[POLL] Gun Maker Found Not Liable in Shooting

[K1052]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
Exactly. Otherwise any time someone gets hit by a car, you could sue the car maker. Someone gets stabbed you sue the knife maker. Someone hits you with a pipe, you sue whoever made it. So freaking rediculous. Glad to know the police are wasting the tax payer's money just like everyone else is.

i voted that the manufacturer was NOT responsible, but your logic sucks.

guns have one purpose, to shoot things or people, cars have one purpose to transport people from point a to point b.

if a gun is used to kill someone, it is serving it's one purpose, if a car is used to kill someone it is NOT serving it's one purpose.

The argument is sound IMO.

What it comes down to is: Did the manufacturer make a defective product or violate any laws in the sale of said product?

It would be like suing McDonalds for turning into a fatass. Personal responsibility is nearly a foreign concept in our time.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
Exactly. Otherwise any time someone gets hit by a car, you could sue the car maker. Someone gets stabbed you sue the knife maker. Someone hits you with a pipe, you sue whoever made it. So freaking rediculous. Glad to know the police are wasting the tax payer's money just like everyone else is.

i voted that the manufacturer was NOT responsible, but your logic sucks.

guns have one purpose, to shoot things or people, cars have one purpose to transport people from point a to point b.

if a gun is used to kill someone, it is serving it's one purpose, if a car is used to kill someone it is NOT serving it's one purpose.

The argument is sound IMO.

What it comes down to is: Did the manufacturer make a defective product or violate any laws in the sale of said product?

It would be like suing McDonalds for turning into a fatass. Personal responsibility is nearly a foreign concept in our time.

there is a difference between the results of INTENDED USE and NON INTENDED USE.

Woman spills coffee on her lap and gets 3rd degree burns, regardless of where you stand on whethor or not mcd's was responsible everyone agrees, hot coffee in the lap was not it's INTENDED USE.

the arguement is, the manufacturer has the same level of responsibility no matter how far the user strays from the intended use of the item in question. that's ludicrous.

if someone is placed inside a car handcuffed and then the car is sent to the bottom of a lake, does that manufacturer have the same level of responsibility as a manufacturer that builds an NUKE and puts it in the hands of a despot?

 

[Triumph]

I didn't even read the link, and I already know the answer is NO.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
Exactly. Otherwise any time someone gets hit by a car, you could sue the car maker. Someone gets stabbed you sue the knife maker. Someone hits you with a pipe, you sue whoever made it. So freaking rediculous. Glad to know the police are wasting the tax payer's money just like everyone else is.

i voted that the manufacturer was NOT responsible, but your logic sucks.

guns have one purpose, to shoot things or people, cars have one purpose to transport people from point a to point b.

if a gun is used to kill someone, it is serving it's one purpose, if a car is used to kill someone it is NOT serving it's one purpose.

The argument is sound IMO.

What it comes down to is: Did the manufacturer make a defective product or violate any laws in the sale of said product?

It would be like suing McDonalds for turning into a fatass. Personal responsibility is nearly a foreign concept in our time.

there is a difference between the results of INTENDED USE and NON INTENDED USE.

Woman spills coffee on her lap and gets 3rd degree burns, regardless of where you stand on whethor or not mcd's was responsible everyone agrees, hot coffee in the lap was not it's INTENDED USE.

the arguement is, the manufacturer has the same level of responsibility no matter how far the user strays from the intended use of the item in question. that's ludicrous.

if someone is placed inside a car handcuffed and then the car is sent to the bottom of a lake, does that manufacturer have the same level of responsibility as a manufacturer that builds an NUKE and puts it in the hands of a despot?

The main point, as I stated before, is if laws were broken in the sale.

Selling nuclear weapons on a cash and carry basis to foreign nations violates many rather serious laws.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
Exactly. Otherwise any time someone gets hit by a car, you could sue the car maker. Someone gets stabbed you sue the knife maker. Someone hits you with a pipe, you sue whoever made it. So freaking rediculous. Glad to know the police are wasting the tax payer's money just like everyone else is.

i voted that the manufacturer was NOT responsible, but your logic sucks.

guns have one purpose, to shoot things or people, cars have one purpose to transport people from point a to point b.

if a gun is used to kill someone, it is serving it's one purpose, if a car is used to kill someone it is NOT serving it's one purpose.

The argument is sound IMO.

What it comes down to is: Did the manufacturer make a defective product or violate any laws in the sale of said product?

