Guns are designed to fire a projectile at a high velocity. Ammunition is designed to incapacitate or kill when fire from a gun. The 2nd Ammendment gives most Americans the right to possess a firearm for what ever reason.

The law forbids the use of firearms to commit crimes and only the perpetrator can form criminal intent. Negligence by parents or guardians is another issue but not an issue for gun manufacturers.

There is no legal or moral obligation for gun manufacturers to act as law enforcement agents to protect the public. We also need to shield technology companies from predatory practices such as those engaged in by media content and entertainment companies, but that is a story for another time.

The statement is accurate, I dare you to prove it invalid. But I know how little you care about the empirical nature of the issue.

You can do your own damned research…these are a few cases, i’ve inspected some, and am fairly sure they all come to the same conclusion.

Michael – assuming you hadn’t read every single case concerning liability of the gun companies – you must have come about the conclusion that not a single lawsuit had ever been successful. If it was something you’d read, a reference could be found. If it’s something you heard on the radio, something from right-wing radio…

Chances are it’s not true at all.

I’m questioning the validity of your statement.

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/cases_short.html

Armijo v. Ex Cam, Inc., 656 F.Supp 771 (D.N.M. 1987)
Armijo v. Ex Cam, Inc. 843 F.2d 406 (10th Cir. 1988)
Bennet v. Cincinnati Checker Cab Co., Inc. 353 F.Supp. 1206 (E.D. Ky. 1973)
Bolduc v. Colt’s Mfg. Co., Inc., 968 F.Supp. 16 (D.Mass. 1997)
Braun v. Soldier of Fortune, Inc., 968 F.2d 1110 (11th Cir 1992)
Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 976 F.Supp. 729 (W.D.Tenn 1997)
B-West Imports, Inc., v. U.S., 75 F.3d 633 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
Casanova Guns, Inc., v. Connally, 454 F.2d 1320 (7th Cir. 1972)
Century Arms, Inc., v. Kennedy, 323 F. Supp. 1002 (D. Vt. 1971)
Decker v. Gibson Products Company of Albany, Inc., 505 F.Supp. 34 (M.D.Ga. 1980)
DeRosa v. Remington Arms Co., Inc., 509 F.Supp. 762 (E.D.N.Y. 1981)
Doty v. Magnum Research, Inc., 994 F.Supp. 894 (N.D.Ohio 1997)
Eimann v. Soldier of Fortune, Inc., 880 F.2d 830 (5th Cir. 1989)
Fin & Feather Sport Shop, Inc., v. U.S., 481 F.Supp. 800 (D.Neb. 1979)
First Commercial Trust Co. v. Colt’s Manufacturing Co., Inc., 77 F.3d 1081 (8th Cir. 1996)
Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc., v. Van de Camp, 965 F.2d 723 (9th Cir. 1992)
Gilbert Equipment Co., Inc., v. Higgins, 709 F. Supp. 1071 (D. Ala. 1989)
Gun South, Inc., v. Brady, 877 F.2d 858 (11th Cir. 1989)
HC Gun & Knife Shows, Inc. v. City of Houston, – F.3d – (5th Cir. 2000)
Interport, Inc. v. Magaw, 923 F.Supp. 242 (D.D.C. 1996)
The International Islamic Community of Masjid Baytulkhaliq, Inc., v. U.S., 981 F.Supp. 352 (D.V.I. 1997)
Jersey Arms Works, Inc. v. Secertary of Treasury, No. 83 1130 (D.N.J. July 25, 1983)
Matter of Search Warrant for K-Sports, Inc., 163 F.R.D. 594 (C.D.Cal. 1995)
Knight v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 889 F.Supp. 1532 (S.D. Ga. 1995)
Martin v. Harrington and Richardson, Inc., 743 F.2d 1200 (7th Cir. 1984)
McCarthy v. Sturm, Ruger and Co., Inc., 916 F.Supp. 366 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)
Mitchell Arms Inc., v. U.S., 7 F.3d 212 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
Modern Muzzleloading, Inc. v. Magaw, 1997 WL 785623 (D.D.C. 1997)
Modern Muzzleloading, Inc. v. Magaw, 18 F.Supp.2d 29 (D.D.C. 1998)
In re Monument Gun Shop, Inc., Case No. 99-1497 (D.Colo. August 11, 2000)
Navegar, Inc., v. U.S., 914 F.Supp. 632 (D.D.C. 1996)
Navegar, Inc. v. U.S., 103 F.3d 994 (D.C.Cir. 1997)
Navegar, Inc., v. U.S. – F.Supp.2d – (D.D.C. 1998)
Norwood v. Soldier of Fortune Magazine, Inc., 651 F.Supp 1397 (W.D.Ark 1987)
Raines v. Colt Industries, Inc., 757 F.Supp. 819 (E.D.Mich 1991)
Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc. – F.3d – (4th Cir. 1997)
Richmond Boro Gun Club, Inc., v. City of New York, 896 F.Supp. 276 (E.D.N.Y. 1995)
Rodriguez v. Glock, Inc., 28 F.Supp.2d 1064 (N.D.Ill. 1998)
R.P.B. Industries, Inc., v. Secretary of Treasury, Case No. C 82-1149 A (N.D.Ga. July 21, 1982)
RSM, Inc. dba Valley Gun of Baltimore, et al., v. Bradley A. Buckles – F.Supp.2d – (D.Md. 2000)
RSM, Inc. dba Valley Gun of Baltimore, et al., v. Bradley A. Buckles, Appeal
In re St. Augustine Gun Works, Inc., 75 B.R. 495 (M.D.Fla 1987)
Service Arms Company, Inc., v. U.S., 76 F.R.D. 109 (W.D.Okla. 1977)
Service Arms Company, Inc., v. U.S., 463 F.Supp. 21 (W.D.Okla. 1978)
Shipman v. Jennings Firearms, Inc., 791 F.2d 1532 (11th Cir. 1986)
Springfield Armory, Inc. v. City of Columbus, 29 F.3d 250 (6th Cir. 1994)
Stein’s, Inc., v. Blumenthal, 649 F.2d 463 (7th Cir. 1980)
S.W. Daniel, Inc., v. U.S., 831 F.2d 253 (11th Cir. 1987)
T.T. Salvage Auction Co., Inc., v. Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, 859 F.Supp. 977 (E.D.N.C. 1994)
Motion from 5/31/90 in U.S. v. Billistics, Inc., No. N.90.25(EBB)
U.S. v. Billistics, Inc., No. N.90.25(EBB) (D.Conn. June 5, 1990)
Motion from 6/18/90 in U.S. v. Billistics, Inc., No. N.90.25(EBB)
U.S. v. Billistics, Inc., No. N.90.25(EBB) (D.Conn. June 19, 1990)
Motion from 12/19/91 in U.S. v. Billistics, Inc., No. N.90.25(EBB)
U.S. v. Billistics, Inc., No. N.90.25(EBB) (D.Conn. December 23, 1991)
Wasylow v. Glock, Inc., 975 F.Supp. 370 (D.Mass. 1996)
Wellborn v. Cobray Firearms Inc., 1998 WL 80236 (10th Cir. 1998)
Wellborn v. Cobray Firearms Inc., No. 98-8106 (10th Cir. 11/04/1999)
Whitfield v. Heckler & Koch, Inc., – Cal.App.4th – (2nd Dist. 2000)

