• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Legal iability of gun manufacturers [W:28]

TOG 6

TOG 6

Banned
Joined
Mar 10, 2016
Messages
257
Reaction score
69
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Smith and Wesson manufactures a handgun.
This handgun is legally sold to a wholesaler.
The wholesaler legally sells the gun to a retail dealer.
The retail dealer legally sells the gun to a law-abiding citizen.
Someone breaks into the law-abiding citizens house, steals the gun.
The criminal sells the gun to another criminal
The 2nd criminal commits a murder with the stolen gun.

Please present a sound argument as to how Smith and Wesson can be held legally liable in any way for that murder.
 
Re: Legal iability of gun manufacturers

TOG 6 said:
Smith and Wesson manufactures a handgun.
This handgun is legally sold to a wholesaler.
The wholesaler legally sells the gun to a retail dealer.
The retail dealer legally sells the gun to a law-abiding citizen.
Someone breaks into the law-abiding citizens house, steals the gun.
The criminal sells the gun to another criminal
The 2nd criminal commits a murder with the stolen gun.

Please present a sound argument as to how Smith and Wesson can be held legally liable in any way for that murder.
Click to expand...

Who needs a sound argument? The liberals think a law heals all.
 
Re: Legal iability of gun manufacturers

TOG 6 said:
Smith and Wesson manufactures a handgun.
This handgun is legally sold to a wholesaler.
The wholesaler legally sells the gun to a retail dealer.
The retail dealer legally sells the gun to a law-abiding citizen.
Someone breaks into the law-abiding citizens house, steals the gun.
The criminal sells the gun to another criminal
The 2nd criminal commits a murder with the stolen gun.

Please present a sound argument as to how Smith and Wesson can be held legally liable in any way for that murder.
Click to expand...

It is not going to happen, there is no sound argument to be made.

The politics of this issue demand that the anti-gun crowd go after handgun manufactures for how the gun was used irregardless of how "legal" the process was in handling that gun to market. And in that respect, when the politics of the issue takes over like this it is usually logic that is discarded first. The emotion of the debate trumps the logic behind the thinking on holding gun manufactures liable for any action by some individual with a gun.

It is basically like saying we need to hold fork manufactures liable for people eating too much to the point of obesity and diabetes. So, forget about the fat guy and file suit against the person who made the fork.
 
Re: Legal iability of gun manufacturers

TOG 6 said:
Smith and Wesson manufactures a handgun.
This handgun is legally sold to a wholesaler.
The wholesaler legally sells the gun to a retail dealer.
The retail dealer legally sells the gun to a law-abiding citizen.
Someone breaks into the law-abiding citizens house, steals the gun.
The criminal sells the gun to another criminal
The 2nd criminal commits a murder with the stolen gun.

Please present a sound argument as to how Smith and Wesson can be held legally liable in any way for that murder.
Click to expand...
No one can present a sound argument as to how Smith and Wesson can be held legally liable for that murder. Just as no one can present a sound argument as to how a knife manufacturer, baseball bat manufacturer, car manufacturer or any other company can be held legally liable for what criminal purpose someone uses their products for.
 
Re: Legal iability of gun manufacturers

Well, all y'all (been waiting to say this - the "all y'all" thing) are assuming rational thought is behind the left's effort to sue arms manufacturers. This kind of stuff is based wholly on emotion, and the Trial Lawyers Association has members that are only too happy to oblige and file suit. They all, the lawyers and the plaintiffs, believe that every time such a case is heard, a tiny bit more credibility is gathered for their cause. Sooner or later they'll get a ruling, which is one reason why exactly who fills Scalia's seat is so important.
 
Re: Legal iability of gun manufacturers

TOG 6 said:
Smith and Wesson manufactures a handgun.
This handgun is legally sold to a wholesaler.
The wholesaler legally sells the gun to a retail dealer.
The retail dealer legally sells the gun to a law-abiding citizen.
Someone breaks into the law-abiding citizens house, steals the gun.
The criminal sells the gun to another criminal
The 2nd criminal commits a murder with the stolen gun.

Please present a sound argument as to how Smith and Wesson can be held legally liable in any way for that murder.
Click to expand...

Gun manufacturers should not be held liable for any damages done with one of their weapons. That is just stupid. "Hold GM liable for a drunk driving death because one of their cars was driven"...

