There is already a precedent where drug manufacturers were held liable for the damage done by opiates.
That seems to support my point. Purdue Pharma knew that Oxycontin was dangerous and ultimately could and did cause addiction and death, but their marketing and sales force touted only the painkilling benefits and lied about the risks, and moreover, recklessly conspired to market ever-larger doses for even greater profits.
The analogy with gun manufacturers and their dealers is apt. Nobody tried to defend Purdue by comparing Oxycontin to a car or a chair.
They may have, but they lost the case.
I think suing the companies that make something because it is misused is a Jesuitical (is that a word?) act.
Federal limits on magazines and a Federal waiting period I think would be a better solution, but they will never happen.
It depends on their marketing material. If a chair company marketed their product as being useful in settling disputes by hitting people with them, then it’s likely they would have some liability.
Gun manufacturers not only market their products as efficient ways of settling an argument, their marketing also sends the message that they are the only way of settling an argument. That people should fear someone knocking on their door or turning around in their driveway, that they should take their gun with them to a baby shower and execute anyone that tries to take their gun after they shoot themselves in the foot.
The marketing is as dangerous as the product they sell. I hear right wingers talk about how the media should be muzzled and not report on gun violence in the theory that that will reduce it, but I never hear anyone on the right talk about how the gun manufacturers should tone down their rhetoric of what a dangerous world it is, how scared you need to feel, and how much better a gun will make you feel in their marketing.
I’m all for regulating the advertisement of firearms.
Republicans understand this concept. They’ve seen the rainbows on beer cans. But at least guns don’t turn their kids into Satan’s disciples. /s
Once again, do the makers of chairs advertise their product’s usefulness when it comes to injuring and/or killing others?
That is a safe, passive and vague statement, isn’t it? It reminds me of posters that say they want gun laws…but when pressed the changes they want actually make it easier to obtain guns. What regulations would you want to see?
Probably the former. I mean how much lobbying influence do gun and ammunition manufacturers actually have? They’re not that huge an industry. I’d say that legislators are probably far more worried about losing the militant pro-gun voters than about whatever donations the firearms industry contributes.
Or perhaps it’s just that trying to do an end run around the law and simply declaring that the very existence of an industry meets the technical definition of a Public nuisance - Wikipedia strikes some people as a dishonest sophistry. With the possible exception of cigarette manufacturers is there any other legal industry where this would pass muster?
The idea that gun reform* laws are squelched by legislators in the pocket of Big Guns, in the absence of any convincing documentation of that, strikes me as pernicious propaganda. It reminds me of the leadup to Prohibition when the Dries claimed that no one opposed Prohibition but the saloon owners and distilleries.
*as they see it.
Magazine limits to six rounds, the bad guy can be beaten to death with a chair if he is continuously reloading. A longer waiting period. It was mentioned that one of the shooter bought the gun the day before he killed a bunch of people. I would accept an assault rifle ban, defined as a weapon using medium load ammunition (so the soldier can carry more) large magazine, semi or full automatic action.
Things that don’t make it easier to kill people but are associated with assault rifles are folding stocks, pistol grips and a forearm grip. On the one hand they don’t change the way the weapon works, they just look “real”, “gun nutty” whatever. On the other hand, that may be one of the attractions for the crazy people that go out and mow down everyone in a school. We may want to keep these to pacify the harmless gun nuts who just want to carry them around or hang them on the wall. “Harmless gun nuts” as opposed to crazy people who want to kill people, or carry a weapon into a bar. I believe most of these guys are “harmless gun nuts”. OTOH, if these features encourage the people who kill people, they should be added to the ban.
I would not include semi automatic .22 rifles, kids have been shooting those for a hundred years.
I would encourage the advertisement of guns save for the sort of thing you find in a Sears catalog.
Ban guns in bars, churches and schools.
I agree.
Oh, in my above post add to “bars, churches and schools”, add “public gatherings”.
Only for bar stools.
Out of all that, only this one statement vaguely deals with gun advertisements. I guess I should have been a little clearer when making my request.
I believe you’re conflating two different types of unsafe there. Sending a couple of thousand pounds of metal down the road at 60 mph is always going to be at least a bit unsafe for both the driver and anyone potentially in their path. What car makers were sued for was making defective vehicles which compromised safety. And there have been product suits over defective firearms. But a device successfully doing what it was intended to do is not unsafe unless you begin counting externalities.
If you mean “the voting majority in a democracy” for that state, quite probably.
I’m truly glad you acknowledge that. I would simply add, beware of any method or strategy you wouldn’t want to see your opponents make use of.
It would be a more apt analogy if the gun manufacturers actually lied when marketing their product. Cite?
?!? Seriously? Any gun manufacturer in the USA implied a gun would intimidate (or worse) someone in a verbal argument? Cite please.
I work for the insurance industry. I assure you, product manufacturers get sued for products that work as intended.
For instance: a parent left three kids in a car. One of them found a lighter, used it, and lit afire some magazines that had been left in the floor. The car ended up engulfed in flames, the baby in a car seat didn’t get out, and died. We paid an enormous liability settlement for their death. Guess who our insured was:
The lighter manufacturer
Those guys might have been making oodles of money and not realizing the harm they did, or they might not care how people were injured or killed with their product, but I would put the blame on whoever prescribed so many of the damn things and whoever got them illegally to sell them.
Could any of the ads for muscle or sports cars be construed as encouraging people to break the law or otherwise drive in an unsafe manner?
Without being familiar with the specifics I would guess someone filed a “Deep Pockets” claim to get someone, anyone, to pony up some money; and that the lighter manufacturer decided that settling was cheaper than going to court.
We, the insurer, were responsible both to defend and pay the claim. I don’t know whether we took it to court or settled, the claims adjuster would have decided that. But it was a very large claim.