Hillary wants gun manufacturers held responsible for how guns are used.

[Hilander]

I was listening to Hillary on TV this morning. She wants background checks for gun shows and online purchases. Which there should be. However she starts in on how victims of gun crimes should be able to sue the manufacturer. She wants the law protecting them changed. That is stupid, that is like holding a car manufacturer responsible for someone using it to kill someone.

If victims of gun crime were able to sue the manufacturer the way I see it two things could happen. No more gun manufacturers or the price of a gun becoming so expensive no one could afford one still effectively putting them out of business.

If a gun blows up in your face they should be held responsible for that but that is it.

How about just holding the person the does the crime responsible.

Thoughts?

 

[EdgeHead]

I'm not the most knowledgeable guy when it comes to this kind of stuff but clearly, suing the manufacturers isn't the right move. They're not to blame for whatever happens once a customer gets ahold of them.

 

[Hilander]

She said she just couldn't believe when the family of a murder victim tried to sue the manufacturer it was thrown out of court and the family had to pay the court costs. No kidding start a frivolous lawsuit and that is what happens.

Of course she started in on the NRA.

 

[Knight_of_Albion]

Of course it is the proliferation of guns and ready availability of guns that is the issue.

Blaming the manufacturer isn't the answer. No more than you can blame the car company for someone drink driving.

Certainly America needs stringent gun controls.
'The right to bear arms'... Things were a lot different back then - and so was the calibre of the weaponry.
Pistols and one shot 'powder and ball' flintlock rifles if my knowledge of history is correct.
Now ordinary citizens can acquire state of the art military grade weapons and that isn't right.

Shootings in America are reported on the news channels here, but they're so common, they're usually relegated to the 'other news' segments half way through the programme.

We have gun control here in the UK and even though I note there are several pro-gun sites claiming otherwise, gun crime has fallen.

 

[Hilander]

We can't buy military grade weapons here unless you have a special permit.

 

[Hilander]

Looks like Sanders is going to jump on the lets sue the manufacturers band wagon even though he voted for the bill giving them protection from lawsuits. So what else is he going to change his mind about because of a little pressure from the left.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-bernie-sanders-at-odds-with-obama-on-guns/

 

[Merc]

I want Hillary held responsible for for all the money she's accepting from Wall Street.

 

[Bubbles]

I'm not the most knowledgeable guy when it comes to this kind of stuff but clearly, suing the manufacturers isn't the right move. They're not to blame for whatever happens once a customer gets ahold of them.

This is pretty much what I came in here to say. How is this any different from someone eating Krispy Kreme donuts every single day because they have no self control and then going and suing Krispy Kreme because they're fat?

I'm all for gun regulations but this definitely isn't the way to do it.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Of course it is the proliferation of guns and ready availability of guns that is the issue.

Blaming the manufacturer isn't the answer. No more than you can blame the car company for someone drink driving.

Certainly America needs stringent gun controls.
'The right to bear arms'... Things were a lot different back then - and so was the calibre of the weaponry.
Pistols and one shot 'powder and ball' flintlock rifles if my knowledge of history is correct.
Now ordinary citizens can acquire state of the art military grade weapons and that isn't right.

Shootings in America are reported on the news channels here, but they're so common, they're usually relegated to the 'other news' segments half way through the programme.

We have gun control here in the UK and even though I note there are several pro-gun sites claiming otherwise, gun crime has fallen.

1) By that logic the First Amendment doesn't apply to anything other than pens made by the feather of a bird, or the Fourth Amendment does not apply to spying on telephone calls.

2) How can an ordinary citizen purchase military grade weapons? When has an ordinary citizen used military grade weapons in any of these shootings? And if you are going to go there, since what ordinary citizens used back in 1791 were "one shot powder and ball" pistols and flintlock rifles WERE what the then military used, shouldn't it still be the same now?

3) You don't have gun control there, you have a ban on guns. WE have gun control here. First, I've seen stats where homicides there have actually gone up, secondly, comparing countries with unique characteristics is nonsensical.

ALL that being said, that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. The thread isn't about gun control, the thread is about responsibility. If I use my hammer to bash in my neighbors skull, was it foreseeable by Craftsman Tools who made the hammer, or Sears when they sold it to me, that I would commit that murder? The answer is no, so why would we change our entire Torts litigation and do away with decades of law starting with Palsgraf, a seminal case a lawyer such as Hillary Clinton SHOULD be familiar with?