Michael says: The gun manufacturers have NEVER lost a negligence case, NO accuser has been able to show that a marketing technique or ploy by a manufacturer, as a cause of a crime, out weighs the simple existence of guns in society. The argument is settled in the court of law, and it is rediculus to allow the same law suit to come before judges over and over, Congress will make it settled law.

Michael – I’d expect you to back this claim up with a link to prove it. If this is true, it’s definitely sourced somewhere.

Each lawsuit is different. Different people, different manufacturer, different distributor.

Michael: If a distributor is found to sale booze to minors, then they should loose their license. Is that not how that works? A gun dealer who is found to not uphold the background checks, waiting period, and so on…should loose his liscense…thats where the break down occurs, thats where the problem should be fixed. As long as a manufacturer is selling to liscensed dealers, they should incur no punishment for the dealers actions…the dealer should be punished, and have his liscense removed…thus preventing manufacturers from selling to him.

Very true – the lawsuits question the manufacturer’s distribution practices, command and control procedures, etc – the third party they use to distribute – as they argue it – should take all the blame. But we’re not talking about an ordinary product here – - – and product liability, according to some 30 law schools across the nation that were questioned on this bill, agreed that the proposed legislation was completely contrary to established law today.

So why the gun industry? That’s the question. Lobbyists and $$, is the answer. And if this is passed, the already ridiculously flawed system in place to sell these weapons will get even worse.

That will be the outcome Michael – more guns will end up in the streets of Baltimore, not less.

If a distributor is found to sale booze to minors, then they should loose their license. Is that not how that works? A gun dealer who is found to not uphold the background checks, waiting period, and so on…should loose his liscense…thats where the break down occurs, thats where the problem should be fixed. As long as a manufacturer is selling to liscensed dealers, they should incur no punishment for the dealers actions…the dealer should be punished, and have his liscense removed…thus preventing manufacturers from selling to him.

RT: By this logic Car makers are laible for drunk driving and hit and run. Defribulators electorcute people, should medical comapnies be held responsible for Doctors actions in saving lives? Hell, there is some nimrod named the Chopper who runs the Dodge dealreship, should Dodge be held liable for the sales practices of this loser?

Are car manufacturers supporting crime?

Look – the comparison is ridiculous. Of course personal responsibility remains in tact, but just like every other industry that makes money off of the American public, gun manufacturers can be held accountable if negligent.

How many more school shootings do we need exactally before this is taken seriously? Guns ending up in the wrong hands…it’s a problem. And if the manufacturer can be found to have been negligent, they need to pay.

Ask cops what they think about this ammendment. Or are they only valuable when there’s a chance for a photo op?

Quoting the nutjobs, that’s priceless. She hates war so much she complaining about not being able to finance it. Wait, that doesn’t make sense, oh yeah, she’s a liberal, nuff said.

Are you serious? Why do all the troops in Iraq have guns then?

So then gun manuafacturers are laible for the people shot by troops in Iraq? Only people can shoot other people, guns don’t wake up one day and and think, hey, I’mm gonna shoot that guy.

By this logic Car makers are laible for drunk driving and hit and run. Defribulators electorcute people, should medical comapnies be held responsible for Doctors actions in saving lives? Hell, there is some nimrod named the Chopper who runs the Dodge dealreship, should Dodge be held liable for the sales practices of this loser?

Tools can’t form intent, only people.

Michael: Just like you don’t say blow pops are intended to put in your ear, you don’t say guns are intended to kill people. Some peoples intentions might cause them to put a blow pop in the ear, but its not Charms fault, some people may intend to use guns to kill people but its not the Guns fault. This is where the position causes clarity issues.

Are you serious? Why do all the troops in Iraq have guns then? So they can shoot at cans? There is absolutely no philosophical basis for your comparison there Michael. Intent of the person who uses it has nothing to do with why people sue gun manufacturers. They sue them because there’s a documented and proven example of negligence on the part of the gun manufacturer that led to the gun being sold illegally.

Because…I can use Vodka to water my flowers, but it’s still made to get you drunk.

Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp
“Indeed, the Court emphasized, the plaintiffs hadn’t presented any evidence showing to what degree their risk of injury had been enhanced by the presence of negligently marketed and distributed guns, as opposed to the risk presented by all guns in society.”

Why is it the Gun manufactor’s responsibility to verify the way Licensed gun dealers sale their weapons? It should be the person directly responsible, not the person 10 steps ahead in the line. Government should punish those who were responsible for putting the gun in the wrong hand, not the person who made the gun.

Do you have a link to the opinion from that case? The snippet doesn’t have anything to do with the debate we’re having. The statement was that the plaintiffs hadn’t proven that the illegal gun could have killed them any easier than the legally bought one. An illegally purchased gun that shoots the same bullets as a legally bought one, can kill just the same. It doesn’t prove anything in terms of what the GOP is pushing for here.

DI: So what the GOP is really advocating for right here is for gun manufacturer to be granted the priviledge to be negligent without ever having to suffer for it.

Michael: Negligence has nothing to do with it, there are enough guns stolen each year, to account for all the murders that take place. The person responsible is the person who pulls the trigger, and at most the preson who directly supplied him with the gun, if they didn’t properly check the person out. So the argument of the left boils down to a wish for all guns to be removed from society or basically to be “against the second ammendment.”

Can a liquor manufacturer sell booze to a distributor who’s not lisensed? How about if the distributor was found to have been selling the booze to minors – is the manufacturere justified in doing business with that distributor again?

Michael: Well, I don’t think merck should be held accountable if someone forces a pill down your throat, but other than that, if you are diliberately taking a pill, the effects of which should be known, it is kinda like you using a gun, on yourself.

??? – Merck knowingly put the drug on the market with false testing statistics – so how is it the patient’s fault? It’s just like what I said, survival of the fittest. That’s the stuff of Middle Eastern societies, not American society.