacturers of these common products have these safety caps on them?

Yet, the gun manufacturers are exempt from putting safety locks on THEIR products, especially PINK guns which look even more like toys? Hasn't the NRA fought requring safety locks?????? WHY???? It might "annoy" gun owners?

It's about profit for every company. Innovation and model changes always cost something. And gun companies have no incentive to make such modifications when they are protected from liability. If not for law suits, cars would still be death traps. Auto makers would still be calculating deaths vs. profit margins. Gun makers will never improve product safety without the threat of lawsuits.

it is called-
PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS act

there is really no argument.

it sucks for everyone but gun makers and the NRA.

it sucks for 'good' gun owners because it makes them look like NRA puppets for 'supporting' it

AND its a bunch of unintelligible gibberish.

just like the way they shit-sandwiched the 'safe passage act' into the FOPA- if a normal person can't decipher it, they can make any law they want!

i didn't read thru the thread yet, but it seems you are trying to inform mr. hackster that the FOPA is the cause of the 40-50% of gun sales that are illegal. and he is, of course, complaining, even though he has enough guns, but he is NOT doing for the NRA!


The Arms Act

The Arms Act was passed in 2005, in the depths of the Bush era, and today it remains one of the most jarring parts of a relentless conservative campaign to impose "tort reform" upon America. It shields gun-industry actors who may not have done all they can do to ensure that guns stay out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. And it does so in the name of the hoary concept that freedom of gun commerce is more important per se than freedom from gun violence. Think that's an equation the American people embrace today?

Here below are some of the Congressional "findings" which accompany the law. The language is telling -- and downright dire in its condemnation of the rule of law and centuries-long role of judges and juries in our civil justice system. In the name of shielding potentially negligent gun dealers, Congress quickly threw under the bus virtually every legal precept Americans have treasured for the past 225 years. According to the law, having a jury of American citizens pass judgment on the negligent acts of a gun dealer weakens the very fabric of our society:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/one-quick-answer-to-sandy-hook-repeal-the-2005-arms-act/266371/

unbiased source-
The problem, as Leahy and others see it, is that without a specific statute explicitly criminalizing straw purchases and stiffer penalties for both crimes, government prosecutors will continue to treat such offenses as paperwork infractions undeserving of prosecutorial resources.

During testimony in June 2011 before the House Government Oversight Committee, another ATF agent decried the “toothless” nature of existing laws. The Fraternal Order of Police, among many police groups that have argued for such legislation, said in a recent letter to Leahy that specific penalties for firearms trafficking “would greatly assist ATF agents during the investigation and prosecution process.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0206/Gun-debate-101-Doesn-t-US-already-have-laws-against-gun-trafficking/%28page%29/2

also fairly trustworthy-
"[We] heard testimony about the safety of women and gun violence. Now I'm seeking immediate consideration of the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. I was told yesterday that sometime in the next couple weeks we'll have it on the floor of the Senate for a vote," Leahy said. "I do this out of concern for domestic violence victims."

Addressing panelists including NRA president Wayne LaPierre, Leahy said statistics show that women in the U.S. are killed "at alarming rates" by domestic abusers with guns, but in states that require background checks for handgun sales, 38 percent fewer women are shot by their partners. He asked one panelist, Baltimore Police Chief Jim Johnson, whether universal background checks would have a significant effect on keeping guns away from domestic abusers. Currently, background checks are not required by private gun sellers or at gun shows.

"Absolutely," Johnson said. "Statistics show that when females are killed, it's more likely, over 50 percent of the time, to be by a spouse or household member. A gun in a home where there is a history of domestic violence, statistics show that there is a 500 percent increase of chance that that person will be victimized by gun violence."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/patrick-leahy-vawa-gun-violence_n_2583458.html

(i doubt the rest of your family would laugh at that ^^^ not meant as snark)

I am assuming you support the president's EOs, universal background checks, and limits on magazine size.

So how about you stop trying to paint everyone that disagrees with you as an extremist? The reality is that you cannot get the gun control measures you want without the support of gun owners. Why are you so actively working against your own best interests? That is what is so puzzling about the gun "debate" the nation is having - people seem to be choosing line in the sand litmus tests over working with their opponents to find common ground to actually fix things. And that goes for borth sides.

that if there are children living in a home that any and all guns in the home must be locked and/or made inoperable with ammunition stored separately.

