2016 Postmortem

silenttigersong

(957 posts)

103. Read something about majority of gun deaths suicides

Reply to JRLeft (Original post)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 07:19 PM

Mar 2016

Can you imagine the scam lawyers lining up.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

249 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hillary advocating suing gun manufacturers for shootings is ridiculous. If a person buys a gun [View all] JRLeft Mar 2016 OP

That is precisely why the law as it is today prevents COLGATE4 Mar 2016 #1

There would be lawsuits all of the time. JRLeft Mar 2016 #3

Yep. nt COLGATE4 Mar 2016 #5

Thank you, it's absolutely absurd. JRLeft Mar 2016 #7

Precisely. This is why Secretary Clinton is on the wrong side of this issue. n/t Stand and Fight Mar 2016 #59

It would be identical from an ethics standpoint of suing a kitchen knife ladjf Mar 2016 #2

It is, but it is the wet dream of those who want to get rid of all guns. JRLeft Mar 2016 #4

We need guns for some valid reasons. But, we will become more accurate in the ladjf Mar 2016 #13

It is my opinion that a lot of gun violence will go away with improved quality of life. JRLeft Mar 2016 #15

It's a right not a privilege Press Virginia Mar 2016 #177

I disagree. PowerToThePeople Mar 2016 #171

Thank goodness, what you want will never come to fruition. JRLeft Mar 2016 #182

Again, I disagree. PowerToThePeople Mar 2016 #185

Good luck with that. The democratic would be decimated in an election. JRLeft Mar 2016 #194

You are entitled to your opinion but the notion of banning all guns is frightening to me. AgadorSparticus Mar 2016 #202

Gun haters want guns taken away no matter what. JRLeft Mar 2016 #207

You are probably right. It bugs me, though and I am not even a gun owner. AgadorSparticus Mar 2016 #212

A lot of gun deaths are from illegal guns. States like California and Illinois have very strict JRLeft Mar 2016 #213

My point exactly! That criminal element will always get the guns AgadorSparticus Mar 2016 #218

The gun laws are there to make people feel better. If someone wants a gun bad enough it's not hard JRLeft Mar 2016 #219

Exactly. I think addressing education, economics, mental health, gang violence AgadorSparticus Mar 2016 #221

Agreed, a better quality of life would have the biggest impact on violence. JRLeft Mar 2016 #222

It's the only thing she can cling to in a Dem debate, because she is significantly Svafa Mar 2016 #16

She's antagonizing gun owners like myself. JRLeft Mar 2016 #19

Don't worry though! if she gets the nomination, Svafa Mar 2016 #52

I hope so, threats like that one will be a down ticket disaster. JRLeft Mar 2016 #142

I don't even own a gun and I find that offensive. Nt AgadorSparticus Mar 2016 #203

If kitchen knives were designed to kill... scscholar Mar 2016 #79

I anticipated that someone would make your point and it's a good one. ladjf Mar 2016 #81

Thank you, a ton knives are made to kill people. JRLeft Mar 2016 #102

A machete is not designed to kill but as a tool for jobs like clearing brush. ... spin Mar 2016 #227

For some people hunting is their only source for food. JRLeft Mar 2016 #235

I live in one of the poorest counties in my state. ... spin Mar 2016 #249

Guns aren't designed to kill HoustonDave Mar 2016 #246

What has this got to do with the primaries? Vincardog Mar 2016 #6

Hillary's campaign looks to start making a big deal out of Bernie's vote on this. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #11

Especially in PA, OH, and Mich. JRLeft Mar 2016 #14

No kidding. Go after guns in hunting states. Great idea, Hill. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #18

Most have the attention of a gnat and she knows it. JRLeft Mar 2016 #23

Additionally TM99 Mar 2016 #8

Yea, I don't agree with being able to sue a manufacturer bigwillq Mar 2016 #9

Of course. And that's why that law is a good one. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #10

If they made that into a law. Gwhittey Mar 2016 #12

The lawsuit has no merit and she knows it. She is supporting it to score political points. Vattel Mar 2016 #17

