Gun maker liable survey USA Today


PDA






4thHorseman
July 30, 2005, 01:01 AM
USA Today is running an article with a voting survey in it asking your opinion on whether or not gun makers should be protected against law suites from crimes and illigal use of firearms committed with their guns.
Go read the article and vote

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-28-GOP-guns_x.htm

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun maker liable survey USA Today" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Double Maduro
July 30, 2005, 01:14 AM
We're winning 92-7 %

DM

Jim K
July 30, 2005, 08:50 AM
Unless they can get that poll turned around, they won't publish the result.

I am thinking of filing a suit against The Washington Post. Having observed that 80% of the trash on District streets seems to consist of old newspapers, and that most of it is from The Washington Post, I am considering filing a $500 billion dollar suit against the Post for offending my senses and littering the streets. (Of course the real reason is that the paper is a left-wing rag, and I want to put them out of business, but I dare not say that - I must keep to honest environmental concerns.)

The Post will, I am sure, cite freedom of the press, but that is irrelevant. I am not trying to control what they print, only how they dispose of their trash. They will also say that they are not responsible for the actions of third parties in discarding the paper, but they themselves have already destroyed that argument by saying that gun makers should be responsible for what third or fourth parties do with guns.

So how about it? I am signing up people who would like a piece of the action, and getting a tort lawyer should be no problem. I wonder what John Edwards is doing now.

Maybe if enough folks sign on, I'll make it 500 trillion dollars. Why think small?

Jim

Ohen Cepel
July 30, 2005, 08:56 AM
Up to 93% now. I'm sure that poll will never see the light of day!

Old Fuff
July 30, 2005, 09:27 AM
Jim Keenan:

You have the right idea, but to match the gun-grabbers you need to get all of your friends to file identical lawsuits so that the Post has to defend itself against a lot of different actions.

Then you have to do the same thing to all of the newspapers in the country. :evil:

That after all, is what they did to the handgun industry. :cuss:

txgho1911
July 30, 2005, 10:41 AM
Or have your lawyer do it. Why do you have him on retainer if you never use him?
Some jurisdictions it's a small fee and others you might spend 1 or 2 k on the matter.

thebaldguy
July 30, 2005, 12:03 PM
Is Ford held responsible if someone drives one of their vehicles intoxicated and hurts someone? Does the brewer or distiller get sued as well? I do know that bars can be liable if they overserve a client, but where does this responsibility begin and end?

Does General Motors get sued if someone uses a Chevrolet as a getaway car after a robbery?

I don't see why firearms are different. How can the firearms company and/or retailer be held responsible if they follow the law? How can they prevent illegal use of their legal products?

svtruth
July 30, 2005, 02:43 PM
Do people sue the med school when a doc croaks a family member?

shecky
August 1, 2005, 02:52 AM
Is Ford held responsible if someone drives one of their vehicles intoxicated and hurts someone? Does the brewer or distiller get sued as well? I do know that bars can be liable if they overserve a client, but where does this responsibility begin and end?

Software companies can be held liable if folks use their software to swap things like music or movies illegally. The entertainment industry convinced the govt that this was a good idea, and the Supreme Court recently upheld this law. So it seems that a manufacturer can indeed be liable if their wares are used illegally.

Of course, it helps if you buy enough influence to help politicians see things your way. Like the entertainment business. Or the NRA.

mnrivrat
August 1, 2005, 03:56 AM
Of course, it helps if you buy enough influence to help politicians see things your way. Like the entertainment business. Or the NRA.

The NRA spent most of their years of existance promoting the shooting sports and training marksmanship and safety. In close partnership with the government I might add.

It's members shouldn't have to spend a nickel trying to get politicions to adhere to their oath of office ,which includes protecting the constitution.

Unfortunately the influence of the anti - gun crowd has to be countered in some way, and being able to remind the politicians that there is a second amendment cost money. (that's how politics work these days - just ask your congressman )

If your pissed because you can't download your rap music , write a letter , start an organization - The National I Wanna Steal Music Association. Maybe the law your speaking of shouldn't exist ? I don't know much about it to be honest.

If your pissed because the NRA spends time and money trying to keep our second amendment rights ? Well, then there is wear we part company !

KriegHund
August 1, 2005, 04:05 AM
Of course, since this poll didnt go the way they wanted it will never be mentioned.

Had it been the oppiste results it would be blared all over cnn and abc as well as the papers. As it stands no one will ever hear a word.

shecky
August 1, 2005, 11:20 AM
If your pissed because you can't download your rap music , write a letter , start an organization - The National I Wanna Steal Music Association. Maybe the law your speaking of shouldn't exist ? I don't know much about it to be honest.

Point is, justice goes to whoever offers the most money. Constitutional rights, my ass. You need advocacy to make sure the constitution is interpreted your way. In this case, the law clearly blames the tool (software) for the illegal act (downloading mp3s). Just like the entertainment industry wants. The shrewd stance of the NRA, for better or worse, is knowing when to pick a fight.

In the US, pretty much anyone can be sued by anyone else for anything. While I don't like that gun manufacturers can be sued when their wares are used illegally, this kind of special interest boondoggle is a perfect example of the broken system where gun mfgrs now have special rights, unless you can get it to apply to everyone equally and consitently.

shecky
August 1, 2005, 11:24 AM
Up to 93% now. I'm sure that poll will never see the light of day!

I don't get it. The poll is viewable by anyone who wants to see it.

blackdragon
August 1, 2005, 11:27 AM
"the law clearly blames the tool (software) for the illegal act"?

No.

Fine distinction here, that you missed.

The supremes upheld that a software package marketed to commit crimes was illegal, hence the "official" purpose of the package was to break the law. That kinda makes sense.

To compare with guns, colt would need to run a "colt 1911s. Best for knocking over convenience stores".

Justice, in this case, pretty much was on the money.

Keith

Cesiumsponge
August 1, 2005, 11:36 AM
:D 94%-5% now

Though both my Senators voted in the 5% group :mad:

shecky
August 1, 2005, 11:41 AM
That is a distinction, but a bogus one. It still blames the tool for the illegal act. Something every gun advocate should be wary of.

This still puts gun industry at risk if they advertise their wares as offering better stopping/killing power.

The supremes upheld that a software package marketed to commit crimes was illegal, hence the "official" purpose of the package was to break the law. That kinda makes sense.

This is the kind of sense that got the ball rolling on assault weapon bans. After all, Tec-9s and Streetsweepers are preferred by gangbangers 9-1, right? ;)

CajunBass
August 1, 2005, 11:53 AM
Is Ford held responsible if someone drives one of their vehicles intoxicated and hurts someone? Does the brewer or distiller get sued as well? I do know that bars can be liable if they overserve a client, but where does this responsibility begin and end?

Does General Motors get sued if someone uses a Chevrolet as a getaway car after a robbery?

I don't see why firearms are different. How can the firearms company and/or retailer be held responsible if they follow the law? How can they prevent illegal use of their legal products?

Actually that would be the next step. The government (at all levels) is always on the lookout for "deep pockets". They have raised taxes to the point now that they can't do that without a fight, so they have to look elsewhere for more money to spend. The tobacco settlement gave them a taste. Now they're looking around for other "evils" to protect us from. Guns, alcohol, automobiles, fast food, anything they can demonize and make look evil, they'll want to "protect" us from. After all, it's "for the children" you know.

willeo6709
August 1, 2005, 12:11 PM
I say this not as a class 7 manufacturer of firearms but as a US citizen. As long as I do business in a lagal manner, I should have no repurcussions when someone uses one of my products outside the law. If the legal industry is not brought under control this nation is headed for a death swirl. Addressing the statement "for the children", its so for the children that over 200 million dollars in Federal excise(sp?) tax was collected on firearms purchases in 2002 I believe. I can't tell you where that money goes... but you can damn sure believe it was not all for law enforcement and education.

Cesiumsponge
August 1, 2005, 12:12 PM
They start by attacking the smallest statistical slice of the pie as it'll get the minimal of uproar. NFA weapons were banned since those who owned them were a small percentage as compared to hunters and whatnot. Then, we tried to ban assault rifles since it was the next smallest slice of the pie in terms of gun ownership.

Eventually they're going to nip and bite at the edges until all that's left are bolt-action hunting rifles. Then they'll try to ban those and those anti-assault weapon hunters will realize what is happening...and it'll be too late.

Once in a while you'll get someone who tries the waters to see "what would happen" and what the reaction is from the media and us. You watch...eventually someone is going to sue a car company because their vehicle was stolen or used in a murder.