It would be like suing McDonalds for turning into a fatass. Personal responsibility is nearly a foreign concept in our time.

there is a difference between the results of INTENDED USE and NON INTENDED USE.

Woman spills coffee on her lap and gets 3rd degree burns, regardless of where you stand on whethor or not mcd's was responsible everyone agrees, hot coffee in the lap was not it's INTENDED USE.

the arguement is, the manufacturer has the same level of responsibility no matter how far the user strays from the intended use of the item in question. that's ludicrous.

if someone is placed inside a car handcuffed and then the car is sent to the bottom of a lake, does that manufacturer have the same level of responsibility as a manufacturer that builds an NUKE and puts it in the hands of a despot?

The main point, as I stated before, is if laws were broken in the sale.

Selling a nuclear weapons on a cash and carry basis to foreign nations violates many rather serious laws.

the main point is, his argument is weak and dismisses what is really a serious issue.

to compare gun manufacturers to automobile manufacturers or even knife manufacturers is ludicrous.

how to protect our freedom and right to buy and carry guns and yet at the same time keep them out of the hands of criminals is a serious issue.

if you KNOW the person that wants to buy the gun is a criminal, should you still sell it?

the problem is, there are many people that don't have records that may decide later on to commit a criminal act.

 

[etalns]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: BW86

Originally posted by: Modeps
"Guns dont kill people, people kill people."

However, that said, I do feel it is incumbent upon the pawn shop which sold the guns to use common sense and check if the person who is predominant in the purchase of said guns is someone who can legally own a gun.

Will's Jewelry and Loan Co., the pawnshop where the gun was sold, settled with the officers for $1 million in June.

They were (rightly) held liable.

I'm aware of that, but as the poll was exclusivley referring to the gun maker and didn't make reference to the shop that actually sold it I decided I'd chime in on my position regarding that.

 

[silverpig]

0-39-0

Wow, this must be a first.

 

[Thraxen]

to compare gun manufacturers to automobile manufacturers or even knife manufacturers is ludicrous.

Why not knife manufacturers? Knives are for cutting. That is their intended use. Also, you are making a very broad statement about the intended use of guns. It could very easily be argued that the intended use of guns does not include crime. "Shoot stuff" is very broad.

Wow, this must be a first.

Yeah, there is usually some ass who just wants to be the first to vote for a given option.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
Exactly. Otherwise any time someone gets hit by a car, you could sue the car maker. Someone gets stabbed you sue the knife maker. Someone hits you with a pipe, you sue whoever made it. So freaking rediculous. Glad to know the police are wasting the tax payer's money just like everyone else is.

i voted that the manufacturer was NOT responsible, but your logic sucks.

guns have one purpose, to shoot things or people, cars have one purpose to transport people from point a to point b.

if a gun is used to kill someone, it is serving it's one purpose, if a car is used to kill someone it is NOT serving it's one purpose.

The argument is sound IMO.

What it comes down to is: Did the manufacturer make a defective product or violate any laws in the sale of said product?

It would be like suing McDonalds for turning into a fatass. Personal responsibility is nearly a foreign concept in our time.

there is a difference between the results of INTENDED USE and NON INTENDED USE.

Woman spills coffee on her lap and gets 3rd degree burns, regardless of where you stand on whethor or not mcd's was responsible everyone agrees, hot coffee in the lap was not it's INTENDED USE.

the arguement is, the manufacturer has the same level of responsibility no matter how far the user strays from the intended use of the item in question. that's ludicrous.

if someone is placed inside a car handcuffed and then the car is sent to the bottom of a lake, does that manufacturer have the same level of responsibility as a manufacturer that builds an NUKE and puts it in the hands of a despot?

The main point, as I stated before, is if laws were broken in the sale.

Selling a nuclear weapons on a cash and carry basis to foreign nations violates many rather serious laws.

the main point is, his argument is weak and dismisses what is really a serious issue.

to compare gun manufacturers to automobile manufacturers or even knife manufacturers is ludicrous.

how to protect our freedom and right to buy and carry guns and yet at the same time keep them out of the hands of criminals is a serious issue.

if you KNOW the person that wants to buy the gun is a criminal, should you still sell it?

the problem is, there are many people that don't have records that may decide later on to commit a criminal act.

There are already checks in place to assure that felons don't aquire guns through legal channels.

The manufacturer has no idea who the dealer is selling to per the ATF regulations regarding gun sales.

How can they possibly be responsible?

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

to compare gun manufacturers to automobile manufacturers or even knife manufacturers is ludicrous.

