# Stupid liberal idea of the day **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 20, 2011, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086 "2011-04-20T15:35:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 196
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2015, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3901 "2015-10-05T20:08:35Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Guns aren’t designed to kill people either. They’re designed to deliver bullets. Uh, wow. Gonna leave it there, at just wow. > [@](#): > > I don’t know of any occasion where manufacturers have been held liable for the criminal misuse of their product. For any other product, they would have, as already stated. Guns are excluded. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2015, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3902 "2015-10-05T20:09:02Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Guns aren’t designed to kill people either. They’re designed to deliver bullets. Human beings determine which targets those bullets hit. Most often the the targets are inanimate objects or animals. Rarely are the targets people, and when they are, it’s usually a result of criminal misuse. > > I don’t know of any occasion where manufacturers have been held liable for the criminal misuse of their product. So what’s the problem then? Having the right to sue doesn’t mean the right to win. If you’re correct, then the suits will be dismissed. And if they’re determined to be frivolous, I have no problem with the plaintiffs paying the costs. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2015, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3903 "2015-10-05T20:24:03Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > So what’s the problem then? Having the right to sue doesn’t mean the right to win. If you’re correct, then the suits will be dismissed. And if they’re determined to be frivolous, I have no problem with the plaintiffs paying the costs. Because the “loser pays” rule isn’t universal so based on forum shopping, a mountain of lawsuits against gun manufactures may be unsuccessful, but winning individual lawsuits is not the goal. [Here is a good article on the latest effort by Brady](http://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2015/8/24/bradys-empty-suits/) and their effort that got defeated by the PLCAA. > [@](#): > > Brady has persisted with the suits for a reason. What we might call its “legal business model” has been simple. Brady could get free lawyering from big law firms that wanted to boast of providing “pro bono” services for public causes—meaning Brady’s actual cost for a lawsuit was just a few hundred dollars in filing fees. In return, it could count on favorable publicity, which would translate into increased fundraising. In fact, it could show a profit even if it lost the great majority of its lawsuits. > > The gun dealer or its insurance company, on the other hand, would spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting the suit, and in doing so take a major economic hit even if the company won. Brady therefore planned to win the policy battle with a legal strategy that lost in court. Of course, their suit against Lucky Gunner was in Colorado. Colorado did enact greater protection of their version of PLCAA in that they did have a “loser pays” provision. Brady lost, were ordered to pay fees, and as far as I know, stuck the litigants with the bill. > [@](#): > > If the Brady Campaign doesn’t pick up the tab, it will likely find it difficult to recruit clients in the future. Brady lawyers would have to explain: “We want you to join a lawsuit that is unlikely to win, but will generate good publicity for us. If it loses (and it likely will), you may be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and we will walk away, like we did thelast time.” > > The results, however, are equally painful if Brady chooses to pay. The group has fallen upon hard times, and the fee award would be a big chunk of its budget. The $203,000 awarded in the Lucky Gunner lawsuit is well over half the organization’s total payroll ($380,000), and considerably more than its office rent ($125,000). Oops. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2015, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3904 "2015-10-05T20:28:53Z")
Another thread being derailed by the gun debate. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2015, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3905 "2015-10-05T20:29:28Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > So what’s the problem then? Having the right to sue doesn’t mean the right to win. That’s true. A person can sue someone for virtually anything. For the sake of discussion however, I think it’s obvious that the intent of suing gun manufacturers for shooting deaths is to do so successfully. To tell the truth though, I don’t think successful lawsuits are what the Hillary and her ilk have in mind. Ultimately they want the lawsuits to be so frequent and numerous that the cost of defending against them drives gun manufacturers out of business. If legislation is passed giving people the right to sue gun manufacturers whenever someone gets shot, there should also be a provision providing the claimant to be liable for court costs and the manufacturers’ legal fees each time such lawsuits fail. (Ah, ninja’d by **Bone** I see on preview.) It’s too bad that the anti-gun crowd isn’t so het up over things that kill vastly more people and ruin more lives than guns ever have, such as cigarettes and drugs to name but two. (Plus there’s no upside to either of those. At least guns can be _and often are_ used to protect oneself and one’s family from the criminal behavior of others…or to dissuade it from happening in the first place.) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2015, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3906 "2015-10-05T21:20:16Z")
The “loser pays” rule is certainly universal. What isn’t universal is a law that says lawsuits against gun manufacturers are frivlous by definition. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Guns aren’t designed to kill people either. They’re designed to deliver bullets. Human beings determine which targets those bullets hit. Most often the the targets are inanimate objects or animals. Rarely are the targets people, and when they are, it’s usually a result of criminal misuse. 33,000 people are killed by gunshot wounds per year in the US. 11,000 of those are homicides. So it’s neither rare nor “usually a result of criminal misuse.” ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2015, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3907 "2015-10-05T21:27:28Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > No car is \*designed \*to kill people. The manufacturers go to great lengths to try to prevent that, in fact. So the [“unreasonably dangerous”](http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/unreasonably-dangerous.html) consideration in product liability law doesn’t really apply. Only actual legislation excludes guns from that. Doesn’t that depend on your perspective? To a pedestrian, bicyclist or motorcyclist, a car is nothing but a killing machine. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2015, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3908 "2015-10-05T21:27:45Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Another thread being derailed by the gun debate. You can’t derail a thread that was never railed to begin with. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2015, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3909 "2015-10-05T21:35:20Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > 33,000 people are killed by gunshot wounds per year in the US. 11,000 of those are homicides. So it’s neither rare nor “usually a result of criminal misuse.” Really! Homicides (and for that matter, suicides) are not a result of criminal misuse? I’d submit that in a country of 350 million people, homicides in the 11,000 range are indeed rare events. And then we have the unanswerable question of how many innocent people would have been raped, robbed and/or killed due to criminal behavior had guns not been around to protect them. And we also have the unanswerable question of how many crimes that otherwise would have taken place haven’t because of fear the potential victim might be armed. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2015, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3910 "2015-10-05T21:44:49Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > Actually, your cite is pretty stupid, given that guns arent’ designed for the express purpose of killing, so it’s apples and oranges. Mind sourcing the cite for us? Oops, sorry - left that off. > **[Hillary Clinton Pushes Change Allowing Shooting Victims To Sue Gun Makers In...](https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2015/10/05/hillary-clinton-pushes-change-allowing-shooting-victims-sue-gun-makers-wake-oregon-attack/)** > > Hillary Clinton Pushes Change Allowing Shooting Victims To Sue Gun Makers In Wake Of Oregon Attack ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2015, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3911 "2015-10-05T21:47:24Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Car owners sue carmakers all the time. Maybe you heard about [this one recently](http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2015/09/17/gm-to-pay-575m-to-settle-ignition-switch-lawsuits)? That’s for a defect in the car. Totally different issue. What Hillary is advocating would be the equivalent of you being hit by a drunk driver and then suing the manufacturer of the car he drove. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2015, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3912 "2015-10-05T21:50:14Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Car makers can be sued, and are sued, sometimes. Sometimes they lose. People are already allowed to sue car companies. > > Did you really not know this? And the journalist that wrote your link-free quote is an idiot and should be ashamed for not knowing this (or alternately writing a deceptive article). Pathetic journalism, whoever you are. > > Hopefully you, **Clothahump** , can learn from this, and have higher standards for the journalists you read. Maybe you should bone up on law, too, before making claims about what’s “stupid” regarding what is legally allowed in terms of lawsuits. Sigh. As I pointed out earlier, and as was pointed out in the article, and as was totally ignored by you (and apparently everyone else), what Hillary is advocating is the equivalent of you being hit by a reckless driver and then turning around and suing the manufacturer of the car that he drove. Suing car manufacturers for defects in the car is a totally different issue and does not apply to this topic in the slightest. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2015, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3913 "2015-10-05T21:58:39Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Really! Homicides (and for that matter, suicides) are not a result of criminal misuse? Yes, homicides are a result of criminal misuse. But 11,000 out of 33,000 falls fairly short of “usually.” In fact, I submit that “about one third of the time” would be a more accurate descriptor. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2015, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3914 "2015-10-05T22:00:03Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Sigh. As I pointed out earlier, and as was pointed out in the article, and as was totally ignored by you (and apparently everyone else), what Hillary is advocating is the equivalent of you being hit by a reckless driver and then turning around and suing the manufacturer of the car that he drove. > > Suing car manufacturers for defects in the car is a totally different issue and does not apply to this topic in the slightest. It is entirely legal to do so. Such a lawsuit would probably be quickly rejected, but it is still entirely legal to sue a car-maker for such a reason. Why do gun manufacturers deserve or need special government protection? Why can’t they stand up on their own? ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2015, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3915 "2015-10-05T22:01:36Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > No…now that we know what your source is, _you_ just did. Really? You have a problem with someone reporting what Clinton said? And quoting them somehow makes _me_ stupid? You got a problem with the [BBC?](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34447239) You got a problem with the [Wall Street Journal?](http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-gun-control-proposals-to-include-executive-action-1444017603) You got a problem with [NBC?](http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/hillary-clinton-unveil-plan-major-new-gun-restrictions-n438361) No, you just have a problem. You don’t like my source? Sucks to be you. Breitbart happened to be the first one I encountered and I used their link. And I gotta tell ya, **Czarcasm,** - you and damn near everyone else on this board - listening to your ignorant whines when I post something that you can’t refute is music to my ears. Keep bringin’ the whine, guys. Of course, instead of attacking me, you might have tried refuting what I posted and showing that it wasn’t correct in some manner, but that would require reasoning and logic. Can’t have that, can we? ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2015, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3916 "2015-10-05T22:02:07Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Why do gun manufacturers deserve or need special government protection? Why can’t they stand up on their own? Because they’re such easy targets. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2015, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3917 "2015-10-05T22:02:32Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > What Hillary is advocating would be the equivalent of you being hit by a drunk driver and then suing the manufacturer of the car he drove. If cars came with an optical device expressly designed to improve the ability to hit other drivers, I would hope so. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2015, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3918 "2015-10-05T22:02:34Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Of course, instead of attacking me, you might have tried refuting what I posted and showing that it wasn’t correct in some manner, but that would require reasoning and logic. Can’t have that, can we? Already done – you’re incorrect because the lawsuits against car companies you describe are entirely legal. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2015, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3919 "2015-10-05T22:02:43Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I’d submit that in a country of 350 million people, homicides in the 11,000 range are indeed rare events. Wingnuts aren’t good at statistics. The 11,000 figure is _per annum_. You’d want to divide population by life expectancy to get a comparable per annum figure. Due to various other effects, it’s easiest to just compare with deaths by all causes. Do this to discover that gun deaths by all causes (suicide\*, accidents, self-defense, and cowardly cops) account for well over 1% of all American deaths. Still seem “rare”? Most Americans have a friend who was or will be killed by a gun. (\* I added an asterisk to suicide because some ignorant wingnut will claim that gun suicidees would have found a different way to kill themselves. This has been refuted multiple times here, but, yes, you wingnuts aren’t big on acquiring information or changing your flawed opinions.) ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2015, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3920 "2015-10-05T22:03:11Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It is entirely legal to do so. Such a lawsuit would probably be quickly rejected, but it is still entirely legal to sue a car-maker for such a reason. > > Why do gun manufacturers deserve or need special government protection? Why can’t they stand up on their own? Why would anyone in their right mind think that suing the manufacturer of a firearm used in a homicide is a reasonable thing to do? Oh, yeah, I forgot - liberal manufactured outrage and shit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086.md?page=195) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086.md?page=197)