This poll is probably to see where their audience (or anyone who gets the link) stands. They'll either view the result and modify their outlook to be more popular with us (unlikely) or view it as their efforts aren't good enough, and they'll ramp up anti-gun material.

DirtyBrad
August 1, 2005, 12:17 PM
If I'm not mistaken, this isn't the type of poll that gets released one way or the other. You see these kinds of polls all the time in the middle of articles or whatever and you can vote and see the results. But it's not as if the results are publishable, no matter what the results.

mnrivrat
August 1, 2005, 01:51 PM
Fine distinction here, that you missed.

Blackdragon : He still misses the distinction , but perhaps your comparison of ,

To compare with guns, colt would need to run a "colt 1911s. Best for knocking over convenience stores".

was not quite the right one. What he doesn't get is that the product he defends only has one usage - and that usage is an illegal act. (unless it has other uses that I'm not aware of).

To compare, the gun industry would have to build a product that has no other purpose than to commit a crime. Whatever gun that is ?

shecky :

this kind of special interest boondoggle is a perfect example of the broken system where gun mfgrs now have special rights,

There is a difference between protecting a right and getting a special right. If special right is even the right way to say - a privilege , as you seem to think this law is.

I can agree with you that we sadly have to fight like hell "to make sure the constitution is interpreted your way" .
I just can't relate the mp3 thing with second ammendment rights which are specific and easy to interpret for those who are not anti-gun . And I can't relate to your anomisity toward the NRA for working to protect us from loosing our second amendment rights by helping manufactures stay in business with the legal products they provide.

We live in a world that sometimes seems upside down to me . People can sue a restraunt for spilling coffee on themselves ? , the tobacco industry can be sued for the health damage caused by a product that you are warned is bad for you right on the package ? There are those who want to sue the restraunts for making you fat ? I'm amazed at the mess the lawyers can make out of common sense. I'm amazed that we have to try to pass a law just to stop this kind of stupidity .

allmons
August 1, 2005, 02:14 PM
I agree with the comparisons to a point, but the Supremes were wrong to rule against software companies. As to other uses of KAzaa, Grokster and the like, I direct your attention to post 911- ALL the major networks began to IMMEDIATELY censor those horrifying images to "prevent a backlash against the Muslim community".

The ONLY place free Americans could share images, videos and thoughts uncensored by the Old Media Giants was on the INTERNET. The file sharing services were vitally important to share and save those images.

If the censoring continues, where else can Americans far apart get truth? I do not trust the DOJ as far as I can fling wreckage from Mount Carmel or a door from Randy Weaver's house.

If there are concerns about misuse, tag MP3's so that they cannot be given away freely. It makes much more sense than trying to shut down file sharing. It is not all porn and stolen copyrighted material, you know.

:)

Andrew Rothman
August 1, 2005, 02:30 PM
Of course, since this poll didnt go the way they wanted it will never be mentioned.

Had it been the oppiste results it would be blared all over cnn and abc as well as the papers. As it stands no one will ever hear a word.

Baloney. This is a non-scientific self-selected-respondents survey. As DirtyBrad says, they are NEVER mentioned.

The poll exists because it makes readers feel like they have input on national matters.

Not that it hurts anything for people to see that 97% of respondents are pro-gun, but news organizations know the difference between the Gallup poll and a box on a web site.

Chrontius
August 1, 2005, 06:19 PM
People can sue a restraunt for spilling coffee on themselves ?

McDonalds knew that coffee at 185 degrees was undrinkable and horribly dangerous. The woman who spilled coffee had the cup *dumped* in her lap by the window clerk, who was holding it by the un-secured lid.

Facts here. (http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm)

My favorite tidbit:

Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

McDonalds knew they were being evil, and they kept doing it. All they had to do was twist this little knob here on the coffee machine, and make sure they had the lids on all the way when they sold a cup of coffee. They were asking - no, begging - for it.

Andrew Rothman
August 1, 2005, 06:22 PM
The woman who spilled coffee had the cup *dumped* in her lap

Nope. At least, not that I've ever heard, and not mentioned in your link. (And you'd think they would -- it'd be pretty damning!)

Chrontius
August 1, 2005, 06:45 PM
Do you know how many McDonalds burn lawsuits there've been?

Quite a few.

Company documents showed that in the past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third degree, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.