I think she knows this, judging by her lobbyist donors. Eleanors38 Mar 2016 #20

She should continue to advocate this. It will go over well in many of the western states Autumn Mar 2016 #21

She will lose the election in the fall if she's the nominee. JRLeft Mar 2016 #45

Yes she will. Autumn Mar 2016 #53

Yes. She jumped the shark last night and it will cost her dearly. Cowpunk Mar 2016 #208

At the least she cost some Democrat a seat for being pro gun grabbing. JRLeft Mar 2016 #210

As a person who would be OK with the repeal of the 2nd Amendment -- Hell Hath No Fury Mar 2016 #22

Exactly, the fact she could advocate for repeal gives me a reason not to vote for her. JRLeft Mar 2016 #25

Agree and though I support the 2nd amendment I do believe their are better ways to regulate guns. Bread and Circus Mar 2016 #33

I do too, but most democrats advocate banning some or all guns. JRLeft Mar 2016 #37

I dont' think you should ban guns. hollowdweller Mar 2016 #91

Against banning high capacity weapons. It's fun to shoot such weapons. JRLeft Mar 2016 #105

That would be difficult to do now Mnpaul Mar 2016 #119

They're illegal in California. JRLeft Mar 2016 #128

Anything made during the ban is now legal Travis_0004 Mar 2016 #131

Thanks for pointing that out Mnpaul Mar 2016 #138

I'm going to Arizona to get licensed there, I'm buying a home out there. JRLeft Mar 2016 #140

Yeah like how hard right people think they can ban abortions. PyaarRevolution Mar 2016 #113

Both are preposterous. JRLeft Mar 2016 #115

Truth!! AgadorSparticus Mar 2016 #206

this is why there 6 exceptions Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #126

Those lawsuits would be justified IMO. JRLeft Mar 2016 #129

As I understand it..... LAS14 Mar 2016 #24

She needs to move on from guns. She's knows nothing about them. JRLeft Mar 2016 #26

Yes, that's it Dem2 Mar 2016 #29

Tell her to persue taking away all guns in the general election. JRLeft Mar 2016 #34

Like all cars were taken away Dem2 Mar 2016 #90

She's the one that implied it. JRLeft Mar 2016 #101

Then put a speed governor on every car so that no one can drive more than 25 miles per hour. Bread and Circus Mar 2016 #30

so would they be sued Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #127

Nobody that owns a gun for self-defense will trust a fingerprint reading gun. krispos42 Mar 2016 #190

They know guns are being used to unlawfully kill people. MillennialDem Mar 2016 #27

So are knives, hammers, and dozens of other things. Bread and Circus Mar 2016 #28

^ This JRLeft Mar 2016 #40

Guns have no other purpose besides killing animals and practice killing (ie shooting paper targets MillennialDem Mar 2016 #41

People will kill people no matter what. Getting rid of guns won't change that. JRLeft Mar 2016 #43

They will be less likely to kill others. This has been evidenced by homicide studies in MillennialDem Mar 2016 #46

Canadians have a lot of gun owners too and they don't have nearly the gun deaths JRLeft Mar 2016 #50

Canada has 1/4 the guns per capita the US does. MillennialDem Mar 2016 #55

But nowhere near that fraction of gun deaths. That's 1/10. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #60

There are OTHER factors of course. When did I say guns were the only factor? MillennialDem Mar 2016 #63

Not claiming you did. Just pointing out an interesting difference in those comparative rates. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #77

A lower quality of life than Canada. JRLeft Mar 2016 #100

I shoot paper (and steel) targets at least once per week. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #71

Yes guns are about practice killing. And I don't carry a gun and I've never hurt another human MillennialDem Mar 2016 #73

Gee, nice refutation of my several points. /smh Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #95

No, I just disagree with you regarding practice killing MillennialDem Mar 2016 #198

Your fear does not change liability law. jeff47 Mar 2016 #74

You assume I'm a believer in the law. I'm not. Guns must be destroyed for the MillennialDem Mar 2016 #78

You're attempting to use "the law" to get the result you want. jeff47 Mar 2016 #82

