Friday, February 12, 2016

Do they really think I'm that dum...er...dumm...er...stoopid?


I repeatedly hear anti-gun groups, particularly presidential candidates, say gun manufacturers should be held legally liable when their products are used in murders and other atrocities.  If this is just a back-door attempt to shut the gun makers down, I get it, but if they think there is an actual legal precedent for this, I'm baffled.

My question is NOT whether guns are good or bad, or whether some types of guns should be outlawed or not.  Those are entirely different issues.  The fact is, gun makers are (for the time being) making LEGAL products, just like Ford, General Electric, and yes, even the cigarette makers.  Until their products are declared illegal, they are legal.

Gun makers make their guns and sell them ONLY to military, law enforcement, and federally licensed firearms dealers.  I'm sure all are regularly audited by ATF to ensure their guns are properly accounted for.  If any of these approved outlets drop the ball and KNOWINGLY sell guns to individuals who are not legally allowed to own guns, then, yes, THEY should be held liable, but not the manufacturer.

Even if a legally eligible buyer went into a gun store and asked to buy 10 or 50 or 100 or more guns, and the federally licensed gun dealer sold them no-questions-asked, then yes, I can see there being possible liability.  That should have been an obvious red flag that deserved further investigation.

Likewise, if a gun manufacturer were to suddenly fill an order for 1,000 guns from some little (federally licensed) hole-in-the-wall gun store in Bugtussle, Alabama, a store that historically orders 200 guns a year, then yes, red flags should go up.  To just let it slide unquestioned might bring possible liability.

But to hold a manufacturer liable for a murder where the gun used was bought from a guy in an alley who got it from a druggie who stole it in a home burglary after it was legally bought from a federally licensed firearms dealer is absurd!

Any candidate who follows this line of (non) reasoning is just demonstrating to me they will say anything a crowd wants to hear in order to pick up a few votes.  That, or they are just flat out stupid and couldn't possibly handle the office they were running for.

I wish candidates, of all flavors, would just treat us as intelligent voters who can see through their obvious vote pandering.  *sigh*

S

 


15 comments:

  1. Tobacco companies had to pay billions for covering up what they knew about the dangers of smoking. Likewise car companies like Ford and GM get sued all the time for covering up what they know about defects like with the Pinto or pick-ups with exploding gas tanks. But that's a different kind of liability that would only be applicable if say Colt sells a bunch of guns even though they know the guns are likely to misfire and blow someone's hand off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. In your example of a defective product Colt SHOULD be held liable. But NOT when a gun was used by a criminal beyond the control of the manufacturer.

      Delete
  2. I think all guns should have a warning printed on them, "Warning, discharging this weapon while aiming it at an object or person could cause damage."

    End of liability, end of problem...this stuff is so easy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why do they think that? I assume this isn't a rhetorical question, but it's the same reason that my Senator (R) from Montana puts out emails still about the video/Planned Parenthood falsehood, Trump says what he does, Cruz says what he does, Bush/Cheney said what they said, on and on. Yes, they think you're just that dumb. And you won't research it, rather you'll pop another Bud and admire your collection of assault rifles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, and why the NRA says the things they do, knowing that their masters, the gun manufacturers, are going to make another bundle with the next mass or school shooting.

      Delete
    2. You're right, they ALL apparently DO think I'm that dumb. SURPRISE...I'm not. I can THINK! Three, or five, or even ten wrongs don't make a right.

      Delete
    3. There is actually a candidate running for the Railroad Commission (the name is misleading...they regulate the Texas oil and gas industry) who says he will keep ISIS out of Texas. Huh? You think he'll get my vote?

      Delete
    4. Scott, I don't think you are stupid, except when you disagree with me, which is often, so you are often stupid, but not always.

      Delete
    5. You're giving me more credit than my ex-wife, so THANKS, I'll take that. :)

      Delete
  4. It's hard to see how progress can be made eliminating guns from crazies and criminals, but i do think removing assault weapons from as many hands as possible is a good place to start.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No argument, but as I said, that's an entirely different issue than manufacturer liability.

      Delete
  5. "Intelligent voters" like the loonies who think your Senator or the Donald who talks like a Don or Robotic Rubio or poor hopeless Jeb! or Dr. Carson of the Why Am I Here persuasion or the Socialist Senator would make a good President? You'll notice I didn't mention Kasich. Not many people do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha! Can't really argue too much with your characterizations. And actually, Kasich is the only one I would consider, at least based on what I know right now. I'm hopeful there are plenty of other independents who could see through all this crap and cast a reasonable vote.

      Delete
  6. Gun manufacturers - by fabricating a gun - do not contribute to murder. Just like bakers - by fabricating a cake for a gay wedding - do not contribute to the downfall of heterosexual marriage.

    ReplyDelete