Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Doggy Daddy on February 03, 2013, 10:05:34 AM
-
NRA-backed federal limits on gun lawsuits frustrate victims, their attorneys
So what's their point? Bringers of nuisance lawsuits should be frustrated.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nra-backed-federal-limits-on-gun-lawsuits-frustrate-victims-their-attorneys/2013/01/31/a4f101da-69b3-11e2-95b3-272d604a10a3_story.html
-
Here we go once again!
Start suing auto manufacturers and their parts suppliers every time someone get killed by a drubk driver and see how fast laws are passed to protect them.
No gun ever built was ever designed to kill anybody or anything. It was designed to expell a projectile in such a manner as to afford the greatest precision regarding where that projectile landed. The person using the gun decided how that projectile would be used. But most shooters have very shallow pockets and most heirs/assigns of the dead person want money and someone/something to blame. The money part is easy to understand. The need for something to blame is a bit harder, but very basically comes down to the issue of personal responsibility also applying to the victim, the heirs/assigns, and society as a whole vs. shifting blame to an inanimate object.
stay safe.
-
A very similar sort of liability protection is largely responsible for the survival of the American light aircraft manufacturing base. Before Congress passed that law, Cessna, Piper, Beechcraft, etc. were getting sued out of existence for product liability claims.
-
sued out of existence for product liability claims.
And there's the angle.
-
sued out of existence for product liability claims.
And there's the angle.
Exactly like the Blitz Gas Can company.
-
I am normally very skeptical of tort reform, but protecting the marginally profitable firearms industry from nuisance suits is REASONABLE. Unless a gun is defective or unreasonable dangerous in some way, they should not be liable for the criminal misuse of one of their products. This is something that is generally accepted in torts. I suppose if a manufacturer made a gun and marketed and sold it to mental patients, criminals, and low lifes, they may have a case.
I am genuinely sorry for the family members of the victims, but the only party responsible is dead.
-
I suppose if a manufacturer made a gun and marketed and sold it to mental patients, criminals, and low lifes, they may have a case.
The Judge? ;)
-
The Judge? ;)
=D :lol: :lol: :lol: