Gun Makers May Win Exemption From Suits

WASHINGTON - After years fending off lawsuits, gun manufacturers appear close to getting Congress to exempt them from suits blaming them for gun crimes and seeking millions of dollars in damages.

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, has 44 Republican co-sponsors for his bill to immunize gun manufacturers and distributors from lawsuits arising out of the use of guns in crimes.

And despite a threatened filibuster by some Democrats, the bill also has the support of 10 Democrats, among them Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota.

"It is a misuse of the civil justice system to try to punish honest, law-abiding people for illegal acts committed by others without their knowledge or involvement," Daschle said two weeks ago. He began promoting the legislation after gun supporters agreed to specify that firearms manufacturers and distributors would not be protected from lawsuits involving defective products or illegal sales.

more: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031009/ap_on_go_co/gun_lawsuits_1

The fucking Democratic Leadership has abandoned us...They are friggin Bush-lite...While I'm in this country, (I might leave in 04), i'm not going to let this happen...It's time to get radical people and drive this country to the far left.

The gun industry is the scummiest bunch in America...

Especially the 10 Democratic Senators who are cosponsoring this bill:

Sen John Breaux (Chief Deputy Whip)
Sen Byron Dorgan (Policy Committee Chairman)
Sen Blanche Lincoln
Sen Max Baucus
Sen Tom Daschle (Democratic Leader)
Sen Pete Domenici
Sen Tim Johnson
Sen Mary Landrieu
Sen Ben Nelson
Sen Harry Reid (Assistant Democratic Leader)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN00659:@@@P

Republicans not cosponsoring the legislation:

Lincoln Chafee
Mike DeWine
Peter Fitzgerald
Richard Lugar
John McCain
John Warner

Republicans need at least 5 more votes to overcome a filibuster and I really doubt that Chafee would vote for cloture on this bill. So, we have to hope that one of the other 5 join in the filibuster and that no more democrats join with the NRA on this bill.

If every gun owner had to make their own guns then it would be more dangerous. The gun industry has an excellent record for manufactoring very safe weapons.

I get so frustrated I could SCREAM

I'm a Democratic, honest. I prefer the liberal side of things.

But I'm going to give you naysayers to this a big:

"DUR DUR DUR DUR DURRRRRRRRR"

Because I AGREE with the exemption. There is no sense in holding gun makers responsible for the actions of the people who own the guns. It is THEIR FAULT AND THEIRS ALONE on how those guns are used.

NOONE ELSES. EVER.

When the gun is made it is sold to a store. That store becomes the owner of the weapon and the responsible party for keeping it safe. When the gun is purchased by a citizen it becomes their property and so to the responsibility of keeping it safe.

How that gun is used is on the head of the end user.

Remember McDonalds being sued because 'oh no i spill coffee in my lap while driving and it was hot :('

WELL NO SHIT. IT'S HOT COFFEE. McDonalds should have won that suit because 1) The guy was obviously a moron and 2) The coffee was sold to the individual and it became his responsibility to handle it intelligently.

If a company makes a knife, and I buy that knife, and then I decide to stab you with it, who is at fault?

Me. I stabbed you. Not the company.

If a company designs a game and one million parents purchase it, and then one set of parents lets their child play the game without making sure the child is supervised and understands it is only a game, which leads to the child going out and trying to punch bricks for coins or trying to run super fast down the middle of the road and getting hit by a car, who is at fault? The company who made the game? No, the parents for not being responsible for the product they purchased.

The end user is the party responsible for how a product is used, not the company that designed it.

Sure, that's how come you can buy a car with no seat belts, turn signals or rear view mirrors.

Different matter entirely. You purchased a faulty product in that case and you have every right to request that the fault be corrected. That does not address the misuse of the car purchased, merely a manufacturing mistake.

On Edit: Clarification-

There is a slight difference here and I will grant you that. If you purchase a vechile with flaws in its design then YES the company is at fault because they gave you an item that was unsafe when it left their hands.

However the topic at hand is companies being sued for how people use the product, not for the poor construction of the product.

Quote: Daschle said two weeks ago. He began promoting the legislation after gun supporters agreed to specify that firearms manufacturers and distributors would not be protected from lawsuits involving defective products or illegal sales.


Thanks for playing, nice try tho.

In your car example, if you drove that car and got in an accident, you could sue the manufacturer and win. Similarly, if you buy a gun that is improperly made and it discharges and hurts someone or blows up in your hand when you fire it, you can still sue the manufacturer even with this law in place. The law only prevents manufacturers from being sued for the illegal misuse of their products. It says this right in the original story!

A more accurate representation using your car analogy would be suing the manufacturer of a fully functional car because a drunk driver ran someone over while in it. Would you still suggest we sue manufacturers in this fashion using that analogy?

maybe then safety features would be more common, their desire to see the gun laws enforced would be more common, maybe just maybe new legislation would be introduced! If I can sue Phillip Morris because I get cancer, when I choose to smoke then ultimately why can't Smith & Wesson be held responsible if my family member dies of a gunshot wound? Ditto on the car example and ditto for products that are "recalled" -sorry- for safety reasons.

Why should they be held responsible? What crime did they commit?

They MADE a gun.

Whoopty-shit.

You know why you can sue Phillip Morris because you got cancer? Because they've backpedalled and lied about the effects of cigarettes for years, and still do. So go ahead and sue them, it won't matter, because the tobacco industry is heavily protected.

But that's why you can. They LIED and the public KNOWS they lied.

There's nothing to lie about in regards to guns. THEY KILL THINGS. PERIOD. Smith and Wesson doesn't try to sell you designer flavored guns or guns with less gun in them, as opposed to new flavored cigarettes and cigarettes with less DEATH in them.

They also want to KEEP their customers. They don't ADVOCATE violence, I'm sure they don't want their name attached to crimes at all. And I'm sure that if they discover a product is defective they are ASSURED to send out a notice about it, they'd rather have the product sent back then have an angry customer who will spend his several hundred dollar future gun purchases elsewhere.

and I sincerely hope it passes. Thing is, if not for the over zealous and abusive nature of the lawsuits
filed or supported by Brady/VPC/MMM, it in all likelihood would have never been initiated.

Once again, Sarah Brady and company bit off more than they can chew.

Much like meth labs, their products spread through society and end up causing serious damage to the public health.

I do hope you're talking about guns so I can shut you down. If you're not I apologize in advance.


You know what else is a menace to society and affects public health?

FAST FOOD. Oh wait that's acceptable.
LIQUOR. Oh wait that's acceptable.
TELEVISION. Oh wait that's acceptable.
MOTOR VECHILES. Oh wait those are acceptable.

Associating guns against something like a meth lab is horribly .. uneducated I would dare say.


Guns are made for defense, recreation, sporting, display, conversation.

Meth is created for recreation, but almost ALWAYS leads to VERY BAD THINGS.

You can purchase a gun and hang it above a fireplace just to look nice, and never use it.

So, no, that doesn't work either.

you're a gun goon who doesn't know the first thing about public health. Some doctors choose not to ignore the devastation that guns cause to people and routinely ask their patients if there are guns in the home as well as if there are drugs in the home. They are a danger to people, especially children like yourself.

BANG, YOU'RE DEAD!!

If a doctor asked me if a gun was in my home, I'd file a formal complaint against him with the state. It's none of his fucking business.

would you base your case, Mr. Muddled? And why wouldn't you file the same complaint if he/she asked if you use alcohol or drugs?

Then I am curious about the odd trends we have been seeing lately. We have seen the number of guns in this country rise every year, where we are now at the point where there are roughly as many guns as there are people in the US. However, our crime rates, including murder and other gun-related deaths, have fallen to their lowest levels since the early 70's. Furthermore, this decline was first noted in 1993, a full year before the only significant piece of federal gun control legislation of the past 35 yrs (1994 AWB) was passed. Why are our streets not running red with blood? Why is it that, throughout the 1990's, dozens of states approved concealed-carry laws and yet our murder rate keeps dropping? Where is the creeping death and destruction we should expect based on your drug analogy? It appears that, as I have stated, people are actually using guns more and more for lawful purposes (imagine that). Surely you've seen "Bowling for Columbine", where Mr. Moore found that Canada has roughly the same number of guns-per-capita as the US? Why is there murder rate not equal to ours? Our problems run much deeper than guns, and a few feel-good laws like this one will only distract us from making real, tangible changes.

Guns have many such uses that are legal and often vital in many situations: hunting, target shooting, self-defense. Your example seems faulty.

People make laws to further their own agendas. That doesn't make them right. There were once laws in some places against black people eating in "white" restaurants. Some anti-drug laws are ridiculous and cost taxpayers a fortune. Etc.

To what are hunting and target shooting "vital"? I think you may mean to say "I wanna hunt and target shoot and I don't care how many people die each year so that I can do those things rather than restore antique autos or play basketball or whatever." I've never heard anybody propose a law that would take guns away from somebody who actually needs them such as a rancher.

As for self-defense, I consider this a dubious argument. I've never personally known anybody who claimed their gun saved them. Assuming there are at least some cases of this happening, do they justify thousands of murders and debilitating injuries each year, often involving innocent bystanders? Sacrifice five lives to possibly save one? I think not.

Hunting and the guns required to do so are vital to many areas of the US, such as in maintaining deer numbers at sustainable levels so that they do not overbrowse the forests, to providing income to many small businesses in rural areas that cater to hunters, and still to provide food in some areas where people depend on stocking the freezer in the fall with venison. Here in MN alone, the hunting industry brings in many MILLIONS of dollars in revenue for local businesses every year. The money brought in by hunting licenses and equipment sales is also used to pay for much of our Dept. of Natural Resources budget, which buys and improves wildlife habitat across the state. Many acres of land that could be developed into suburbs and farmland are left as forest simply because they are prime hunting areas. Without that incentive, much land (including many acres of forest on my family's farm) would be plowed under by now. I would rather see the forests maintained and some hunting allowed than to see those same forests destroyed.

You've never known anyone who used a gun in self-defense? Well, I would like to introduce myself to you as the first you have met then. Of course, it was more to defend my family from my abusive father who had just beat the @#$% out of my mom and was going after my little sister than to defend myself, but IMO that's close enough wouldn't you say? Oh and BTW, I used my hunting rifle to do so, not that that makes much difference now. Luckily he was smart enough to walk away and I didn't have to shoot. Fun thing for an 18-yr old to have to go through, huh? To this day I still shake just talking about it. Even conservative estimates put the level of defensive firearms use into the hundreds of thousands each year, with others putting the figures over 1 million. I tend to believe the true number is somewhere in between these two estimates. Even the low-end estimates are still far above the number of gun deaths that occur every year in this country, so I feel gun ownership for self-defense is worth it. Of course, I can also see I am bias based on my experiences growing up, so take this for whatever it's worth.