I see no one worth voting for...

[Bone]

One more comment on this because I remembered on my commute to work:

@Measure_for_Measure

Currently you can produce a cheap gun that explodes in people’s hands, and the gun manufacturer isn’t liable.

@Measure_for_Measure

My source was an Economist article I read years ago FWIW. A search of their archives reveals that I was probably confused. Here are excerpts from a 2002 article

The thing is, you’ve made this claim before, and have been corrected before. It’s an absurd claim, so repeating it after being corrected is strange. From here in 2014:

@Measure_for_Measure

The Consumer Product Safety Commission regulated pool, toys and all-terrain vehicles. They are expressely prohibited from regulating guns and indeed IIRC a gun manufacturer is not liable if their product blows up in a customer’s hand.

(my bold in both of the above)

To which I responded in 2014:

@Bone

While it’s true that firearms do not fall under the purview of the Consumer PRoduct Safety Commission, that is primarily because that duty falls under the jurisdiction of the BATFE. It’s not some conspiracy to have the safety of guns unchecked. In addition, your statement that a gun manufacturer is not liable if their product blows up in a customer’s hand is factually incorrect. You may be thinking of the PLCAAthat exempted manufacturers from suits of negligence in using their products. This does not however eliminate liability from defective products.

Guns as a whole are safer more now than ever. They do what they are intended to do and don’t do what they are not intended to do. Of course they are inherently dangerous products but that they are used to commit crimes or used in unintentional deaths does not mean they have manufacturing defects.

You continued to participate in the thread after that response. It’s very strange to claim general ignorance, use an out of date cite, or proffer an “obscure law” that Clinton has been campaigning on when you’ve participated in threads on this same topic.