Ah, here's the case. (http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm) ... Mr. Morgan planned to introduce photographs of his previous client's injuries and those of a California woman who suffered second- and third-degree burns after a McDonald's employee spilled hot coffee into her vehicle in 1990, a case that was settled out of court for $230,000.

mattw
August 1, 2005, 07:09 PM
95% yes with 7749 votes. cool. that means out of 7749 people only 387 or so are actual retards.

entropy
August 1, 2005, 07:22 PM
That's about 2/3 of the House of Representatives, right? ;)

mnrivrat
August 1, 2005, 07:40 PM
Stella Liebeck had bought a 49-cent cup of coffee at the drive-in window of an Albuquerque McDonald's, and while removing the lid to add cream and sugar had spilled it, causing third-degree burns of the groin, inner thighs and buttocks.

McDonalds knew that coffee at 185 degrees was undrinkable and horribly dangerous. The woman who spilled coffee had the cup *dumped* in her lap by the window clerk, who was holding it by the un-secured lid.

Chrontius, The upper quote is what I found regarding the coffee law suit.

Your version doesn't match very well .

She got $2.9 million - Hell, I'll let you throw a cup of hot coffee in my lap for 1/2 that. But that is not what this thread is about anyway.

The protection of the firearms manufactures does not extend to area's where they are negligent . It is about their lack of control of how their products are used.

Even Stella didn't sue the manufacturer of the coffee maker ! She sued the business that supposedly misused it .

Magnum Mike
August 3, 2005, 01:47 PM
Blaming gun manufacturers for the criminal deeds of a few is the equivelant of blaming Boeing for the September 11th attacks.

I'm glad S.397 passed and I'm also glad to see the majority of the people who participated in the USA Today poll also agreed with the majority in Friday's senate vote.

Flyboy
August 3, 2005, 03:50 PM
What he doesn't get is that the product he defends only has one usage - and that usage is an illegal act. (unless it has other uses that I'm not aware of).
Peer-to-peer filesharing services have one purpose: transferring data. What data gets transferred is a function of what the users put into it. In many cases, the users are encouraged to put copyrighted data into the system by marketing (some programs even have interfaces which restrict inserted data to certain file types, such as MP3). The firearms equivalent would be a gun dealer runs a promotion to the effect of "Kimber: great for bank robbery," or, in the latter case, only sells to those with criminal records or stated plans to commit crimes (ignore, for a moment, the prohibition on selling to felons; it'd still be negligence at best). KaZaA and others followed that model: they marketed their software as being great for--and in some cases, specifically for--sharing music and videos. The reasonable person would assume that the users to whom the software was marketed would not own the copyrights to that data which they'd be sharing, hence the verdict. I'm not fond of it--I much prefer the RIAA's suits against actual violators--but it seems legally reasonable.

As for "other uses," yes, they do exist. I use BitTorrent all the time--I get my Linux ISOs through it (copyrighted, but distributed freely under the GPL), and World of Warcraft (a computer game) distributes its patches through BitTorrent. In these cases, the files are being shared legally; furthermore, by using BitTorrent, the data transfer is decentralized, dramatically increasing available bandwidth for all while reducing server load on the file's originator. When you have five million people all trying to download a multi-megabyte patch at the same time (in the same day, anyway), well, that's a ton of bandwidth. Offload that to a decentralized system like BitTorrent, and they download from each other, rather than Blizzard (the author), saving Blizzard a ton of bandwidth and making the patch more easily available to all. Linux distros generally weigh in at about 650 MB per disc, and many of them (Debian, for example) are written and hosted by nonprofits, who can't afford server farms and Great Honking Pipes to the internet. BitTorrent makes life much easier for them.

The difference, then, between BitTorrent and KaZaA is that BitTorrent doesn't position itself as a source of "free" music; hence, BitTorrent would likely be ruled to be legal, where KaZaA wasn't.

Henry Bowman
August 3, 2005, 04:04 PM
The difference, then, between BitTorrent and KaZaA is that BitTorrent doesn't position itself as a source of "free" music; hence, BitTorrent would likely be ruled to be legal, where KaZaA wasn't. That appears to be a correct interpretation of the current law.

mnrivrat
August 3, 2005, 04:05 PM
Flyboy ,

Thanks for the info . Your signiture line isn't kidding is it ? LOL

Now I gotta go take my pill because my head hurts . I did actualy understand most of it . ( I think ? ) :D

MoeMentum
August 3, 2005, 04:24 PM
The liberal media rides again. Will they ever stop !

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun maker liable survey USA Today" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!