by enacting a law to protect gun companies from lawsuits.
Obviously, the gun companies are the real victims of all these shootings and need special legal protections.
Yeah, this is far more like what I’d expect from Bill Lee. Because after kids are born, they can fend for themselves. Multimillion dollar companies are the real vulnerable ones that need help.
I’m still in Tennessee why?
Oh yeah. So my kids have college paid for through my husband’s job. And to try to fight from the inside. But every day, the former is winning out over the later, and even that is getting closer to me wanting to say screw it, let them figure out their own way to college.
This feels uncomfortably dystopian to me.
They’re certainly working hard, and it’s clear who they’re working for.
What if it is a gun company owned by a drag queen?
To give the man a little room, it’s only an ornament on his halo if he signs the bill into law. Or has Lee asked the legislators to mark the bill up?
Q1. Is this proposal coming because legislators believe that civil lawsuits against gun manufactures is contravention of the 2nd Amendment or because “Big Guns” came knocking asking for indemnity?
Q2. If another “as apple pie” industry like say “Big Motors” wanted a piece of the same leg-up, would they get a hearing?
Do well sue auto manufacturers when a guy drives into a crowd?
Are automobiles intended to kill people?
Guns sold to civilians are not intended to kill people.
They are obviously sometimes misused, as are some cars.
Have you seen some of the adverts for guns??
I hear you. Mrs Magill accepting a transfer to Rhode Island sounds better every day.
I saw one ridiculous thing that you had to own an AR-15 if you were a tough guy. That obviously should be stopped.
Liabilities against the companies that make the guns are precedents for companies that make cars and rat poison that kill people.
Which of those adverts are targeted to deer or beer hunters, target shooters or “collectors”? The answer is none of them. Look at the Urban Super Sniper advert-What about the name, let alone the copy, tells you that the intended target is not a human being?
Now show me ONE automobile advert that targets drivers that need to hit pedestrians and/or other cars.
And while you’re at it with your “guns and cars are just the same”, please point out to me the armies of the world that have regiments armed solely with cars, no guns, because they’re equally effective as killing machines.
I didn’t say they are the same, I said that if firearm manufacturers can be sued because there product was used to kill people, so could auto makers.
Auto makers have been sued – and justifiably so – not for making cars, but for making and marketing products that they knew were unsafe. Gun makers have a unique liability because it’s statistically demonstrable that their products are always unsafe. So you’re only partly right, and not in the way you think.
Besides, do you seriously believe that Tennessee Republicans are worried about setting a precedent for suing legitimate businesses like carmakers? Or is this performance art for their gun-loving lunatic Republican base?
The latter, of course.
If we came to blows over this discussion, and I hit you with a chair, would you sue the guys who made the chair?
In the f***ed-up current environment where guns, and gun nuts’ patently dangerous addiction to them, are unassailable, the rest of us are grasping at any straw to try to put the brakes on the lunacy.
Yes, suing gun manufacturers is a contrived bass-ackwards way to achieve that goal. But it’s precisely the contrived bass-ackwards way our society has become deranged that we’re trying to slow and reverse by whatever means may be available.
Also keep in mind that the Tenses Legislature loves to make laws for things that aren’t a problem because it takes the focus off the real issue.
Based on the purpose of a chair, what do you think would be the success of a court case that tried to represent it as inherently dangerous, and something that either should be severely restricted or not available at all to the general public? Yet guns are in precisely that category in most civilized countries around the world, with the US being the notable exception. The US federal government is generally pretty good about addressing safety issues – the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned lawn darts in 1988 after reports of several injuries [PDF]. The difference is that lawn darts didn’t have an immensely powerful lobby behind them and weren’t worshipped with the religious fervour that guns are.
So there is (literally) a case to be made that the supply chain of gun makers and their retail distributors – and in my view, especially the latter – are direct contributors to a deadly national epidemic. IIRC the vast majority of mass shootings in recent years were perpetrated with legally purchased guns. Between failure to enact gun control legislation, failure to adequately enforce it, and just plain don’t-give-a-damn profiteering, every element of the supply chain implicitly thought it was just fine to provide these mass shooters with the tools of wanton death. That chain has to be broken wherever we can break it, as it has been in all other countries.