The bottom photo does not show a toy. Anyone older than about 10 years old should know that it is not a toy.

not 10.

with ammunition stored separately.

That's great, but do you honestly believe a low keeps people from behaving irresponsibly? We have accidental shootings by children all the time in MN.

Are you claiming there should not be further gun-control laws because people will behave irresponsibly and not follow those laws?

Regarding the top picture, if a child dies from playing with that toy gun, can you really sue? And if so, who?
If a child plays with that dime and dies, can you also sue? If so, who?

Custom pink Kimber, how trashy.

Automotive Companies
Financial Institutions
Pharmacutical Companies
Medical Device Companies
Credit Card Companies
Vaccine Manufacturers
Food Manufacturers
Advertizing Companies
Insurance Industry
Telecom Industry
Rail Industry
Cosmetics Industry
Matress Manufacturers

Each of these industries have been afforded certain immunities from civil lawsuits. I'm sure the list is larger, however this was what I could gather.

The problem is that what you will find in almost any little law that regulates an industry our congress critters come up with they will sneak a little immunity in for the industry to protect them from future lawsuits.

Which I maintain is essential for democracy.

This corporate personhood at the same time corporate immunity at the same time corporate sponsored elections crap needs to stop.

Then multiple states and cities can sue the gun industry into oblivion.

I get it, you want to kill the gun industry by any means possible, but appeals courts tend to be less emotional than juries and will look at the cold legality instead of the argument to the heart.

If you also support the right of the family of a person killed in a DUI to sue the brewer and distributors I'll at least respect your POV, but I haven't come across anybody who will agree with that. Why do you think that is?

That's why.

That's sold through currently legal channels. What it's designed to to is largely irrelevant to the particular question at hand, which is "should a company, ANY company, that's complying with all current laws regarding their product be held liable for the criminal or negligent use of their product?" I'm assuming your answer to that question is "yes"..

BTW, alcohol is designed to kill, just more slowly and generally unpleasantly than guns - that warm fuzzy feeling you get is basically being just a little poisoned. Don't believe me, go drink a couple bottles of vodka and see if you wake up.

Your point is nonsense. You can sew the brewer and distributors. They are not protected by special legal exemptions. That does not mean a suit will be successful. Whether a particular law suit has merit It is for courts and juries to decide if a particular case has merit. You are advocating that gun companies not have to worry about the kinds of law suits that every other industry faces because . . . why? What is your interested in seeing them earn unfettered profits? How does their profit margin affect your right to bear arms? It doesn't. Tobacco companies survived lawsuits and still profit very well. All kinds of manufacturers have done so. The difference is their products are safer today because they are subject to liability.

Guns should always look like what they are. And then there's the flip side, toys that look so realistic that kids have gotten shot and killed because someone thought they were.

[url]http://gavindebecker.com/resources/child_safety/children_visiting_houses_with_guns/[/url]

... the design of billions of bottles of consumer products was changed after the deaths of eight people from poisoned Tylenol, a tragedy completely beyond the control of the manufacturer. Ironically, gun-makers knowingly and enthusiastically build products that kill five hundred Americans each week for which we don’t require a single safety feature.


One correction to the above: Other sources say seven people died during the Tylenol poisonings, not eight. Still, fewer than 10 deaths and we changed how we bottle medicine.

And note how U.S. airport security changed after one would-be shoe bomber, Richard Reid (If there was another one, I can't name him). Yes, the object is to screen for explosive materials, but note the degree of screening (and the nonthreatening and compliant nature of the screened).

but hardly a surprise.

So if a poorly secured TV tips over and killed my kid, I get to sue Samsung?

It is for the courts and juries to decide if a particular suit has merit. But the families who have children killed by pink guns don't have the same redress in court that everyone else has because they are up against a powerful corporate lobby that means more to you than human life. Detergent makers are sued for packaging that attracts children, and courts decide if their claims have merit. You defend denying that same equal protection to citizens harmed by guns. Your argument about constitutional rights is exposed as a lie. You don't care about rights. You don't care about any right other than your own. What is it like to be so concerned about corporate profit than you don't care how many children die? Karma.