The law is only a tool to enact it. I would utilize other ways if they were more practical. MillennialDem Mar 2016 #84

What other ways? Press Virginia Mar 2016 #87

Except the law can not enact your goal jeff47 Mar 2016 #88

Sounds like meeting the gun nuts where they would meet us anyway, which means MillennialDem Mar 2016 #199

Not true, a gun's purpose for many is self defense. That is the purpose. It does this through Bread and Circus Mar 2016 #149

Hollow points are actually safer Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #130

This seems to go along with her statement about fracking starroute Mar 2016 #31

She's flat out pro fracking, that was her way of talking around the issue. JRLeft Mar 2016 #36

I'm amused by all of the highly progressive folks in this thread who are soft/conservative on guns. LonePirate Mar 2016 #32

Not everyone is for taking away guns. Some of us are members of the NRA. JRLeft Mar 2016 #35

And that is perfectly fine so long as you realize that is not the progressive stance on the issue. LonePirate Mar 2016 #38

If the Democrats ever run on complete gun confiscation, they would get JRLeft Mar 2016 #42

So Dems should only run on positions that are popular and not what's best for America? LonePirate Mar 2016 #94

Hillary should stop shilling for Wall Street and actually help people. She only gives a damn about JRLeft Mar 2016 #109

Progressive is empowering the people. hollowdweller Mar 2016 #89

Just to be clear: are you suggesting that "progressive" means trusting the police jonno99 Mar 2016 #99

The police give us ample reason to be armed. JRLeft Mar 2016 #110

I'm sure glad I'm not a progressive Mnpaul Mar 2016 #120

Where do you stand on this issue? JRLeft Mar 2016 #132

Against the bill Mnpaul Mar 2016 #136

Thanks, Hillary was being disingenuous. JRLeft Mar 2016 #144

I've done hundreds of background checks Mnpaul Mar 2016 #148

I with you JRLeft Mar 2016 #151

I think there's a difference between Democratic stance and progressive stance. Bread and Circus Mar 2016 #152

I think personal bias sometimes colors what we think is progressive n/t kcr Mar 2016 #160

I agree, you prefer to be on the wrong side of the issue. JRLeft Mar 2016 #166

What, the issue of lawsuits? n/t kcr Mar 2016 #167

You come off as anti gun. JRLeft Mar 2016 #168

I'd like to know how that's possible given I haven't said one word in this thread kcr Mar 2016 #169

Maybe I was wrong. JRLeft Mar 2016 #173

Maybe. I don't know how anti-gun you would think my position is kcr Mar 2016 #176

I can respect that. JRLeft Mar 2016 #180

Probably. Is there a rulebook somewhere? Bread and Circus Mar 2016 #178

Do you think there is? kcr Mar 2016 #181

Handing over a monopoly on the projection of armed power to a racist oligarchy is "progressive"? Marengo Mar 2016 #215

Because a lot not most progressives have guns... Kalidurga Mar 2016 #39

So if I support Bernie on practically every issue except for guns, then I should not support him? LonePirate Mar 2016 #49

I have no idea what you are trying to get at Kalidurga Mar 2016 #57

You found my avatar amusing in the context of me essentially saying Bernie is soft on guns. LonePirate Mar 2016 #66

You don't get it Kalidurga Mar 2016 #70

Then you find my post amusing and not my avatar. Specifics are hard!!! LonePirate Mar 2016 #72

I find what you think you are communicating amusing and that is from a holistic Kalidurga Mar 2016 #76

No true progressive would argue for special protections for any industry kcr Mar 2016 #51

Well said! I am in complete agreement. LonePirate Mar 2016 #54

They already were immune, in that the cases could not be won. jeff47 Mar 2016 #80

It's still no excuse to support a law that protects a corporation from lawsuits. kcr Mar 2016 #83

The law you loathe actually retains "consumer protectionism" jeff47 Mar 2016 #86

Who decides what they're liable for? How is that supposed to be decided? kcr Mar 2016 #96

If someone is killed with a phone should that phone maker be sued? JRLeft Mar 2016 #133