"Suing Jack Daniels because dad died of alcoholism".

Nope!
 
Re: Legal iability of gun manufacturers

TOG 6 said:
Smith and Wesson manufactures a handgun.
This handgun is legally sold to a wholesaler.
The wholesaler legally sells the gun to a retail dealer.
The retail dealer legally sells the gun to a law-abiding citizen.
Someone breaks into the law-abiding citizens house, steals the gun.
The criminal sells the gun to another criminal
The 2nd criminal commits a murder with the stolen gun.

Please present a sound argument as to how Smith and Wesson can be held legally liable in any way for that murder.
Click to expand...

To me it is as ridiculous to sue the manufacturer of a hand gun (or any other kind of weapon) because somebody committed an illegal act with it as it would be to sue the manufacturer of a ball bat that some bad person used to bludgeon somebody else to death.
 
Re: Legal iability of gun manufacturers

jet57 said:
Gun manufacturers should not be held liable for any damages done with one of their weapons. That is just stupid. "Hold GM liable for a drunk driving death because one of their cars was driven"...

"Suing Jack Daniels because dad died of alcoholism".

Nope!
Click to expand...

JET! We do agree on some things!
 
Re: Legal iability of gun manufacturers

BretJ said:
JET! We do agree on some things!
Click to expand...

Hey man, if it's reasonable I'm right there with ya.
 
Re: Legal iability of gun manufacturers

TOG 6 said:
Smith and Wesson manufactures a handgun.
This handgun is legally sold to a wholesaler.
The wholesaler legally sells the gun to a retail dealer.
The retail dealer legally sells the gun to a law-abiding citizen.
Someone breaks into the law-abiding citizens house, steals the gun.
The criminal sells the gun to another criminal
The 2nd criminal commits a murder with the stolen gun.

Please present a sound argument as to how Smith and Wesson can be held legally liable in any way for that murder.
Click to expand...

It was a means originally for gun Prohibitionists to bankrupt a company through defending baseless lawsuits knowing they would not win anyway. The legal fees were enormous. Hence the legislation to prevent it from happening. Funny how Hillary misrepresents the purpose of said legislation...
 
Re: Legal iability of gun manufacturers

BretJ said:
It was a means originally for gun Prohibitionists to bankrupt a company through defending baseless lawsuits knowing they would not win anyway. The legal fees were enormous. Hence the legislation to prevent it from happening. Funny how Hillary misrepresents the purpose of said legislation...
Click to expand...

the best way to stop this is to bankrupt the attorneys and the plaintiffs who file such suits.

since their goal is to ruin the firearms makers with suits, the courts must financially ruin those who file such bogus suits

Hillary is a pathological liar.
 
Re: Legal iability of gun manufacturers

TurtleDude said:
the best way to stop this is to bankrupt the attorneys and the plaintiffs who file such suits.

since their goal is to ruin the firearms makers with suits, the courts must financially ruin those who file such bogus suits

Hillary is a pathological liar.
Click to expand...

I have to say the Brits have it right; Loser pays legal costs for both sides...as a solicitor, do you see any downside?
 
Re: Legal iability of gun manufacturers

BretJ said:
I have to say the Brits have it right; Loser pays legal costs for both sides...as a solicitor, do you see any downside?
Click to expand...

none whatsoever but plaintiffs' attorneys claim it will have a chilling effect on poor people suing rich companies where the companies' ability to hire better counsel might mean defendants win close cases and then ruin the plaintiffs

on political suits like these suits against the gun makers I would bankrupt their attorneys AND the plaintiffs with multi million dollar sanctions. Those idiots who sued Bushmaster over Adam Lanza or who sued the dealer who legally sold his mother (who passed a background check etc. Ought to be destroyed financially
 
Re: Legal iability of gun manufacturers

Going to slightly sidestep but the only case where a gun maker should be liable (in terms of use of the product) is if there is a known fault in the weapon and they didn't correct it (imo).
 
Re: Legal iability of gun manufacturers

coyotedelmar said:
Going to slightly sidestep but the only case where a gun maker should be liable (in terms of use of the product) is if there is a known fault in the weapon and they didn't correct it (imo).
Click to expand...
Just like any other product sold, the manufacturer is responsible for manufacturing and design defects. That's the extent of their responsibility. As has been pointed out, if an end-user employs the product to commit a crime, that is not the manufacturer's fault. Toyota isn't responsible for drunk driving or robbery escapes, Samsung isn't responsible for terrorist plots using their phones, etc.
 
