Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Fox news poll on protecting gun manufactures

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Lennyjoe, Jul 29, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Lennyjoe

    Lennyjoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,052
    Location:
    Southwestern Ohio
  2. Marshall

    Marshall Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    5,569
    Location:
    Oklahoma, Green Country
    Considering all the damn options, that's a very high amount! :)
     
  3. The Real Hawkeye

    The Real Hawkeye member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,238
    Location:
    Florida, CSA
    It's a very poorly designed poll. It seems designed to split the pro-gun vote between two responses. "Yes" seems to suggest that you favor making gun manufacturers immune even to legit negligence suits (making our real position look absurd), but many people will simply respond yes to it, without looking further. The correct response is lower than this, which is that we want partial shielding designed to protect them from frivolous law suits, without shielding them from legit negligence suits, such as making a gun with a defective sear or designing a gun which could explode when used as instructed.
     
  4. boofus

    boofus Guest

    I agree that the choices are not worded so well. I voted for "Manufacturers should get some but not complete protection."

    Defective products or shoddy worksmanship should still be grounds for law suits. The companies should not be held accountable for the actions of 3rd parties however.

    I think some protection but not complete is what S.397 is.
     
  5. halvey

    halvey Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Messages:
    1,914
    Still 60%
     
  6. Chipperman

    Chipperman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    4,572
    Location:
    Essex Co, MA
    60% yes
    14% no
    4% no special treatment
    20% soem but not complete protection
    2% none of the above


    The poll should have been better designed. Oh well.
     
  7. The Real Hawkeye

    The Real Hawkeye member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,238
    Location:
    Florida, CSA
    If it were designed correctly, it would now be 80% in favor of protecting the gun manufacturers from frivolous law suits. Maybe VanSustran designed it that way so as to mute our efforts.
     
  8. OF

    OF Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,988
    You should probably add 'yes' and 'some' together to get a read, as the poll is phrased about as poorly as it could be...

    edit: yeah, what he said.
     
  9. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    42,969
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    boofus, WRT "Defective products or shoddy worksmanship should still be grounds for law suits.", this bill does not affect that at all. Negligence in manufacture is not at issue in this bill.

    IOW, your vote addressed issues not germane to the poll.

    :), Art
     
  10. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,908
    Location:
    Arizona
    Maybe they should have ask this question:

    Should ALL of the companies in an industry be sued because one of them MIGHT have done something wrong?

    The issue here is that Bill Clinton and the Democrats tried to force the entire handgun industry to accept the so-called Smith & Wesson Agreement, or face bankruptcy. They used government resources and backed 30-some cities in bringing lawsuits against ALL of the handgun companies. Fortunately, the courts didn't buy this, but it cost the companies a fortune to defend themselves, and of course they never got any of that money back. :banghead:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page