Well, your argument is flawed. Here’s why. The firearm’s primary function is to kill. If you use it for any other purpose, you are literally using it incorrectly. If you use your car to do something other than go fast, such as go slow, you are still using it correctly.
**gun-owner who supports tougher gun laws** Reasonable regulation and restrictions =/= banning guns.
Ummmm- “The firearm’s primary function is to kill”. Not people jackwagon! Mine kills often, deer, hogs,etc. It has yet to kill people and it lays around with the 30 round mag loaded everyday. Defective maybe?
Multiple gun owner who supports the 2nd. Keep drinking the kool-aid that they don’t want guns banned for citizens, they could care less who crosses the border with them. That’s a fact jack.
Guns are made for sport and protection, excluding military and law enforcement who use then to kill for protection. In this school shooting, the gun was not used for its intended use. Remington should not be sued. And I am all for making assault guns unavailable to the public.
So what will be next? Will Henckel be responsible for all knife attacks and murders resulting from stabbings?
Will Kingsford or Zippo be responsible for all torchings of buildings or people?
Also, why not just ask Congress what they meant when they passed the law?
Jackwagon,
Please tell me what an “Assault Weapon” is and then we can have an intelligent dialog on the merits. If by “Assault Weapon” you reference the AR 15 please take a look at the ruger mini 14 https://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models.html although the two weapons appear vastly different they are both semi-automatic rifles that fire the .223 Cartridge or the NATO equivalent 5.56. Both have magazines available that can contain up to 30 rounds. etc etc.
I own a bushmaster AR 15 and the only thing it has killed to date is a number of paper targets. Banning a type of firearm will do nothing to prevent the problem, better mental health care will.
April 10, 2019 at 2:34 pm
Ummm... says:
Like or Dislike:
10
6
Hunting is still killing….insert facepalm. Jackwagon.Thus if hunting you are using it correctly. To defend your home is also using it correctly. If you aren’t aiming center mass, you’re doing it wrong.
The same exact logic applies to knives and knife makers.
April 10, 2019 at 4:13 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
8
11
So my steak knife was made to kill meat that’s already been killed? How about my butter knife? Do I need to warn the Land-o-Lakes lady that the butter knife was made to kill her?
April 10, 2019 at 7:15 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13
2
If someone uses your butter knife to kill someone, then the analogy is exactly the same as a hunting rifle used to kill someone. The hunting rifle was NOT designed to kill people, just like the butter knife.
And dead is dead.
April 11, 2019 at 9:01 am
Polar BARReport says:
Like or Dislike:
6
5
Nope. Your table knife was designed to be used as dinner cutlery, to cut anything too large to hold on a fork or spoon. Why do we have to correct you when you try to argue against common sense, liberty, freedoms, and justice?
April 11, 2019 at 10:52 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
3
6
PBR – Thanks for supporting my argument against Craig’s comment that “The same exact logic applies to knives and knife makers.” We both agree that is false.
April 15, 2019 at 9:18 am
Polar BARReport says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
No, I didn’t refer to dead meat. I referred to a knife used to kill a human, as did Craig.
April 10, 2019 at 1:41 pm
Ohio Agent says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
21
12
Main purpose for guns for most is for hunting/sport or self protection. Normal people don’t buy guns for the purpose of killing another human being on purpose. I am for requiring all guns and gun owners to be licensed with licenses required to be renewed ever couple of years. I’m also for penalties against gun owners who’s weapons are used to kill another person including accidental shooting where children kill other children. Something similar to get away drivers getting charged as robbers and murders in killing is involved. Need something to force owners to be responsible to store weapons safely.
Sure. Manslaughter at minimum. If it was properly secured it wouldn’t have been stolen? Gun ownership comes with responsibility. One of which to make sure it’s secure where just anybody can’t get to it. As an owner you should be checking to make sure it’s where it’s supposed to be and if missing report it to the police. Same as with your wallet. You know where it is and if it goes missing you file police report and cancel any cards, license, etc.
April 10, 2019 at 2:39 pm
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
13
5
Ohio- So guns only get stolen when not “properly secured” ? How about the fact it’s in my house or my car or on my hip and I have the right to expect it to stay where I left it ?
How about your car is stolen? How about your keys were left in it? How about the keys were on the nightstand? How about the guy then drives into a crowd intentionally and kills 10 people. Car ownership comes with responsibility, right ? You want to be held liable? Didn’t think so.