If the family wants to sue them. kcr Mar 2016 #154

It's a ridiculous fuckin lawsuit. JRLeft Mar 2016 #156

Oh fucking well kcr Mar 2016 #157

seriously? HoustonDave Mar 2016 #248

True Progressives support the Bill of Rights. nt hack89 Mar 2016 #65

True progressives brought us a whole host of amendments: 13th, 17th, 19th, 26th, et al. LonePirate Mar 2016 #68

Why not try to repeal the RKBA portion of the Democratic Party platform first? hack89 Mar 2016 #69

It would be anti American. JRLeft Mar 2016 #111

So the 1st, 2d and 4th TeddyR Mar 2016 #121

Not to gun haters. JRLeft Mar 2016 #145

Where might I find the platform of the "true progressive"? Marengo Mar 2016 #214

Keep fighting to stop citizens access to court. Nt NCTraveler Mar 2016 #44

I agree, guns are legal. Logical Mar 2016 #47

"Ending the gun industry's legal immunity is an important step in tackling the epidemic of gun ecstatic Mar 2016 #48

If a gun has a design flaw, you can sue the manufacturer. Travis_0004 Mar 2016 #134

Hillary Supporter here... I agree with you. n/t Stand and Fight Mar 2016 #56

Ok, so let's hold manufacturers and sellers responsible Mufaddal Mar 2016 #58

^^^This^^^ panader0 Mar 2016 #107

It's OK because those guns kill Muslims. JRLeft Mar 2016 #112

There is Smart Gun technology that gun manufactures resisted... timlot Mar 2016 #61

You know very well why they resisted hack89 Mar 2016 #67

The history of the NRA opposing any gun regulations mythology Mar 2016 #97

Ironically, that was the case exactly. noamnety Mar 2016 #75

because they do not work Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #141

There wasn't a market for that stuff. krispos42 Mar 2016 #196

There wasn't a market for seat belts either YCHDT Mar 2016 #237

That's not a useful analogy. krispos42 Mar 2016 #242

Seat belts are mechanically simple like guns - that is why they are reliable. hack89 Mar 2016 #244

A sound bite she knows will never happen katsy Mar 2016 #62

Here you go! wildeyed Mar 2016 #64

I was thinking something similar. If a jerk of a husband got in his Jarqui Mar 2016 #98

I think civilians injured during US bombing raids overseas should be able to sue WDIM Mar 2016 #85

Also sue cluster bomb manufacturers and legislators who voted to enable them Jim Lane Mar 2016 #93

She is a war profiteer and beholden to the MIC. WDIM Mar 2016 #231

Hell no she wouldn't. JRLeft Mar 2016 #114

if a person buys tobacco, should that company be sued? DrDan Mar 2016 #92

No JRLeft Mar 2016 #116

The tobacco industry was sued (and rightfully so). RichVRichV Mar 2016 #192

Read something about majority of gun deaths suicides silenttigersong Mar 2016 #103

Last night H said there are 92 deaths a day using guns. marew Mar 2016 #106

Yep - Japan has a much higher rate of suicide than the US - and WAY fewer fire-arms...nt jonno99 Mar 2016 #123

Exactly! marew Mar 2016 #104

Well lets see -- manufacturers run ads that appeal to yahoos' baser instincts, support racist Hoyt Mar 2016 #108

The NRA is a great way to get deals on guns, knives, and ammo. JRLeft Mar 2016 #117

Support national racists. Nice. Hoyt Mar 2016 #118

Let me know when you're in favor of banning hip-hop. Or do you support cop-killing and misogyny? jonno99 Mar 2016 #124

The poster above is so anti gun, he/she is blinded about why people JRLeft Mar 2016 #135

Did I miss the story TeddyR Mar 2016 #122

This message was self-deleted by its author cyberpj Mar 2016 #125

Why do the gun manufactures need a law that says they can't be sued? itsrobert Mar 2016 #137

it is called SLAAP suits Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #143

Brilliant! kcr Mar 2016 #155

That kind of corporation deserves special protection BainsBane Mar 2016 #139

how is a firearm manufacturer Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #146

