Maybe Bernie has been right about gun manufacturers

[jg10003]

I support Bernie. I also support the same gun control measures as almost everyone on DU does (i.e. background checks, waiting periods, gun show loophole, assault weapons ban, etc.). But I have a hard time understanding why gun manufacturers should be held accountable if someone commits a crime with a gun.

This is not the same as cigarette companies selling a product that they know is dangerous while publicly stating that cigarettes do not cause cancer. Gun manufacturers do not deny their products are dangerous. They produce dangerous but legal products. If a manufacturer makes a gun that is accordance with government regulations, then how are they responsible if the gun is used in a crime?

Also if a gun store obeys all federal and state laws when selling a gun, then why should they be held responsible if the gun is used in a crime?

[bravenak]

1. What if they are making guns easier for children with small hands to use effectively?

That should be something we can sue them for to make them safer. Too many kids getting hands on parents guns. What if they are making them harder to track? Then they can get anywhere, and we cannot trace them. That should be considered. What if they are marketing them to people who should not have them like biker gangs and such? That should be litigated. They should not have any more immunity than the tobacco companies.

[pablo_marmol]

10. "They should not have any more immunity than the tobacco companies."

Poor analogy, since as has been pointed out tobacco is always harmful, and guns are only harmful when wielded by the small percentage of criminal gun owners.

Sandy Hook and the Oregon shooting were the result of two moms not having the sense to keep their mentally challenged sons away from their firearms. Yet "the gun" gets the blame. Really?

[bravenak]

13. When are guns not potentially deadly? They are instruments of death. Their purpose is to kill.

To kill to protect. To kill to murder. To kil to kill to kill. That is what they are designed to do. Kill.

[MH1]

20. WTF? - "guns are only harmful when wielded by the small percentage of criminal gun owners"

Have you TOTALLY MISSED the recurring theme of small children getting their hands on an improperly stored, loaded gun, and killing or wounding themselves or others?

Do you not consider these instances "harmful"?

[aikoaiko]

23. But all those things are owner issues - not manufacturer or dealer issues.

All new guns come with a gun lock.

[Hoyt]

2. IMO, folks who profit from gunz should be held responsible.

They need to find another way to make a living.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

11. Bull, it a LEGAL activity. I'd like to make it illegal, but it's not.

On what legal grounds will you hold them responsible. You've got nothing.

[Hoyt]

25. Yeah, racism, confederate flags, being an a#@h%#e, greed, etc., are legal too. And just because

it's legal, doesn't mean you have to do it. You must be a gun fancier.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

31. I hate guns. Never have owned one in 60 years and never will.

I just know the laws of the land.

[Hoyt]

36. OK, sorry, you sounded like a gun nut for a moment. Again, just because something is legal, it

doesn't mean you have to engage in it.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

39. Correct. But it doesn't mean you can't either. Looks like a stalemate.

[Kalidurga]

3. He is right

It would be like suing a liquor store for a drunk driving accident. Car manufacturers for car crashes that were not the result of mechanical failure. Suing a knife maker for a stabbing incident. Suing a city park for a teeter totter accident. We don't do those things for a reason. If the product is used as intended then all is good, a hunter gets to hunt and people get to protect themselves or their families. But, the problem is violence people are willing to commit it. That is what we have to understand. We need to take domestic violence seriously, change the culture of Law Enforcement to trying to save lives rather than stomp on people that don't comply with orders, and build a better mental health system.

[Bread and Circus]

4. I actually think all gun owners should need a license and all guns should need a licensed owner or

Be destroyed

[hack89]

26. How do you find all those illegal guns so they can be destroyed? Nt

[Bread and Circus]

37. You cant initially... but

There are several things that would happen: Peoplr will registdr unregistered guns because having an unregistered gun would be a crime, any guns found during lawful searches or arrests that are not registered would be confiscated and destroyed, all new guns would only sold to licensed gun owners (same for ammo and reloading supplies), all guns would have an ID number sinilar to your car VIN.

By tying licenses to guns and guns to licenses you can then create a climate of accountability for guns. People become responsible for what their guns do.

You can't loan your car to a drunk without some responsibility if he kills someone. You can't have a cache of guns for your nutty grandson to shoot up a school without you paying the price as well.

Criminals will still have guns but over time the supply will tighten up and licensed owners eill protect their guns that much more.

I don't believe in taking guns away. I like guns in many ways. I just believe in tight regulation.

[hack89]

40. Not sure it will save many lives

It is irrelevant to the majority of gun deaths which are suicides. It is irrelevant to mass shooters because they don't care. It is irrelevant to most criminals because you can't legally require them to register their guns.

The flaw in your idea is that it doesn't really apply to the people that are killing others.

[cantbeserious]

5. He Is Right - The Public Needs A Villain To Blame For The Perceived Evil

eom

[MisterP]

6. the Tobacco Institute was dissolved after everyone found out about the massive corruption

they'd engaged in--of course Sanders is the best chance for that happening with the beasts of NRAILA

[DemocraticWing]

7. Blaming the companies lets our nation's cowardly gun laws off the hook.

It's completely legal to own a firearm in the United States. Now we all know what firearms can do, but it's completely legal to have one. As such, there is demand for that firearm and people will manufacture and sell them to meet that demand. This is a legal transaction, and so if somebody uses a gun they legally own to commit a crime, our laws only punish the person for the crime but not just for owning the weapon they used to commit it.

As long as guns are legal to own in the US, then legally manufacturing them and selling them should not make you liable anymore than car companies are liable for stupid drivers having accidents or alcohol companies are liable for drunk people beating people up.

We need gun control, to keep guns out of people who commit crimes. Shifting the blame to companies who make guns erases the real responsibility for our gun violence epidemic: bad people who hurt people and the government which enables them.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

12. Maybe we should require kitchen knife makers to pay for lost fingers.

Maybe we should ban baseball bats because they are a favorite to use for bashing a skull.

This whole topic is stupid. Just like the anti-abortionists. If you don't like abortion you need to get the law changed. You don't have the right to kill doctors providing a LEGAL service.

[ibegurpard]

8. He absolutely is right about it

The idiots calling for this have allowed their zealotry to blind them to what an awful precedent this would set.

[pablo_marmol]

9. Allow me to join the chorus of those who know that Bernie is right on this.

The vast majority of guns are not used criminally, and persons who do commit gun violence are rarely new to the criminal justice system. Attempting to punish gun makers for the actions of criminals is dishonorable and hypocritical.....and driven by frustration over the continued failures of gun restriction. Nothing more than dishonest back-door "gun control".

[ProgressiveEconomist]

33. You've missed the main point

of the mistaken Tiahrt Amendment Bernie supported. It's not 'the proportion of guns that are used criminally', but rather the proportion of gun sellers responsible for most guns recovered at crime scenes, that is relevant to Bernie's errant vote. We have known for 20 years that just one percent of dealers are responsible for 57 percent of crime guns. Click through http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251811369 .

Bernie's vote made finding those execrable dealers and holding them accountable for their carnage virtually impossible, just as the NRA and the gun-runners they protect wanted.

[mymomwasright]

14. Yep!

Like saying Bud is responsible for drunks!

[BainsBane]

15. or Phillip Morris responsible for lung cancer

Only they are.

[TeddyR]

21. Phillip Morris

Knew that their product contained chemicals that caused cancer and hid that danger from the public and at one point lied about that fact. If the safety on a gun malfunctions and the gun injures or kills someone then you can sue the manufacturer for a defective product. But as with any item in the market, you don't get to sue the manufacturer when someone is negligent -- like say leaving a loaded gun unsecured where children can get it -- or when a criminal misuses it. As others have pointed out you don't sue Ford when someone drives while drunk and injures others or a knife company when someone stabs another. We don't get to sue the manufacturers of legal items we dislike simply because we dislike them.

[tecelote]

16. Let's hold pharmaceutical companies responsible for deaths then.

Car manufacturers, Extreme sports, etc.

Doesn't make sense.

---

On second thought, pharmaceuticals...

[BainsBane]

17. the law has been used to protect gun corporations

from responsibility for knowingly selling to illegal gun traffickers, and a whole realm of illicit activity.
Bernie's defense is the NRA position. They want to ensure unfettered profits for the corporate gun industry, and here we have people who go on about Wall Street 24/7 defending the bloody profits of Murder Inc. So much for corporate accountability. The work of the MIC and gun manufacturers do in carrying out genocide in urban areas is far too important to be encumbered by the rights of lowly citizens.

If the law only did what Bernie and the NRA claim, there would be no need for special immunity. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

[Scuba]

18. What law? Citation please.

[TeddyR]

22. I'd also be interested in knowing when this law was used to block a lawsuit

Against a manufacturer for "knowingly selling to illegal gun traffickers." Were those traffickers arrested? Was the manufacturer sued and the lawsuit thrown out by a judge? I am not aware of this happening.

[aikoaiko]

24. You went too far on that one.

If there is even the smallest amount of evidence that corporations are knowingly selling to illegal traffickers then PLCAA doesn't apply and the suit can go forward.

[hack89]

27. Bull shit

The law is not a shield from criminal acts. You know better than that.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

32. Quite the fantasy world you live in.

[Jim Lane]

44. A look at this thread will show you why your last paragraph is wrong.

You write:

If the law only did what Bernie and the NRA claim, there would be no need for special immunity. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

The fact is that there is anti-gun sentiment that (justifiably) is far greater than any anti-hammer sentiment. The result is that the manufacturer of a lawful product has little to worry about if the product is hammers, but has to worry what a jury will do if the product is guns. Even being sued and winning (perhaps winning on an appeal after an expensive and unsuccessful trial) will be costly.

That's not to say that the law is perfect. It's hard to tailor a law that covers all and only the circumstances you have in mind. My vague impression is that there have been some cases where the law did shield a manufacturer from liability where, in fairness, it should have been imposed. Sanders has said he'd be open to considering amendments to tweak the law in light of experience.

The most important fact situation, though, is that the manufacturer does nothing wrong except manufacture and sell a product that many people think ought to be illegal. In that situation, the remedy is to make the product illegal. Trying to accomplish that goal through the back door of civil liability is an abuse of the tort system.

[dreamnightwind]

19. This has seemed obvious to me all along

and I despise guns and the companies that profit from them.

[Hepburn]

28. Exactly the same opinion.

I am a lawyer and if someone "misuses" a product, that usually is a good defense on a lawsuit. I hate guns, but I am also aware that they can be obtained and used legally.

[petronius]

29. Sanders was correct to support the PLCAA, and he should continue to do so

If it requires small adjustments over time--as many/most laws do--then that's worthy of discussion, but supporting the PLCAA in general is a point in his favor, not against him (IMO, of course)...

[bigwillq]

30. I agree.

Good post.


It's like a car. Cars kill. The car company should not be held at fault for the action of the driver, unless the car had a malfunction.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

35. And the seller of a handgun, which is purposely designed to kill, if sold legally,

is blameless for whatever the buyer does with it (unless they knew before the sale that the buyer planned to kill someone with it).

[FlatBaroque]

34. There is as much logic as suing gun manufacturers for selling dangerous products

as there is suing Coca-Cola for the sugar in their soda.

[tammywammy]

38. I agree with Sanders on PLCAA. n/t

[DanTex]

41. No, he wasn't right. He was completely wrong.

Gun manufacturers don't need or deserve special legal protection. PLCAA was a giveaway to the NRA, and it was passed because gun manufacturers were being successively sued for knowingly profiting from criminal gun violence.

Some, like Smith and Wesson, had agreed to change their business practices as a result of these lawsuits, and adopt responsible measures to reduce the incidence of their guns ending up in criminal hands. The NRA didn't like that at all, and they got their friends in congress to pass a brazen legal giveaway so that gun companies could continue to profit from criminal gun violence.

That fact that "progressives" are even considering siding with Bernie on this is evidence that the Bernie movement is caught up in a cult of personality, as opposed to being issues-oriented as they claim. Nobody in their right mind would be in favor of special legal immunity for the gun industry, except Saint Bernie can do know wrong...

[ProgressiveEconomist]

42. So Bernie has blood on

his hands, in cities like Chicago where gun violence has overwhelmed law enforcement?

And he says he wants to do better among Black and Latino voters?

Which side is Bernie on?

[Jim Lane]

45. Your smear of progressives is a lie.

I, for one, knew about PLCAA long before Sanders declared his candidacy. At a time when he wasn't running, and when I didn't even know how he'd voted on the bill, I thought it was foolish to impose liability on a gun manufacturer just on the basis that someone used a lawful product in an unlawful way.

Apparently you believe that your opinions are so manifestly correct that no one could possibly disagree with you except from a bad motive, such as a supposed veneration for a supposed "Saint Bernie". Please be advised that you just aren't that brilliant.

[beam me up scottie]

47. ^^^THIS^^^

[kristopher]

46. The staggering level of economic disparity and gun violence are directly linked

Both are manifestations of a culture gone insane by human standards.

The culture isn't insane by all standards, however. If judged by the standards of corpo-critters, this society is humming along smooth and sweet.