Interesting you would call them "my analogies" when the source is attributed in the post. Is reading a dozen words really so challenging?

Duh.

If a gun explodes in your hand while shooting factory ammuntion, you can most certainly sue for damaged, because they made a flawed product. If a lot of one kind of gun explodes in the same way, then you can certainly file a class-action suit.


Gun makers don't advertize too much on TV, and gun makers don't make toy guns, either. Maybe they should be suing Nerf for making kids think guns are toys.

Citizens aren't being harmed by guns; they're being harmed by PEOPLE. And there are generally at least 3 retail steps between a gun being made and a gun being sold, so why the hell would you sue the gun makers? Especially for crimes committed years after the gun was made and initially sold?

And your constant drenching of yourself in the blood of children is getting a little tiring. It sounds disturbingly similar to the rhetoric spewed by BushCo. It was controlling, emotional claptrap then, and it's emotional controlling claptrap now.


If you're so concerned with saving children's lives, can I count on your support for a 5mph national speed limit, enforced by mandatory governors installed on all vehicles? Or is being able to race to the drive-thru at 40 mph worth thousands of dead kids a year?



And, um, you are voluntary posting from another source, and supporting that source's viewpoint. So, it's "yours".

how, when a gunmaker sells to a federally-licensed gun distributor, who then sells to a federally-licensed dealer, who THEN sells it to Joe Citizen... the gunmaker is somehow responsible for the gun winding up in the wrong hands?


And you don't want to save 32,000 people a year, huh? Amazing how that works, isn't it?

Or it's highly unlikely in that situation you present. I'm talking about your support of and refusal to acknowledge a special law protecting gun companies from liability. You insist on interrogating me on the specifics of hypothetical cases, which isn't the point. Not all--probably not even most--law suits are successful. But plaintiffs typically have a right to have a court entertain the case to see if there are grounds to move forward. They do not, however, against gun companies. Congress has given the gun industry immunity from liability, which is yet another example of the ways that the gun lobby restricts the rights of American citizens. If a law case is frivolous or unfounded, the plaintiff loses; the case is thrown out. You are asking about matters of fact that are typically decided by juries.

The tobacco companies are an appropriate parallel to the gun industry. They sell products that kill people. But everyone knows cigarettes kill. So the tobacco companies are not liable for the simple use of their product. They lost that landmark case to the states only because memos were uncovered showing they had deliberately conspired to make cigarettes more addictive. Despite that large verdict, and others, against them, tobacco remains a lucrative, highly profitable business. The same would be true for gun companies.

The central point here is that you gun people evoke rights as a justification for profligate gun proliferation but could care less about the rights of due process, equal protection, and First Amendment provisions regarding free speech and the right to petition courts. You obviously don't give a damn about anyone's rights but your own. So no one believes your arguments about about rights. When someone stands for rights that only meet their own interests, they don't support rights at all. They merely evoke them as justification. Your position is therefore entirely hypocritical. This thread makes clear that you people have absolutely no commitment to citizens rights. Your only concern is guns.

I don't know what your 32,000 remark is about. If that's a reference to cars, we went through that ages ago. I'm not rehashing old conversations because you have a poor memory and the NRA hasn't fed you any new talking points yet. That also happens to be a smaller number than the people who die by guns every year.

I agree with your idea. I'm no law professor, but according to the law

"The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products."

Is leaving a gun out for children to play with a crime? I guess the State could say the adults in the home were negligent then the responsibility is on them. It's not the manufacturers fault the gun was left out.

If the gun didn't have a safety or was defective you could sue for that. The color probably wouldn't qualify as defect.

There doesn't appear to be a creative way to get the gun manufacturers to be held legally accountable. The NRA pretty much has the manufacturers interests covered with the law.

Guns are consumer products. Baby carriages, cribs, strollers and car seats are recalled because of dangers to children even if no kids are killed and it's one or two injuries. It's enough to shut a whole line down and taken off the shelves.

But again this gun appeared to work as it was intended.

I had an idea that since guns are consumer products and over 1 million people have been killed and probably millions more injured in the US since 1968, as a consumer product they are unsafe and should be recalled but that idea would never fly. It would be proven in court over and over the deaths resulted because the gun wasn't used safely.