Right, if someone slits their wrists with a blade, should the blade maker JRLeft Mar 2016 #150

I'm sorry, but your argument would open up lawsuits for just about anything. JRLeft Mar 2016 #147

Do you know that a lady sued McDonalds because she spilled hot coffee on herself? kcr Mar 2016 #158

did she sue the coffee bean Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #159

Given I wasn't responding to you kcr Mar 2016 #161

the point still applies Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #164

No, because of the context of a discussion I was having with another DUer. kcr Mar 2016 #165

How fuckin ridiculous that she won. Unless the cup was defective. JRLeft Mar 2016 #162

But I hardly think we can wonder at how much our legal system can be opened up to lawsuits kcr Mar 2016 #163

The lawsuit was still ridiculous. JRLeft Mar 2016 #170

See? I called it. kcr Mar 2016 #172

It's true. LMFAO! JRLeft Mar 2016 #174

Did you see the burns on her legs? MattP Mar 2016 #183

There must have been a design flaw on the cup. JRLeft Mar 2016 #186

And the temp was so hot third degree burns MattP Mar 2016 #188

She wanted just hospital bills they refused MattP Mar 2016 #191

That's completely different. Her lawsuit made sense. JRLeft Mar 2016 #197

I know kcr Mar 2016 #189

Yeap, Wall Street and coporations bad ........... except for MIC corps and gun manufacturers YCHDT Mar 2016 #238

Agreed. Shadowflash Mar 2016 #153

Would you blame mass murderers on guns or on society? JRLeft Mar 2016 #175

And what if the suit wins? Ken Burch Mar 2016 #179

Blaming guns for murders are dumb, guns don't fire themselves. JRLeft Mar 2016 #184

Giving blanket immunity is insane and only one industry has it MattP Mar 2016 #187

It's not blanket immunity though. JRLeft Mar 2016 #209

Exactly. Blue_In_AK Mar 2016 #193

HRC: We were trying to pressure gun makers moondust Mar 2016 #195

I am ACTUALLY a fan of a strict liability approach to guns; HOWEVER... basselope Mar 2016 #200

This message was self-deleted by its author Freelancer Mar 2016 #201

This message was self-deleted by its author Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #228

In the 1990s, the Commerce Department shut down the "ring of fire" gunmakers Recursion Mar 2016 #204

If only cigarette manufacturers convinced Republicans to pass soch a law. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2016 #205

People are using this issue to attempt to ban all guns. I say hell no to that. JRLeft Mar 2016 #211

It is used to protect the profits of large corporations who make a living over dead innocents. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2016 #220

How does your gun laws prevent someone from acquiring a illegal gun. JRLeft Mar 2016 #223

How do laws against theft keep people from stealing. They don't. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2016 #225

Really, homie I'm from Oakland, CA my city and state has strict gun laws, last year my friend JRLeft Mar 2016 #232

Now we will discuss the fact that guns are not being outlawed. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2016 #239

Suing the manufacturer for what someone else has done is ridiculous. JRLeft Mar 2016 #240

Well, now, lets the courts decide that. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2016 #243

I tend to disagree with sanders on the gun issue. beedle Mar 2016 #216

How will stronger gun laws stop illegal guns from flowing in this country? JRLeft Mar 2016 #217

The same way it has reduced beedle Mar 2016 #241

The 2nd amendment ain't going no where. JRLeft Mar 2016 #245

And therein lies the problem. n/t beedle Mar 2016 #247

I think I agree with you dana_b Mar 2016 #226

Her whole campaign is based on two or three Sanders votes over a thirty year period. AgingAmerican Mar 2016 #224

I'm torn on the issue. While I don't feel the gun manufacturers are at fault. raouldukelives Mar 2016 #229

Those lawsuits are not about individual shootings. alarimer Mar 2016 #230

A lot of illegal guns aren't made in the USA. JRLeft Mar 2016 #234

The whole thing is about giving an entire industry blanket immunity. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #233

The law doesn't protect them from defective products though. JRLeft Mar 2016 #236