Why not knife manufacturers? Knives are for cutting. That is their intended use. Also, you are making a very broad statement about the intended use of guns. It could very easily be argued that the intended use of guns does not include crime. "Shoot stuff" is very broad.

Wow, this must be a first.

Yeah, there is usually some ass who just wants to be the first to vote for a given option.

no, i'm not making a broad statement about the intended use of guns. what are the intended USES of guns?? what practical function does it serve except to kill or maim someone?

do you really think the only uses for knives are to kill or maim someone? knives are used EVERY DAY at mundane tasks, from opening envelopes, to cutting chicken, to cutting onions, to carving . . .

give me the list of mundane tasks that a gun is used for.

i have no problems with gun ownership, will own one myself some day, but i don't delude myself into believing that a gun has all these practical uses.

[sarcasm] i have 2 very very usefull tools that i use every day, my leatherman and my glock[/sarcasm]

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Thraxen

to compare gun manufacturers to automobile manufacturers or even knife manufacturers is ludicrous.

Why not knife manufacturers? Knives are for cutting. That is their intended use. Also, you are making a very broad statement about the intended use of guns. It could very easily be argued that the intended use of guns does not include crime. "Shoot stuff" is very broad.

Wow, this must be a first.

Yeah, there is usually some ass who just wants to be the first to vote for a given option.

no, i'm not making a broad statement about the intended use of guns. what are the intended USES of guns?? what practical function does it serve except to kill or maim someone?

do you really think the only uses for knives are to kill or maim someone? knives are used EVERY DAY at mundane tasks, from opening envelopes, to cutting chicken, to cutting onions, to carving . . .

give me the list of mundane tasks that a gun is used for.

i have no problems with gun ownership, will own one myself some day, but i don't delude myself into believing that a gun has all these practical uses.

[sarcasm] i have 2 very very usefull tools that i use every day, my leatherman and my glock[/sarcasm]

Hunting and target shooting.

Putting down a wounded animal.

 

[spliffstar69]

voted yes just to be different.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Thraxen

to compare gun manufacturers to automobile manufacturers or even knife manufacturers is ludicrous.

Why not knife manufacturers? Knives are for cutting. That is their intended use. Also, you are making a very broad statement about the intended use of guns. It could very easily be argued that the intended use of guns does not include crime. "Shoot stuff" is very broad.

Wow, this must be a first.

Yeah, there is usually some ass who just wants to be the first to vote for a given option.

no, i'm not making a broad statement about the intended use of guns. what are the intended USES of guns?? what practical function does it serve except to kill or maim someone?

do you really think the only uses for knives are to kill or maim someone? knives are used EVERY DAY at mundane tasks, from opening envelopes, to cutting chicken, to cutting onions, to carving . . .

give me the list of mundane tasks that a gun is used for.

i have no problems with gun ownership, will own one myself some day, but i don't delude myself into believing that a gun has all these practical uses.

[sarcasm] i have 2 very very usefull tools that i use every day, my leatherman and my glock[/sarcasm]

Hunting and target shooting.

Putting down a wounded animal.

and that gives them the same utility as knives i'm sure.

i have every intention of owning a gun myself, it is partly so that i can defend my family and to that purpose i will also do significant target shooting.

but quit deluding yourselves into thinking a gun is a utility tool. it isn't.

 

[deerslayer]

Originally posted by: Modeps
"Guns dont kill people, people kill people."

 

[Thraxen]

no, i'm not making a broad statement about the intended use of guns. what are the intended USES of guns?? what practical function does it serve except to kill or maim someone?

do you really think the only uses for knives are to kill or maim someone? knives are used EVERY DAY at mundane tasks, from opening envelopes, to cutting chicken, to cutting onions, to carving . . .

I think you've lost the argument now. First, what makes you think that guns are only to kill or maim someone? I own 5 guns and not once have I shot someone. Yet, I regularly use all of them. No, I don't use them everyday, but then again I don't use a lawn mower or ladder everyday either. Everyday use has nothing to do with anything. I find it entertaining to just do some sport shooting from time to time. Targets, clays, etc... Did you happen to catch the Summer Olympics? You know they have shooting and archery events, right? I bet those people use their guns/bows on a nearly daily basis.

And, again, what makes you think you can include crime as an intended use for a gun? Your claim that guns are just to kill or maim people is ludicrous. Yes, they can be and are used for home defense, but that is just one use and is not a crime.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

no, i'm not making a broad statement about the intended use of guns. what are the intended USES of guns?? what practical function does it serve except to kill or maim someone?

do you really think the only uses for knives are to kill or maim someone? knives are used EVERY DAY at mundane tasks, from opening envelopes, to cutting chicken, to cutting onions, to carving . . .

I think you've lost the argument now. First, what makes you think that guns are only to kill or maim someone? I own 5 guns and not once have I shot someone. Yet, I regularly use all of them. No, I don't use them everyday, but then again I don't use a lawn mower or ladder everyday either. Everyday use has nothing to do with anything. I find it entertaining to just do some sport shooting from time to time. Targets, clays, etc... Did you happen to catch the Summer Olympics? You know they have shooting and archery events, right? I bet those people use their guns/bows on a nearly daily basis.

And, again, what makes you think you can include crime as an intended use for a gun? Your claim that guns are just to kill or maim people is ludicrous. Yes, they can be and are used for home defense, but that is just one use and is not a crime.

once again, you cannot compare a gun to a car or a knive.

you cannot say that killing someone with a car is the same as killing someone with a gun.

btw, your self declared victory is hollow indeed, everyone reading this thread knew from post 1 that you and i disagreed, your self proclamation doesn't make it so, it just says what we all already knew, that you disagree with me.

 

[Thraxen]

and that gives them the same utility as knives i'm sure.

What does the number of potential uses have to do with anything? A knife has a lot more used than a lot of tools, but what does that really have to do with the debate? Your claim that guns are only to "kill or maim someone" is still ludicrous. Even a single use beyond that negates that claim.

you cannot say that killing someone with a car is the same as killing someone with a gun.

Why not? If I shoot someone without it being for self defense then it's a crime and not its intended use just as it would be if I ran someone down with a car.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Thraxen

to compare gun manufacturers to automobile manufacturers or even knife manufacturers is ludicrous.

Why not knife manufacturers? Knives are for cutting. That is their intended use. Also, you are making a very broad statement about the intended use of guns. It could very easily be argued that the intended use of guns does not include crime. "Shoot stuff" is very broad.

Wow, this must be a first.

Yeah, there is usually some ass who just wants to be the first to vote for a given option.

no, i'm not making a broad statement about the intended use of guns. what are the intended USES of guns?? what practical function does it serve except to kill or maim someone?

do you really think the only uses for knives are to kill or maim someone? knives are used EVERY DAY at mundane tasks, from opening envelopes, to cutting chicken, to cutting onions, to carving . . .

give me the list of mundane tasks that a gun is used for.

i have no problems with gun ownership, will own one myself some day, but i don't delude myself into believing that a gun has all these practical uses.

[sarcasm] i have 2 very very usefull tools that i use every day, my leatherman and my glock[/sarcasm]

Hunting and target shooting.

Putting down a wounded animal.

and that gives them the same utility as knives i'm sure.

i have every intention of owning a gun myself, it is partly so that i can defend my family and to that purpose i will also do significant target shooting.

but quit deluding yourselves into thinking a gun is a utility tool. it isn't.

I also forgot self-defense.

But do you concede that it's only use is not for murdering people?

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Thraxen

to compare gun manufacturers to automobile manufacturers or even knife manufacturers is ludicrous.

Why not knife manufacturers? Knives are for cutting. That is their intended use. Also, you are making a very broad statement about the intended use of guns. It could very easily be argued that the intended use of guns does not include crime. "Shoot stuff" is very broad.

Wow, this must be a first.

Yeah, there is usually some ass who just wants to be the first to vote for a given option.

no, i'm not making a broad statement about the intended use of guns. what are the intended USES of guns?? what practical function does it serve except to kill or maim someone?

do you really think the only uses for knives are to kill or maim someone? knives are used EVERY DAY at mundane tasks, from opening envelopes, to cutting chicken, to cutting onions, to carving . . .

give me the list of mundane tasks that a gun is used for.

i have no problems with gun ownership, will own one myself some day, but i don't delude myself into believing that a gun has all these practical uses.

[sarcasm] i have 2 very very usefull tools that i use every day, my leatherman and my glock[/sarcasm]

Hunting and target shooting.

Putting down a wounded animal.

and that gives them the same utility as knives i'm sure.

i have every intention of owning a gun myself, it is partly so that i can defend my family and to that purpose i will also do significant target shooting.

but quit deluding yourselves into thinking a gun is a utility tool. it isn't.

I also forgot self-defense.

But do you concede that it's only use is not for murdering people?

i don't have to concede it as i never said it. i said to KILL people.

IF i buy a gun and i am attacked or put in a position to defend my family with my gun, i will shoot to kill. not murder kill.

 

[Thraxen]

i don't have to concede it as i never said it. i said to KILL people.

You said:

what practical function does it serve except to kill or maim someone?

Clearly implying that a gun has no other use. Which is clearly wrong.

Also, the main sticking point is that you are unwilling to draw a line bewteen using a gun for a crime and using a crime for defense. You are lumping both into a single "to kill" intended use. That's wrong. I still say that using a gun to commit a crime goes against the intended use of the manufacturer. Why don't you give one a call and see what they say?

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

i don't have to concede it as i never said it. i said to KILL people.

You said:

what practical function does it serve except to kill or maim someone?

Clearly implying that a gun has no other use. Which is clearly wrong.

Also, the main sticking point is that you are unwilling to draw a line bewteen using a gun for a crime and using a crime for defense. You are lumping both into a single "to kill" intended use. That's wrong. I still say that using a gun to commit a crime goes against the intended use of the manufacturer. Why don't youy give one a call and see what they say?

most manufacturers are concerned primarily with their bottom line. they seek out countries at war to sell their goods. don't act as if they have no dirt on them. i accept it but i don't deny it.

target practice is NOT a use, it's a means by which one gets better at killing someone or something.

a gun has no other use, what, you going to use it to put nails in the wall? to put holes in your wall?

a gun is made and designed for one purpose to kill / maim people or animals.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Thraxen

to compare gun manufacturers to automobile manufacturers or even knife manufacturers is ludicrous.

Why not knife manufacturers? Knives are for cutting. That is their intended use. Also, you are making a very broad statement about the intended use of guns. It could very easily be argued that the intended use of guns does not include crime. "Shoot stuff" is very broad.

Wow, this must be a first.

Yeah, there is usually some ass who just wants to be the first to vote for a given option.

no, i'm not making a broad statement about the intended use of guns. what are the intended USES of guns?? what practical function does it serve except to kill or maim someone?

do you really think the only uses for knives are to kill or maim someone? knives are used EVERY DAY at mundane tasks, from opening envelopes, to cutting chicken, to cutting onions, to carving . . .

give me the list of mundane tasks that a gun is used for.

i have no problems with gun ownership, will own one myself some day, but i don't delude myself into believing that a gun has all these practical uses.

[sarcasm] i have 2 very very usefull tools that i use every day, my leatherman and my glock[/sarcasm]

Hunting and target shooting.

Putting down a wounded animal.

and that gives them the same utility as knives i'm sure.

i have every intention of owning a gun myself, it is partly so that i can defend my family and to that purpose i will also do significant target shooting.

but quit deluding yourselves into thinking a gun is a utility tool. it isn't.

I also forgot self-defense.

But do you concede that it's only use is not for murdering people?

i don't have to concede it as i never said it. i said to KILL people.

Fair enough, I was thinking in the context of the story

IF i buy a gun and i am attacked or put in a position to defend my family with my gun, i will shoot to kill. not murder kill.

That is because you are a responsible person. Any object can be misused, regardless of the original intent of use.

Again what I posted above:

There are already checks in place to assure that felons don't aquire guns through legal channels.

The manufacturer has no idea who the dealer is selling to per the ATF regulations regarding gun sales.

How can they possibly be responsible?

 

[cerebusPu]

who voted yes?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
most manufacturers are concerned primarily with their bottom line. they seek out countries at war to sell their goods. don't act as if they have no dirt on them. i accept it but i don't deny it.

Link?

target practice is NOT a use, it's a means by which one gets better at killing someone or something.

Have you ever been trap shooting? It is very much a use and a sport in and of itself.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: K1052
There are already checks in place to assure that felons don't aquire guns through legal channels.

The manufacturer has no idea who the dealer is selling to per the ATF regulations regarding gun sales.

How can they possibly be responsible?

as there should be, but the law is always dynamic and if i can make society safer for all, if we can find a better way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, i'm willing to listen.

many pro gun people have their little pet arguments, many of which really don't make sense, and absolutely won't budge, they don't want to "flip flop".

but that denys that there is a problem. there is a problem. we won't find a way to make things better without at least discussing the issue like adults.

the guns are the same as cars, knives etc argument holds NO water. it just simplifies the issue and dismisses it.

the fact is, it IS an issue and one that pro gun people should be willing to listen to.