Uh, wow. Gonna leave it there, at just wow.
For any other product, they would have, as already stated. Guns are excluded.
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 and their effort that got defeated by the PLCAA.
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.
Oops.
Another thread being derailed by the gun debate.
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.)
The “loser pays” rule is certainly universal. What isn’t universal is a law that says lawsuits against gun manufacturers are frivlous by definition.
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.”
Doesn’t that depend on your perspective? To a pedestrian, bicyclist or motorcyclist, a car is nothing but a killing machine.
You can’t derail a thread that was never railed to begin with.
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.
Oops, sorry - left that off.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
You got a problem with the Wall Street Journal?
You got a problem with NBC?
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?
Because they’re such easy targets.
If cars came with an optical device expressly designed to improve the ability to hit other drivers, I would hope so.
Already done – you’re incorrect because the lawsuits against car companies you describe are entirely legal.
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.)
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.