Most guns deaths are suicides. Obviously, in those cases the gun isn't used for protection as it was intended. But that's the same as using a consumer product like pills to kill yourself.

I don't know. Not much you can do to hold the gun makers accountable.

You could try an angle similar to second hand smoke from cigarettes. People are killed from errant "second hand" bullets. It's a public safety concern like second hand smoke is. Ban them from public areas. Of course the criminals won't listen to that but that's where you use law enforcement to go after gangs and the black market and you do gun buyback programs.

The other angle is some doctors are saying gun deaths are an epidemic. That's another public safety concern. Quaranteen the guns.

The gun fanatics have the 2A to keep their guns with the NRA to be on their side. There's got to be creative ways for us anti-gun people to avoid being the next victim when these gun fanatics become unhinged and I don't mean arming ourselves with even more guns.

And yes, I've fired many guns over the years at various rifle ranges, recently in December with my son and his scout troop (I went unwillingly and had to pretend to have fun) but I personally don't own one and would never keep one in the house for protection. I refuse to be caught up in protection paranoia and the whole macho man aspect of it. Swaggering around like Yosemite Sam in this day and age is loony. I can live without guns. They've been responsible for too many deaths and injuries.

When you have a government amendment in which more people die from guns than actually die from a property owner standing their ground or when you have more people killed in peacetime than in all the wars the US has been in, combined, the 2A has backfired on it's own citizens. The collateral damage of the 2A isn't worth it and is a failure in terms of human lives lost. The founding fathers weren't perfect. I don't care how many quotes you come up with from politicians that have been dead for 200 years. They aren't alive now to see the carnage.

It's like sending 4000 people off to die in a War against Iraq to avenge the death of 3,000 people. It's stupid killing more people than you save and that's what the 2A does. It's a failed government policy or whatever you call it. Yea George Mason. I'm trashing your Second Amendment.

for the small toy in my opinion.

to be consistent? That will be tricky with the First Amendment guaranteeing the right to petition courts.

Manufacturer makes a toy that a kid swallows and chokes on, is it the manufacturers fault the kid tried to swallow it? Hell no it's not, if it is we may as well get rid of everything small enough for a kid to swallow and keep right on trying to protect everyone from themselves or those evil companies that didn't warn us of their dangerous products like marbles. If I'm dumb enough to try and change the fan belt in my car while it's running and fan is turning or try to dry my hair in the shower its no ones fault but my own for getting injured or killed. It wasn't a defective product that caused it, it was me using it other than intended.

Now, do kids know this? No, but we parents do, or should. I couldn't imagine trying to sue a manufacturer because my kid tried to swallow a mouthful of marbles. Damn sure wasn't the manufacturers fault and shouldn't be held responsible that my kid didn't understand.

Is for the courts to decide, in most cases. Only congress has exempted the gun industry from liability, so no case can move forward. Americans do not have the right to sue gun companies as they do other industries. For example, detergent companies modified their packaging so as not to make it so attractive to children. Gun companies might do the same, but they won't since they are shielded from most lawsuits.

Toy companies are liable for injuries if products are not properly labeled or defective in ways that cause harm. That's why you see age guidelines on toy packaging. If a company sells a small product that can be swallowed and labels it for an infant, they indeed are negligent. But if you as a parent give a toy meant for a 10 year old to a toddler, it's no one's fault but your own. Toys are far safer today because of law suits that resulted in packaging that recommends age ranges. Think of all the toys kids get as gifts. Not everyone buying toys knows what is suitable for kids of a certain age. Because of age guidelines, I as an aunt don't buy my nephews toys that could kill them. That would not be possible if not for lawsuits that resulted in those guidelines on the packaging.

If not for lawsuits, cars would still be death traps and automakers would still be calculating deaths vs. profit margin.

I'm not saying you should sue. That's not the point. I'm saying it's wrong that parents whose children are killed by guns don't have the same right to seek redress as those harmed by other products. That is one of many ways the gun industry usurps our rights. Others include restricting doctors' rights to free speech by prohibiting them from asking patients about guns in the home. There are a whole series of ways that the gun industry limits our rights as Americans. The only purpose is their unfettered profit, unique among all industries. It is a function of their buying politicians and it's just wrong. It also means the gun companies have no incentive to develop safer products, trigger locks, etc... that could save lives.

As a photo.