From CNN:
A federal appeals court Thursday reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit against the gun industry in a decision expected to re-ignite debate over legislation immunizing gun makers from being sued for crimes committed with their products.Thirty-three states already have laws exempting gun manufacturers and distributors from such suits. The House in April passed a bill to extend the prohibition on such suits nationwide and President Bush has said he would sign it.
Senate Democrats have threatened to filibuster the proposal.
The 2-1 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstates a lawsuit filed against gun manufacturers and distributors whose weapons were used by a white supremacist who shot a Filipino-American postal worker to death and wounded five people — including three children — at a Jewish day care center in a 1999 Los Angeles-area rampage.
...
Since 1998, at least 33 municipalities, counties and states have sued gun makers, many claiming that manufacturers, through irresponsible marketing, allowed weapons to reach criminals. None of the suits has resulted in a manufacturer or distributor paying any damages.
Here we go again. This is the latest bit of lunacy in a trend that has seen smokers blaming their cancer on tobacco companies and fatties blaming their love handles on fast food restaurants. It seems as though many in this country have forgotten of the meaning of responsibility.
Murder is a cruel, cruel thing. When a person is murdered it leaves a scar on those left behind. Those scars hurt and often drive the survivors to extreme measures in order to exact revenge. Some of the survivors try to harm or kill the one responsible for the murder. Some try to sue the gun companies.
The gun compaines aren't responsible for gun violence. They are like any other business in that they produce and sell and sell guns while trying to maximize their profits. The implication that they "allowed" guns to reach criminals is nonsense. According to the article Glock, the gun company in question, sold the gun used in the murder to a law enforcement agency. That agency then sold the gun to a gun shop who in turn sold it to a gun collector. That gun collector then sold it to the murderer at a gun show. How, in that convuluted trail of ownership, can anyone trace the responsibility for that gun back to the gun company? The gun changed hands three different times before being sold to the murderer.
Article comments
1 - Tom
It's the same old story. The so called "pro choicers" are against you owning guns, or school choice, but think it's okay to kill unborn children.
It would be like suing an axe company if some guy uses it to kill people instead of chopping wood.
It's good to villify the gun industry and gun owners from ivory towers in the liberal elite big cities. If you grew up at all a rural setting you would realize how much a way of life guns, hunting, and outdoors are.
People don't realize that if you go after guns like this it paves the way to go after "big fast food" or any other business that can be seen as destructive or harmful.
2 - jadester
sorry to point this out, but
quote:The so called "pro choicers"...:unquote
is too much of a generalisation. I am pro-choice but i am not against you owning a gun/guns, as long as you don't blame the manufacturer if you decide to hold up a bank. Or shoot someone in the head.
With the tobacco companies, there was at least *some* grounds for legal action - they clamied for years that smoking was safe and did not increase the risk of/cause cancer, etc., even though they had medical evidence that it does. Ok so you'd have to be stupid to think smoking would not do any damage to your health but there are plenty of stupid people in the world, and any company caught exploiting that stupidity deserves to be punished just as individuals exploiting that stupidity (by scams) deserve to be punished.
the fast food thing is like the gun thing, just as stupid. I never saw mcdonald's or burger king say if you eat their food for every meal you won't get fat and unhealthy
3 - jadester
forgot to say, like with fast food, the gun companies never said if you point a gun at someone's head and pull the trigger, it won't kill them.
Hell, if you were real mad and strong enough, you could probably kill someone with a spoon. How about any tool with a long, solid wooden handle? just use it as a club. They aren't going to ban spades and forks and stuff too are they, and sue the companies?
4 - Bill Wallo
Note the claim: "that manufacturers, through irresponsible marketing, allowed weapons to reach criminals."
Er: guns don't kill people. People kill people.
5 - Tom
It was a generalization. It was meant by the "general" left, who claim to be all about "freedom of choice" and "government hands off our bodies", but when it comes to a product like guns, they are all about removing a constitutionally protected RIGHT.
6 - bhw
Technically, the constitution guarantees the right to own a gun for the purpose of a well-regulated militia. It says nothing about anyone owning a hand gun for target practice or hunting. [You know, they'd just finished fighting a revolution, not shooting bullseyes in their backyards.]
That said, I think people should be able to own guns. I just don't think they should be able to own any kind of gun, no matter how powerful. Hunting rifles, handguns, etc., sure. Military-style power, not so much.
