This message was self-deleted by its author

[NCTraveler]

This message was self-deleted by its author (NCTraveler) on Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:13 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[aikoaiko]

1. How does your link support your assertion of fact?

[NCTraveler]

2. I'm not buying that you can't tell.

It's simply too simple to not understand.

[aikoaiko]

7. It's the "without cause" part that appears unsupported to me.

I suppose that's why the PLCAA is needed since some folks see negligence where none exists.

[PowerToThePeople]

3. It doesn't

But, it helps to support one of the big "gotchas" they think they have on Bernie.

I support a complete gun ban, but certainly am against allowing manufacturers to be held liable in the cases they bring up.

[Lizzie Poppet]

4. I couldn't disagree more.

Nuisance lawsuits are bullshit. Want to cripple gun manufacturers? Muster the votes to enact extreme gun control regulations.

[restorefreedom]

5. suing is not the solution

the products work as intended. if we don't like the product, we have to regulate or ban the sale. lawsuits will only line the pockets of attorneys and keep the sales flowing.

[struggle4progress]

12. Selling a product from which an injury results, that a reasonable person

could have foreseen, should be actionable. Bars, for example, can be held liable for personal injuries caused by their drunken customers

[restorefreedom]

13. true, but bars exist to serve drinks

sometimes people overdrink and get violent. its a misuse of a beverage.

guns exist for one reason. to kill. there is no other option. if we don't like that, we have to get rid of the guns. its that simple.

suing a gunmaker for correctly manufacturing a product whose sole purpose is to kill is ludicrous. the product is working as intended. if we don't like that, we have to get rid of the product or make its production/sale illegal.

lawyers are not going to get us out of this problem.

[The2ndWheel]

24. I'm not a gun guy, but that's not completely accurate

You can own a gun, fire the bullets, while never pointing the gun in the direction of a living thing. You can own a gun, and never fire the bullets. You can even have just the gun with no bullets.

Having a gun doesn't mean you will kill. Just like having a drink doesn't mean you will get drunk.

[struggle4progress]

30. The reason firearms manufacturers are immune from suit is the 2005 act of Congress

[Logical]

15. But can the company making the alcohol? Silly argument! Nt

[zazen]

6. what about US military-manufactured arms used by terrorists?

I'm all for much more restricted gun access and think at the very least AK-47's and AK-15 type assault weapons ought to be illegal for civilians to purchase.I can't believe the guy in CA had a license to own something that can shoot 30 bullets inside of a minute. That's insane.

The arguments by the NRA about all this are sickening. I'm sure we're in agreement in that.

But I'm not sure I understand why the manufacturers should be sued outside of defect. I think it lets our elected officials off the hook. It's like suing distilleries for drunk drivers and cirrhosis deaths. I don't think manufacturers are misleading the public. They're very clear about how well their products kill people. It's our bloodthirsty country and NRA dominated polity that won't restrict their distribution.

Military-funded arms get in the hands of all sorts of foreign interests all the times. Even if the US military pays a private manufacturer to make them (I assume they do), they're authorized to be created for our military. I don't think our government would ever enable the manufacturer of a rocket launcher that ends up in the hands of ISIL to be sued, even though selling arms overseas is probably more heinous than selling them to individuals here in the US.

[B2G]

11. An illegally obtained guns? nt

[GGJohn]

8. Ok,

so I should be able to sue Ford if I get hit by a drunk driver driving a Ford Explorer?

[NCTraveler]

9. If you prove a direct link where Ford promotes drinking and driving in their vehicles.

Hell yes. Why in the world shouldn't you be able to?

[GGJohn]

10. So provide the link that shows the man. promote killing people and we'll talk,

otherwise, firearm man. aren't responsible for the criminal or negligent misuse of their legal product.

[Logical]

20. I 100% agree with you. Stupid argument. Nt

[Logical]

16. Can I sue the company making the beer i drunk? Dumb argument. Nt

[NCTraveler]

18. Yes, you can.

Not sure why you are calling reality dumb, though it often is. lol. If you prove a direct link that they promoted drinking and driving.

[GGJohn]

22. So where's that link that shows firearm manufacturer's promoting killing of people? eom.

[Logical]

23. Which they don't, and neither do gun companies! Show me one gun company ad....

Where they say to use their gun to kill innocent people!

Unless you have it then self delete this silly post.

[NCTraveler]

25. Look at their ads.

I now know why I don't participate in gun topics here. Never seen a group fighting so hard for the one percent against the people. At first you were knowingly and blatantly wrong so you move on. What is silly is the fear some have if gun manufacturers must operate as everyone else.

[GGJohn]

27. So link to an ad that promotes the killing of people.

Should be easy if you really think that's so.

[GGJohn]

29. Firearms man. do operate as everyone else.

Show us a manufacturer that can be sued for the criminal or negligent misuse of a properly functioning product.

[Logical]

14. Nope! Silly over reaction! Nt

[MohRokTah]

17. I disagree. I believe gun owners should be required to license and insure every gun they own.

With 300 million guns in circulation, insurance costs would be kept down by the volume of policies.

Treat them similar to cars. They would then be well regulated.

[NCTraveler]

26. This is the "other option" outside of being able to sue.

It is something I have spoke of favorably in the past. That is the insurance aspect.

[PowerToThePeople]

19. Fetal alcohol syndrome kids

are lining up to take on Samuel Adams and the Napa Valley wineries with your assistance.

[TeddyR]

21. Not a single product manufacturer in the US

Can be held liable when someone misuses their product if the product itself isn't defective. If the product is defective you can sue, just like you can sue a gun manufacturer if the product is defective. For example, if a gun's safety doesn't work properly, or if the gun explodes when you shoot it, then you can sue the manufacturer. You don't get to sue Smith & Wesson because some crazy person shoots someone else, just like you can't sue a knife manufacturer when someone stabs another person.

[NCTraveler]

28. "Can be held liable when someone misuses their product if the product itself isn't defective."

I'm not talking about misuse. These guns aren't being misused according to many gun manufacturers ads.

[NCTraveler]

31. Self deleting.

I was unaware of the gun culture here and had not clue I would spend time debating people on this. Some of the posts are even about other industries that aren't afforded the same one percent protection the gun industry receives. I was truly unaware about this aspect of du. Great learning lesson for me.