April 10, 2019 at 4:01 pm
Ohio agent says:
Like or Dislike:
9
5
Jack, If gun is stolen the only way to not be help liability would be to report it as stolen. You can expect it not to be stolen from your home or car but that’s not realistic. There are over $2mil home break-ins in the US per year (That about a 1 in 120-130 chance) and more car break-ins. Just having it in your home but not in a locked/secure place (i.e. gunsafe) is not securing it. Not saying you can’t have gun. Always had guns (mostly rifles) around houses I lived in but they were always locked up and ammo stored separately in another locked area. Just saying if you don’t take measures to secure gun or make sure it’s where it’s supposed to be doesn’t remove liability from the owner. It’s like medication, you wouldn’t leave it around where others, especially small children can get it.
April 10, 2019 at 4:38 pm
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
4
5
Apply the same logic to cars? You didn’t answer my questions.
April 10, 2019 at 4:43 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
3
I don’t want to speak for anyone else, but to answer Jack’s question of “Apply the same logic to cars?” – my answer would be 100%, yes.
If your car is stolen and is involved in an accident, but you choose not to actually report the theft to the police, then your auto insurance policy would pay out on any liability (PD or BI) claim.
If you DO report the theft of the car, then the carrier would legally be able to deny any liability claim resulting after the theft occurred.
April 11, 2019 at 8:58 am
Polar BARReport says:
Like or Dislike:
9
5
Wrong. You selected one use of a firearm. Strawman argument that fails immediately. Why do you bother wasting time here with such flawed replies?
The issue re: Sandy Hook/ Newton, CT is mental health, not firearms. Many people dropped the ball on the shooter and his mother (who owned the firearms and used them properly).
What else do you use firearms for? Target practice? That is about the only acceptable non killing use. (Which is just practicing to make sure you don’t suck at it if you need to use it for killing. Also because they are a great deal of fun to shoot.) Ideally, except for hunting, you should never have to use your firearm for its intended purpose.
It isn’t for digging holes, or scratching your head, or painting a house, or cutting a steak, or steering a car.
Please stop acting like we don’t have a problem here in the states. The only countries that have similar levels of gun fatalities are 3rd world countries. So if you’re argument is that it is a mental health issue, then we should at least look to mirror health policies of countries with lower gun death rates. I bet that is a non-starter for you too though.
I love how the people that scream about it being a mental health problem and not a gun problem also support defunding mental health programs.
Firearms are protected by the US Constitution for use in self defense, militia against a tyrannic government, and to a lesser extent, hunting for food or sport. Stop telling us things that aren’t true – except in your liberal world.
April 15, 2019 at 2:54 pm
mrbob says:
Like or Dislike:
4
1
Umm
There are many who use firearms for competition which is far different from simple non organized target practice. In these sport the only thing killed is the targets used.
April 10, 2019 at 1:22 pm
Bond says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35
3
Forget the fact the gun was used by a mentally compromised minor who killed his own mother to gain access to the locked weapon. It is obvious that he lacked the mental ability to even understand right from wrong and I doubt a commercial would have set him off, another liberal court that will be over turned by SCOTUS, as it should be.
If you bought a gun for home defense and it did not perform as intended (it malfunctioned) when you needed it, THAT would be a valid reason to hold a gun manufacturer liable. But if the gun performed as intended, it fired a round when you squeezed the trigger, the manufacturer did nothing wrong and should be exempt. More murders are committed each year in this country using a hammer or other blunt instrument than with a rifle. If someone kills a person with a hammer, should the hammer manufacturer be liable? 6 times as many people are killed every year with a knife than with a rifle. Knives are only made for cutting. Should a knife manufacturer be liable?
Stephen: Whether I agree or disagree, your data is incredibly flawed and ignorant. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/expanded-homicide
◾Information collected regarding types of weapons used in violent crime showed that firearms were used in 72.6 percent of the nation’s murders, 40.6 percent of robberies, and 26.3 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapons data are not collected for rape.) (See Expanded Homicide Data Table 7, Robbery Table 3, and the Aggravated Assault Table.)
Stephen’s data is actually spot on. It does not matter what percentage of murders are committed by knives. If you can hold the maker of a gun responsible, there is no logical reason not to do the same with a knife maker if the circumstance of killing are the same. None.
It isn’t so, Craig. He did not call anyone a name. He said the data was flawed and lacking knowledge information. He attacked the data, he did not attack the person who cited the data.
“Your data is incredibly flawed and ignorant”. Diagram that sentence and let me know where the where the personal attack exists.
As stated, whether I agree or disagree, the facts are what the facts.
April 13, 2019 at 7:30 am
Polar BARReport says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
I don’t need to diagram a sentence to understand the word ‘ignorant’. Data cannot be ignorant.
April 15, 2019 at 9:15 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
Grammar matters – in his sentence, it is the data which is incredibly flawed and ignorant. You know, the subject of the sentence.
April 15, 2019 at 9:20 am
Polar BARReport says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
Logic matters more than mis-applied grammar.
April 15, 2019 at 2:21 pm
Statshelp says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Data 100% can be ignorant. If you believe otherwise, you are showing a lack of knowledge about statistics.
One thing I will say is that it data can be inadvertently ignorant. Other times, there is a something called fear. Fear and the confirmation bias work together frequently with data. Companies will sometimes intentionally exclude calculating certain statistics because of the fear it will not work toward the overall goal of the study. This is a thing that happens all the time in studies, but the only way to find this out is to read the whole study yourself to examine the bias that was not only in the study, but also the person putting out the study with data.
April 10, 2019 at 2:47 pm
reality bites says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12
1
I have a problem. Well, at least one worth talking about here.
I have a gun that actually WAS intended to kill people, not to hunt animals or shoot at targets (other than for practice, shooting at people).
I have no way of knowing if the gun completed the task it was made for. There isn’t a database or registry to check its efficacy. But I can attest to the gun being phenomenally accurate, almost eerily, hauntingly so.
And to top it all off, it has symbols / logos of a nearly-universally detested organization; one which I’d be judged poorly if I were to display or use it anywhere else.
My gun was re-purposed well before it came into my possession when my father gave it to me. The gun will never be used again for its intended purpose to kill or injure any person, being used strictly for recreational purposes including hunting.
My ownership of this gun is not essential to who I am as a person; I eat more chicken and fish and don’t hunt to survive. I am not a member of the NRA and never have been. I respect the rights of others to be in similar quandaries, but I do not believe that votes should be bought or sold by any block of like-minded individuals, justifying rights to maintain a militia.
Not quite. 1942 Oberndorf 8×57. It is locked up safely and we don’t have any kids, and kids don’t have their own, either. And while there might have been a kit in the shoulder stock, it was shortened and sporterized years ago, so the only place to put the toothpick and tweezers is up my nostrils.
reality bites- cool, was just shooting a mosin nagant this past weekend. Had a prom party at my house and took the boys to the range the next morning. Shot the mosin, a 7mm, AR-15, Ar-10 and a 9mm.
Nice. I guess you could say, it was “target” practice.
April 12, 2019 at 12:43 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
4
4
Jack, Umm is definitely a Progressive who wants to take guns away from us so we can’t protect ourselves from thugs and thieves. Locked and loaded is what I say.
April 12, 2019 at 12:48 pm
Ummm.... says:
Like or Dislike:
9
0
Agent, ooh ooh. You almost had it.
I am a registered republican who holds my firearms dear. I don’t have any problem with people having them. I also don’t have any problem with registering them. I also don’t have any problem with making them tougher to obtain. I also don’t have any problem with accuracy or grouping.
April 10, 2019 at 7:12 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
7
5
Data cannot be ignorant. Data does not have a brain and cannot think. Only a person can be ignorant. And dishonest. (See mirror.)
I believe the makers of knives and other weapons can, in fact, be held liable for the illegal use of their products. The exemptions under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act apply only to firearms and ammunition.
If you give or sell a bow and arrow to someone who deliberately misuses it to injure someone, you would have to respond to a lawsuit. You wouldn’t necessarily be liable, but you wouldn’t be exempt from liability, either. You’d have to make your case. If a company vigorously marketed, say, “Chinese stars,” and there was a rash of resulting injuries, they might have to defend against a claim. Right or wrong, I think that’s the way it is.
There’s a challenging dynamic at play in the risk and insurance area:
1. Homeowners policies necessarily exclude liability coverage for intentional injuries, including those arising from firearms; and
2. The PLCA exempts gun manufacturers and merchants from liability for illegal acts involving firearms that were made and sold legally.
Thus, when there is a mass shooting, victims end up suing other parties, such as acquaintances of the shooter, claiming they should have raised warnings. Otherwise, the cost of their injuries would fall onto health insurers, the general public, or go uncompensated.
I agree. …until such a case is brought to court and is eventually adjudicated in favor of the defendant.
Please pay CLOSE attention to the word ‘action’ in policy language. It is distinct from an inanimate object used in the action. Thus, any sensible court will rule against a manufacturer of the inanimate object, and will more likely rule against the ‘wielder’ of the object used to harm another person.
Thank you for a concise summary that should conclude the discussion, but won’t. Not until a case or two is/are tried and adjudicated will this issue be settled.
Connecticut……I can’t understand how these liberal courts can render some of the rulings they do when they know there is a precedent already in place.
Besides, I saw a commercial on TV for ‘US Navy Seal Sunglasses’ ! And yes, they showed men all kitted out for combat, wearing their special sunglasses, of course. Should they be enjoined in this suit ?
Even if Remington’s ads could induce some to commit crimes with its guns, there is no evidence that the shooter in this case even saw them. Case closed.
What next? Car makers that show their cars going fast?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Ummmm- “The firearm’s primary function is to kill”. Not people jackwagon! Mine kills often, deer, hogs,etc. It has yet to kill people and it lays around with the 30 round mag loaded everyday. Defective maybe?
Multiple gun owner who supports the 2nd. Keep drinking the kool-aid that they don’t want guns banned for citizens, they could care less who crosses the border with them. That’s a fact jack.
Guns are made for sport and protection, excluding military and law enforcement who use then to kill for protection. In this school shooting, the gun was not used for its intended use. Remington should not be sued. And I am all for making assault guns unavailable to the public.
So what will be next? Will Henckel be responsible for all knife attacks and murders resulting from stabbings?
Will Kingsford or Zippo be responsible for all torchings of buildings or people?
Also, why not just ask Congress what they meant when they passed the law?
Jackwagon,
Please tell me what an “Assault Weapon” is and then we can have an intelligent dialog on the merits. If by “Assault Weapon” you reference the AR 15 please take a look at the ruger mini 14 https://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models.html although the two weapons appear vastly different they are both semi-automatic rifles that fire the .223 Cartridge or the NATO equivalent 5.56. Both have magazines available that can contain up to 30 rounds. etc etc.
I own a bushmaster AR 15 and the only thing it has killed to date is a number of paper targets. Banning a type of firearm will do nothing to prevent the problem, better mental health care will.
Hunting is still killing….insert facepalm. Jackwagon.Thus if hunting you are using it correctly. To defend your home is also using it correctly. If you aren’t aiming center mass, you’re doing it wrong.
The same exact logic applies to knives and knife makers.
So my steak knife was made to kill meat that’s already been killed? How about my butter knife? Do I need to warn the Land-o-Lakes lady that the butter knife was made to kill her?
If someone uses your butter knife to kill someone, then the analogy is exactly the same as a hunting rifle used to kill someone. The hunting rifle was NOT designed to kill people, just like the butter knife.
And dead is dead.
Nope. Your table knife was designed to be used as dinner cutlery, to cut anything too large to hold on a fork or spoon. Why do we have to correct you when you try to argue against common sense, liberty, freedoms, and justice?
PBR – Thanks for supporting my argument against Craig’s comment that “The same exact logic applies to knives and knife makers.” We both agree that is false.
No, I didn’t refer to dead meat. I referred to a knife used to kill a human, as did Craig.
Main purpose for guns for most is for hunting/sport or self protection. Normal people don’t buy guns for the purpose of killing another human being on purpose. I am for requiring all guns and gun owners to be licensed with licenses required to be renewed ever couple of years. I’m also for penalties against gun owners who’s weapons are used to kill another person including accidental shooting where children kill other children. Something similar to get away drivers getting charged as robbers and murders in killing is involved. Need something to force owners to be responsible to store weapons safely.
Ohio Agent- So someone steals your gun and kills, you should be charged ?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Ohio- So guns only get stolen when not “properly secured” ? How about the fact it’s in my house or my car or on my hip and I have the right to expect it to stay where I left it ?
How about your car is stolen? How about your keys were left in it? How about the keys were on the nightstand? How about the guy then drives into a crowd intentionally and kills 10 people. Car ownership comes with responsibility, right ? You want to be held liable? Didn’t think so.
Jack, If gun is stolen the only way to not be help liability would be to report it as stolen. You can expect it not to be stolen from your home or car but that’s not realistic. There are over $2mil home break-ins in the US per year (That about a 1 in 120-130 chance) and more car break-ins. Just having it in your home but not in a locked/secure place (i.e. gunsafe) is not securing it. Not saying you can’t have gun. Always had guns (mostly rifles) around houses I lived in but they were always locked up and ammo stored separately in another locked area. Just saying if you don’t take measures to secure gun or make sure it’s where it’s supposed to be doesn’t remove liability from the owner. It’s like medication, you wouldn’t leave it around where others, especially small children can get it.
Apply the same logic to cars? You didn’t answer my questions.
I don’t want to speak for anyone else, but to answer Jack’s question of “Apply the same logic to cars?” – my answer would be 100%, yes.
If your car is stolen and is involved in an accident, but you choose not to actually report the theft to the police, then your auto insurance policy would pay out on any liability (PD or BI) claim.
If you DO report the theft of the car, then the carrier would legally be able to deny any liability claim resulting after the theft occurred.
Wrong. You selected one use of a firearm. Strawman argument that fails immediately. Why do you bother wasting time here with such flawed replies?
The issue re: Sandy Hook/ Newton, CT is mental health, not firearms. Many people dropped the ball on the shooter and his mother (who owned the firearms and used them properly).
What else do you use firearms for? Target practice? That is about the only acceptable non killing use. (Which is just practicing to make sure you don’t suck at it if you need to use it for killing. Also because they are a great deal of fun to shoot.) Ideally, except for hunting, you should never have to use your firearm for its intended purpose.
It isn’t for digging holes, or scratching your head, or painting a house, or cutting a steak, or steering a car.
Please stop acting like we don’t have a problem here in the states. The only countries that have similar levels of gun fatalities are 3rd world countries. So if you’re argument is that it is a mental health issue, then we should at least look to mirror health policies of countries with lower gun death rates. I bet that is a non-starter for you too though.
I love how the people that scream about it being a mental health problem and not a gun problem also support defunding mental health programs.
Firearms are protected by the US Constitution for use in self defense, militia against a tyrannic government, and to a lesser extent, hunting for food or sport. Stop telling us things that aren’t true – except in your liberal world.
Umm
There are many who use firearms for competition which is far different from simple non organized target practice. In these sport the only thing killed is the targets used.
Forget the fact the gun was used by a mentally compromised minor who killed his own mother to gain access to the locked weapon. It is obvious that he lacked the mental ability to even understand right from wrong and I doubt a commercial would have set him off, another liberal court that will be over turned by SCOTUS, as it should be.
If you bought a gun for home defense and it did not perform as intended (it malfunctioned) when you needed it, THAT would be a valid reason to hold a gun manufacturer liable. But if the gun performed as intended, it fired a round when you squeezed the trigger, the manufacturer did nothing wrong and should be exempt. More murders are committed each year in this country using a hammer or other blunt instrument than with a rifle. If someone kills a person with a hammer, should the hammer manufacturer be liable? 6 times as many people are killed every year with a knife than with a rifle. Knives are only made for cutting. Should a knife manufacturer be liable?
That’s a loaded question….
I jest. I’m sorry, I had to go there.
Stephen: Whether I agree or disagree, your data is incredibly flawed and ignorant.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/expanded-homicide
◾Information collected regarding types of weapons used in violent crime showed that firearms were used in 72.6 percent of the nation’s murders, 40.6 percent of robberies, and 26.3 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapons data are not collected for rape.) (See Expanded Homicide Data Table 7, Robbery Table 3, and the Aggravated Assault Table.)
Name calling from a leftist? Say it ain’t so.
Stephen’s data is actually spot on. It does not matter what percentage of murders are committed by knives. If you can hold the maker of a gun responsible, there is no logical reason not to do the same with a knife maker if the circumstance of killing are the same. None.
It isn’t so, Craig. He did not call anyone a name. He said the data was flawed and lacking knowledge information. He attacked the data, he did not attack the person who cited the data.
“ignorant” isn’t name calling? I’m not sure if “incredibly” was intended as an adjective for both ‘flawed’ and ‘ignorant’ or for ‘flawed’ alone.
Please, point to use where he called Stephen a name. It ain’t so, I’ll say it.
“ignorant” was the name.
“Your data is incredibly flawed and ignorant”. Diagram that sentence and let me know where the where the personal attack exists.
As stated, whether I agree or disagree, the facts are what the facts.
I don’t need to diagram a sentence to understand the word ‘ignorant’. Data cannot be ignorant.
Grammar matters – in his sentence, it is the data which is incredibly flawed and ignorant. You know, the subject of the sentence.
Logic matters more than mis-applied grammar.
Data 100% can be ignorant. If you believe otherwise, you are showing a lack of knowledge about statistics.
One thing I will say is that it data can be inadvertently ignorant. Other times, there is a something called fear. Fear and the confirmation bias work together frequently with data. Companies will sometimes intentionally exclude calculating certain statistics because of the fear it will not work toward the overall goal of the study. This is a thing that happens all the time in studies, but the only way to find this out is to read the whole study yourself to examine the bias that was not only in the study, but also the person putting out the study with data.
I have a problem. Well, at least one worth talking about here.
I have a gun that actually WAS intended to kill people, not to hunt animals or shoot at targets (other than for practice, shooting at people).
I have no way of knowing if the gun completed the task it was made for. There isn’t a database or registry to check its efficacy. But I can attest to the gun being phenomenally accurate, almost eerily, hauntingly so.
And to top it all off, it has symbols / logos of a nearly-universally detested organization; one which I’d be judged poorly if I were to display or use it anywhere else.
My gun was re-purposed well before it came into my possession when my father gave it to me. The gun will never be used again for its intended purpose to kill or injure any person, being used strictly for recreational purposes including hunting.
My ownership of this gun is not essential to who I am as a person; I eat more chicken and fish and don’t hunt to survive. I am not a member of the NRA and never have been. I respect the rights of others to be in similar quandaries, but I do not believe that votes should be bought or sold by any block of like-minded individuals, justifying rights to maintain a militia.
reality bites- let me guess , fully semi automatic with bazooka and grenade launcher ? Has a place to store toothpick and tweezers in the end of it?
Not quite. 1942 Oberndorf 8×57. It is locked up safely and we don’t have any kids, and kids don’t have their own, either. And while there might have been a kit in the shoulder stock, it was shortened and sporterized years ago, so the only place to put the toothpick and tweezers is up my nostrils.
reality bites- cool, was just shooting a mosin nagant this past weekend. Had a prom party at my house and took the boys to the range the next morning. Shot the mosin, a 7mm, AR-15, Ar-10 and a 9mm.
Ummmm-Funny…nothing died.
Nice. I guess you could say, it was “target” practice.
Jack, Umm is definitely a Progressive who wants to take guns away from us so we can’t protect ourselves from thugs and thieves. Locked and loaded is what I say.
Agent, ooh ooh. You almost had it.
I am a registered republican who holds my firearms dear. I don’t have any problem with people having them. I also don’t have any problem with registering them. I also don’t have any problem with making them tougher to obtain. I also don’t have any problem with accuracy or grouping.
Data cannot be ignorant. Data does not have a brain and cannot think. Only a person can be ignorant. And dishonest. (See mirror.)
I believe the makers of knives and other weapons can, in fact, be held liable for the illegal use of their products. The exemptions under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act apply only to firearms and ammunition.
If you give or sell a bow and arrow to someone who deliberately misuses it to injure someone, you would have to respond to a lawsuit. You wouldn’t necessarily be liable, but you wouldn’t be exempt from liability, either. You’d have to make your case. If a company vigorously marketed, say, “Chinese stars,” and there was a rash of resulting injuries, they might have to defend against a claim. Right or wrong, I think that’s the way it is.
There’s a challenging dynamic at play in the risk and insurance area:
1. Homeowners policies necessarily exclude liability coverage for intentional injuries, including those arising from firearms; and
2. The PLCA exempts gun manufacturers and merchants from liability for illegal acts involving firearms that were made and sold legally.
Thus, when there is a mass shooting, victims end up suing other parties, such as acquaintances of the shooter, claiming they should have raised warnings. Otherwise, the cost of their injuries would fall onto health insurers, the general public, or go uncompensated.
I agree. …until such a case is brought to court and is eventually adjudicated in favor of the defendant.
Please pay CLOSE attention to the word ‘action’ in policy language. It is distinct from an inanimate object used in the action. Thus, any sensible court will rule against a manufacturer of the inanimate object, and will more likely rule against the ‘wielder’ of the object used to harm another person.
The blame lays solely with the shooter.
Thank you for a concise summary that should conclude the discussion, but won’t. Not until a case or two is/are tried and adjudicated will this issue be settled.
Connecticut……I can’t understand how these liberal courts can render some of the rulings they do when they know there is a precedent already in place.
Besides, I saw a commercial on TV for ‘US Navy Seal Sunglasses’ ! And yes, they showed men all kitted out for combat, wearing their special sunglasses, of course. Should they be enjoined in this suit ?
Even if Remington’s ads could induce some to commit crimes with its guns, there is no evidence that the shooter in this case even saw them. Case closed.