Re: Legal iability of gun manufacturers

coyotedelmar said:
Going to slightly sidestep but the only case where a gun maker should be liable (in terms of use of the product) is if there is a known fault in the weapon and they didn't correct it (imo).
Click to expand...
That's a defect, not criminal use.
Apples/oranges.
 
Re: Legal iability of gun manufacturers

coyotedelmar said:
Going to slightly sidestep but the only case where a gun maker should be liable (in terms of use of the product) is if there is a known fault in the weapon and they didn't correct it (imo).
Click to expand...

and that is not prevented in the current laws, you sell say a 9mm pistol that blows up when used with SAAMI standard 9mm ammo or if the gun fires after you engaged the safety or when carried as intended with the safety on, you will be able to file, prosecute and win a product liability suit against the maker
 
Re: Legal iability of gun manufacturers

jet57 said:
Gun manufacturers should not be held liable for any damages done with one of their weapons. That is just stupid. "Hold GM liable for a drunk driving death because one of their cars was driven"...

"Suing Jack Daniels because dad died of alcoholism".

Nope!
Click to expand...

:roll: "Ban "high capacity" magazines from all because some asshole misused a gun." Jet, your hypocrisy is showing.
 
Re: Legal iability of gun manufacturers

MACS-24 said:
:roll: "Ban "high capacity" magazines from all because some asshole misused a gun." Jet, your hypocrisy is showing.
Click to expand...

He claimed there is no legitimate use for such things other than warfare. That sort of lie permanently renders any of his arguments on gun issues worthless. And he also has demanded a ban in selling or possessing "assault style weapons" so that criminals (who cannot own any firearm) cannot obtain them from honest owners.
 
Re: Legal iability of gun manufacturers

TurtleDude said:
He claimed there is no legitimate use for such things other than warfare. That sort of lie permanently renders any of his arguments on gun issues worthless. And he also has demanded a ban in selling or possessing "assault style weapons" so that criminals (who cannot own any firearm) cannot obtain them from honest owners.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's why I threw that in there. Everything jet listed in that post of his has been posted to him by a few posters and he blows it off. Now it works. *confused* Maybe 'cause jet like alcohol and GMs? :)
 
Re: Legal iability of gun manufacturers

MACS-24 said:
:roll: "Ban "high capacity" magazines from all because some asshole misused a gun." Jet, your hypocrisy is showing.
Click to expand...

High capacity magazines are blamed for the mass murders that they were used in. The manufacturers of said magazines were not blamed, so your hypocrisy charge is wrong.
 
Re: Legal iability of gun manufacturers

MACS-24 said:
Yeah, that's why I threw that in there. Everything jet listed in that post of his has been posted to him by a few posters and he blows it off. Now it works. *confused* Maybe 'cause jet like alcohol and GMs? :)
Click to expand...

No, you through that in there hoping it would stick, but you're finding out that I'm talking about two different things. I may like the idea of high cap mags in the public market, but I don't advocate that the manufactures are sued.

So, nice try.
 
Re: Legal iability of gun manufacturers

jet57 said:
High capacity magazines are blamed for the mass murders that they were used in. The manufacturers of said magazines were not blamed, so your hypocrisy charge is wrong.
Click to expand...

You are on record for wanting to ban such things and you are on record for saying that the only purpose for such magazines is for WARFARE.
 
Re: Legal iability of gun manufacturers

jet57 said:
No, you through that in there hoping it would stick, but you're finding out that I'm talking about two different things. I may like the idea of high cap mags in the public market, but I don't advocate that the manufactures are sued.

So, nice try.
Click to expand...

I like the idea that citizens can buy any capacity magazine they want and makers are immune to suits based on what some criminals do

SO you are on the same page with me NOW?
 
Re: Legal iability of gun manufacturers

TurtleDude said:
the best way to stop this is to bankrupt the attorneys and the plaintiffs who file such suits.

since their goal is to ruin the firearms makers with suits, the courts must financially ruin those who file such bogus suits

Hillary is a pathological liar.
Click to expand...

Ah! but to be fair knowing the goal and proving it in court are not the same thing. The simple stopping such frivolous claims is probably the best way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom