Gun Control & RKBA

MindMover

(5,016 posts)

46. Automobile, pharmaceutical and others did not commit fraud ...

Reply to kudzu22 (Reply #45)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 06:02 PM

Jan 2013

and where do you get, "There has to be an element of fraud"

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

60 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If automobile, tobacco, pharmaceutical and other companies .. [View all] MindMover Jan 2013 OP

Gun manufacturers... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #1

I am sure that our Founding Fathers never envisioned the days when we would turn our Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2013 #2

Them Founders... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #5

Can you cite a case where this was successfully accomplished? oldhippie Jan 2013 #3

AFAIK... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #4

Of course they do ... however, knowing that you sell products that kill and maim MindMover Jan 2013 #18

I think you should go for it. discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #21

You can sue a manufacturer ... holdencaufield Jan 2013 #6

O.K. I'll correct you ... spin Jan 2013 #9

Ask the tobacco companies about your theory ... MindMover Jan 2013 #10

Prosecuted if the product can be demonstrated to be misrepresented or defective PuffedMica Jan 2013 #7

You left out tobacco company products ... wonder why .? MindMover Jan 2013 #8

Tobacco companies advertised their products as safe. ... spin Jan 2013 #11

There once was a man called Nader ... MindMover Jan 2013 #14

I have no major problem with "trigger safety technology" as long as it is reliable. ... spin Jan 2013 #29

Of course smart gun technology is more expensive ... MindMover Jan 2013 #35

But adding several hundred dollars to the cost of a firearm might put it out of the reach ... spin Jan 2013 #40

because the product was used correctly and it was misrepresented. Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2013 #12

There was a reason the tobacco lawsuits were sucessful. Travis_0004 Jan 2013 #13

But if the person had been drinking at a bar, you could have sued the bar .. MindMover Jan 2013 #15

Dram shop law DonP Jan 2013 #16

Its getting harder to steal that new Chevy these days .... MindMover Jan 2013 #19

And I think thats a law that can be abused Travis_0004 Jan 2013 #20

I believe that gun manufacturers are responsible for manufacturing there product MindMover Jan 2013 #23

Well, then do something about it. DonP Jan 2013 #24

And I am sure you buckle up everytime you get in your car ... MindMover Jan 2013 #25

but it is gejohnston Jan 2013 #26

The problem with "smart" guns iiibbb Jan 2013 #31

As a matter of fact I do DonP Jan 2013 #28

what safety features are you refering to? iiibbb Jan 2013 #30

There are many ... here is a start .. but of course the gun manufacturers said no ... MindMover Jan 2013 #34

Did you read passed the US manufactures? gejohnston Jan 2013 #36

There are many smart gun technologies that exist ... your wording acceptable is the definition MindMover Jan 2013 #37

under German law, it doesn't exist to an acceptable level where it works gejohnston Jan 2013 #38

Perfection is really the definition ... which sounds more German than American ... MindMover Jan 2013 #39

no it won't gejohnston Jan 2013 #41

When I first learned about firearms, I might have endorsed them iiibbb Jan 2013 #43

Safe for who? ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #33

Tobacco? PuffedMica Jan 2013 #42

If they designed an unsafe or defective product maybe. ileus Jan 2013 #17

If a gun maker makes a shoddy gun, then they can be sued. krispos42 Jan 2013 #22

Has an automobile company been sued for the act of someone deranged? iiibbb Jan 2013 #27

Not under current law ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #32

This is not about current defective product laws ... MindMover Jan 2013 #44

Then unless you are planning to overturn black letter with supporting precedent, you are wasting ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #47

I will not divulge any of our already mounting details other than to refer you to MindMover Jan 2013 #48

Just one thing gejohnston Jan 2013 #49

Why oh why would you refute this book when you could so easily have MindMover Jan 2013 #50

one has nothing to do with the other gejohnston Jan 2013 #54

A semantically inclined person .. counter it is ... MindMover Jan 2013 #56

If you were for real iiibbb Jan 2013 #51

If this is telegraphing then on with it ... MindMover Jan 2013 #55

There has to be an element of fraud kudzu22 Jan 2013 #45

Automobile, pharmaceutical and others did not commit fraud ... MindMover Jan 2013 #46

or unreasonably dangerous Deep13 Jan 2013 #53

Not under current law, and there is a distinction... Deep13 Jan 2013 #52

Oh let me count the ways ... enough, I could not count that high .. examples are better .. MindMover Jan 2013 #57

Did they all know guns are deadly weapons? Deep13 Jan 2013 #58

Yeah, go with that one. gejohnston Jan 2013 #59

Of course they cannot be held liable for negligence or the stupidity of an end user ... MindMover Jan 2013 #60