Also, I do think guns kill people [and not just people]. There are oodles of accidental shootings each year or crimes of passion shootings that wouldn't have happened if there wasn't a loaded gun nearby. Doesn't mean the person isn't responsible for pulling the trigger -- it just means they wouldn't have been able to if the gun wasn't there. The immediate power of the gun from a distance is what makes it so dangerous when not handled properly.
All this aside, I think people should have the right to own guns ... with restrictions.
7 - Rob
Here is the exact text from the 2nd ammendment:
To me, it would appear as though a "well regulated militia" and "the right to keep and bear arms" are denoted separately.
You also talk about the number "crimes of passion" comitted with guns. You said that, if guns weren't available, these types of killings would go down. With that statement you seem to imply that most guns are laying on the night table or in some other readily available spot.
In my experience (and I have seen a few of these cases) the enraged person in a crime of passion typically leaves to get the gun, and comes back to do the killing. Who's to say that when they left they would not grab some other type of weapon, such as a knife or a sledge hammer? Or a nail gun? Who knows?
The type of thinking that allows us to say "if the gun hadn't of been there, then he wouldn't have comitted the crime" is very dangerous. That thinking can be extended to a lot of crimes: If the drunk hadn't had access to the booze he wouldn't have hit that pedestrian.
Right. And if John Hinkley hadn't had access to twinkies he wouldn't have shot the President.
At the end of the day there is only one person responsible for any crime comitted with a gun and that's the one who pulled the trigger.
8 - Eric Olsen
That's about where I am, bhw: I see a continuum of responsibility from very strong in the case of tobacco companies (the product, when used correctly, will kill you - and they lied about it), to gun companies - some responsibility (used correctly can kill you but no one is lying about it), to fast food (used correctly would not necessarily be harmful - they all have salads and healthy shit now).
Marketing is a legitimate concern, though, as this is how the manufacturer represents itself and its product to the consumer - words have meaning and consequences.
9 - Rob
I'll grant that the Tobacco companies should be held responsible for lying to the public, but I'm still not entirely sure that it warrants the villification they're receiving now.
As far as marketing is concerned, buyer beware. I don't like protectionism, people need to take care of themselves. While companies shouldn't be allowed to misrepresent their products people should also be responsible for their own use of those products.
A chainsaw, when used correctly, can kill you as well, but should Stihl be held responsible for dummies who fell trees on to of themselves?
10 - bhw
To me, it would appear as though a "well regulated militia" and "the right to keep and bear arms" are denoted separately.
I guess that boils down to interpretation. I see the keeping and bearing of arms being directly related to the militia in that statement. Again, the document was written in the context of a recently won revolution.
And I didn't say that if the gun wasn't there, he wouldn't have committed the crime. I said guns do kill people. It's the *death* that *might* have been avoided if the gun wasn't there. If you go get a knife or a baseball bat, I'd have [half] a chance of defending myself. And you'd have to catch up with me. With a gun, I have no chance to defend myself and you can take a deadly shot from a distance.
Guns are different from knives, cars, alcohol, and nail guns. And they should be treated as such.
11 - Rob
I think that anyone who has any experience with firing a handgun can tell you that hitting a moving target with one isn't nearly as easy as you're making it out to be.
To me, this isn't nearly reason enough to deprive people of their right to own firearms.
12 - Mark Saleski
the militia issue aside, i had a conversation once with a friend about this being an absolute right.
personally, i don't really like them, but don't have a problem with people having them. it creeps me out a little but, hey, that's my problem.
but our conversation moved toward the definition of arms.
for instance: rifles are ok, so are handguns. but...assault rifles too?
what about grenades?
rocket launchers?
is there a line somewhere?
13 - bhw
I think that anyone who has any experience with firing a handgun can tell you that hitting a moving target with one isn't nearly as easy as you're making it out to be.
And yet it happens all the time! Just ask Tupac. ;-)
Like I said, I don't think guns should be illegal. But I also don't think the method [the gun] can be entirely separated from the incident. And I don't think that we should allow unrestricted gun/firearm ownership.
14 - Eric Olsen
again, I agree
15 - Natalie Davis
Um, this pro-choicer is not out to grab your guns. And on school vouchers, my beef is that I don't want my money taken by the government and given to religious schools.