Black lives don't matter...

[callmeslick]

thanks for the link. This is hardly something radical, and as the article notes:"Sanders had said repeatedly that he was open to “changes” in the liability protection law" It isn't like this is somehow a case of Bernie being some rabid anti-gun person. That just isn't going to happen. This is a VERY narrow piece of legislation.

[Spidey]

Well if Sanders believes it’s a good idea to reopen that can of worms, I have to seriously doubt his better judgment, because there was a damn good reason why that law was put in place, and why it had support across the board.

[woodchip]

Do it to one manufacturer and you will have to do it to all manufactures. Just shows what a pandering, short sighted candidate Crazy Bernie is.

[Spidey]

It is my understanding that there is no other industry with such immunity, because no other industry came under the same kinds of attacks that the firearms industry did, with anti-gun groups tying up the courts with frivolous law suits, in an attempt to shut down the industry.

[callmeslick]

It is my understanding that there is no other industry with such immunity, because no other industry came under the same kinds of attacks that the firearms industry did, with anti-gun groups tying up the courts with frivolous law suits, in an attempt to shut down the industry.

don't know anyone in the tobacco or petroleum industries?

[Spidey]

I'm pretty sure the difference between the industries is direct harm vs. harm done by customers.

The tobacco industry is directly responsible for how a product is used, firearms however are sold with the intention that the user will obey the laws.

[woodchip]

Anyone hear of a auto manufactuer being sued when the owner of one of their cars deliberately runs into a crowd of people, killing and maiming many.

[Spidey]

That was the point Sanders made when he originally supported the law. (or something very close) Too bad he loses his "authenticity" cred with this move.

[vision]

Anyone hear of a auto manufactuer being sued when the owner of one of their cars deliberately runs into a crowd of people, killing and maiming many.

All manufactures have a certain level of responsibility for their products, no matter what they are or their intended use. It's up to the courts and legislators to decide how far to extend that responsibility.

[Spidey]

Correct...so if a car maker sold their product with the claim "better to kill people with" that would probably land them in jail.

..........

And I should add, if you continually bring law suits against an industry for the intent of destroying that industry, rather than actually seeking justice, you can end up with the immunity laws in question.

[woodchip]

Anyone hear of a auto manufactuer being sued when the owner of one of their cars deliberately runs into a crowd of people, killing and maiming many.

All manufactures have a certain level of responsibility for their products, no matter what they are or their intended use. It's up to the courts and legislators to decide how far to extend that responsibility.

That responsibility is for the merchandise to work as intended, not as the air bag fiasco demonstrates. Product liability does not extend to someone deliberately mis-using the product like tossing a plugged in electric appliance into a bathtub to kill someone. So I'll take your answer to my original question is no.

[Spidey]

I guess in theory you could sue the appliance maker, the tub maker, the water dept., the electric co. and quite a few scientists and engineers along the way that gave us these things.

Did I miss anybody?

I guess the people who sold them to you as well…

[vision]

So I'll take your answer to my original question is no.

Well, there isn't really a direct comparison, now is there? Guns are designed to extinguish life. That's their ultimate purpose, even if you only use them with the intent to show of force. I can't think of any other consumer product in that category. It's unfair to lump firearms in with appliances or vehicles. Apples and oranges man.

[woodchip]

So I'll take your answer to my original question is no.

Well, there isn't really a direct comparison, now is there? Guns are designed to extinguish life. That's their ultimate purpose, even if you only use them with the intent to show of force. I can't think of any other consumer product in that category. It's unfair to lump firearms in with appliances or vehicles. Apples and oranges man.

[Spidey]

Any illegal, inappropriate or misuse of a product is the responsibility of the user.

It’s not a difficult concept.

[callmeslick]

Any illegal, inappropriate or misuse of a product is the responsibility of the user.

It’s not a difficult concept.

I'd agree, and that is why I have urged that there be far more enforcement around failure to secure weapons, transfer of weapons without background checks and personal liability lawsuits aimed at those who misuse the weapons. In that light, I don't think it is the least bit wrong to require liability insurance of all gun owners. Just like cars.