Nice fictional example you’ve got there…which is easily countered by real world examples of what can happen when a sleepy person grabs a ready-to-fire and easily accessible gun in the middle of the night.
Once again…I’m not proposing anything. These are the potential areas of liability to manufacturers.
Especially under the fictional circumstances, where the hapless bourgeois M. Bonacieux was damn lucky he didn’t have enough time to shoot the intruders. Shooting at the Cardinal’s guards who are coming in force to arrest you on a valid warrant is such a bad idea that even the Musketeers themselves never tried it.
Valid?
So, you think Gun companies should make their guns safer, but you have no idea or proposal for them to do so in a practical manner?
And then, even tho you have no such proposal, you seem to think it is Ok for gun companies to be sued out of business for failing to make their guns “safer”? or am I misunderstanding you? I apologize if i am but your posts are a bit confusing.
If Cardinal Richelieu issued it, it’s a valid warrant. Pretty much by definition.
Are you aware that I own a gun store in Wisconsin? You are now so be advised that your ignorance (yet know it all attitude) is laughable at best.
*All firearms purchased from a dealer MUST come with a form of lock.
*It is impossible to make a firearm that is completely child proof if the owner does not utilize such devices.
*99% of firearms go from manufacturer to distributors. The manufacturer has no knowledge or control what dealer it will go to from the distributor.
*The 1% of guns that go from manufacturer to dealer are typically to dealerships that service law enforcement agencies and they have a special authorized dealer agreement with the manufacturer. Striechers is one of these dealers.
*Gun dealers are highly regulated. We have to keep a bound book or computer records of all acquisitions and dispositions and a BATFE agent can come into my shop at any time and inspect those records without any cause or warrant.
*The so called bad dealers you’re babbling about represent a minute’ fraction of a percent of all dealers.
Ok. I get that you don’t know enough to make a proposal, that’s fair. Do you think that people should be sued because someone who knows nothing things they should have come up with a magical solution if they tried harder?
In general, I’d be ok with manufacturers being able to be sued but I think the losers should be liable for all of the legal and associated costs of the winners. So if you sue for people not using magic you lose all of their legal fees and pay for all of the time of their employees proving magic doesn’t exist. If you don’t have the funds they get to take your lawyers money too and we’ll as any expert witnesses and so on you employeed.
So we should not even discuss the possibility of tightening safety measures unless we already have in hand a perfect solution ?
If I am on an airplane and I notice that an engine is on fire, should I just shut up about it unless I know the perfect procedure for putting out that fire?
A lot of gun locks, gun safes, and just plain locks in general are a joke. A great example here. Not really picking a side in this post I just find it interesting.
The guy has a ton more vids like this too.
Maybe a concept of what shape a solution could hold. At this point the “sue 'em” side seems to be proposing “they must be able to due more so I’m going to sue them until they are doing more”. That’s not really a useful position.
You sueing the manufacturer of your airplane because your engine caught fire doesn’t do a lot to prevent more engine fires if someone threw a stick of dynamite in there to start the fire.
Aww, aren’t you sweet. I never claimed to know it all.
You are a dealer in WI. Are you sure that all guns come with locks everywhere? Because I’m not, but I’ll take your word.
Do you believe that manufacturers have no responsibility in this market chain? Because that is part of what is being proposed. That they should bear some responsibility.
I agree that most guns are sold to responsible dealers and from there to qualified buyers. And that guns do come with some safety features. But guns are getting into the hands of criminals are killing people accidentally as well. The proposal to remove liability restrictions aims to mitigate that. It’s not a panacea, but it’s a start.
Since gun manufacturers are in a better position to create possible solutions, perhaps suing them to encourage them to do so is a viable option? As it now stands they have little to no incentive to look into the matter.
Even if it’s not the law where you are, I do not know of a single current manufacturer of firearms that does not provide some form of locking mechanism with every new gun.
Manufacturers, distributors, a dealers are all licensed and regulated by the Treasury Department. If a manufacturer transfers a firearm to a licensed, regulated distributor, why should the manufacturer be liable for what happens next? Is Ford liable if a dealer sells a Mustang to someone who uses it to run someone over?
By “provide” do you mean every gun sold comes with a free locking mechanism, or do you mean that it is an option available for purchase?
So then you would advocate for being able to sue the manufacture of the car the drunk driver used to kill people as well as the make of the booze they drank? Drunk drivers kill almost as many people as guns (10k vs 15k)
Every gun comes, free of charge, with some form of locking device. It’s part of the included accessories. Either a cable lock, a trigger lock, or an internal lock that uses a key (Taurus is big on that). I do not know of a single manufacturer that does not include a locking mechanism of some kind. And it’s been that way for at least 30 years.
Why does this seem so surprising to some of you?
I am not surprised-I was just seeking clarification.
There’s a difference between a solution to a problem, and a stick to beat the problem with. The latter is at best of dubious helpfulness and at worst counter-productive.
Cite please. Because we’ve been over this in recent forums, including the whole biometric/RFID locks, and even there, the few models created represented a 3-5x increase in cost - a factor that might come down with mass production, but there were also serious security risks in terms of jamming (RFID) discussed. So I’d love to see evidence of “small” changes that could increase security.