Can Anyone Explain Why Gun Manufacturers Shouldn't be Sued?

[jorb]

The fundamental liberal idea is the conception of man as a utilitarian rent and profit seeker in an atomistic relationship to the all-pervasive state of the world republic & brotherhood of man. Within that framework certain particular liberals have considered it a good idea to "guarantee" "citizens" the right to bear arms. Others have not. I feel strongly that the premise as such should be rejected.

[Ysh]

The fundamental liberal idea is the conception of man as a utilitarian rent and profit seeker in an atomistic relationship to the all-pervasive state of the world republic & brotherhood of man. Within that framework certain particular liberals have considered it a good idea to "guarantee" "citizens" the right to bear arms. Others have not. I feel strongly that the premise as such should be rejected.

So you are not the man who will think ''these ends shall justify those means.'' You will think that it is not enough for the man to come to the right conclusion, but the man must come to the right conclusion for the right reason.

What politics school are you considering yourself as being? I will like to do some reading for it.

[Potjeh]

Well-organised society is a prerequisite for advanced civilisation and some of it's nice concepts like personal property

[Leafstab]

Life kills people if people werent alive they couldnt be killed R.I.P everyone.

[Glorthan]

Most of the stricter anti-gun measures that today are commonplace in the western world have been implemented during the latter half of the 20th century, curiously enough correlating roughly with an increase in violent crime during that same period.

My country (Australia) begs to differ.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... australia/ (About 6 study links in the bottom, bonus graphs included).

[Ysh]

Most of the stricter anti-gun measures that today are commonplace in the western world have been implemented during the latter half of the 20th century, curiously enough correlating roughly with an increase in violent crime during that same period.

My country (Australia) begs to differ.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... australia/ (About 6 study links in the bottom, bonus graphs included).

The paper also estimated that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people results in a 35 to 50 percent decline in the homicide rate, but because of the low number of homicides in Australia normally, this finding isn't statistically significant.

What is significant is the decline the laws caused in the firearm suicide rate, which Leigh and Neill estimate at a 74 percent reduction for a buyback of that size.

Firearm suicide rate will go down if there will be less firearm? How shocking.

I think that if I want to die and have not a gun, I will find some other way.

[TeckXKnight]

It depends on what you're suing them for. A lot of people immediately assume you're suing a company for money but you can be suing them to enact labeling or somesuch. For example suing gun companies to put warning labels that X guns are the most common guns to use in mass shootings, a problem that is rapidly growing in the US, and encouraging extra care measures are to be taken when securing those guns to prevent them from getting into the hands of someone looking to abuse them.

If you're suing them for reparations for victims of gun crime then no, there isn't really any legal precedent that I could find where the manufacturer was at fault for the act of an individual or group. Maybe my google-fu is just weak, who knows.

That said even if we enact strict gun control laws and do everything in our power to stop further gun sales we'll be seeing a continued increase in mass shootings and gun deaths in the US for the rest of our life times. The fact of the matter is that there are already guns out there is huge quantites and people in mental states that encourage them to go out there and commit these crimes. So enjoy your monthly mass shootings and quarterly school shootings.

[TeckXKnight]

Firearm suicide rate will go down if there will be less firearm? How shocking. :roll:

I think that if I want to die and have not a gun, I will find some other way.

Other forms of suicide are less lethal on average and many people who are suicidal do tend to recover over time if they don't die. Suicidal thoughts tend to be a phase rather than a state of being.

[Igglebert]

Every person who wants to buy a gun should be subjected to a mental health check.
Also, why are assault gun like weapons for sale? You dont need half automatic rifles or fully automatic rifles for hunting.
You do not need hand guns or pistols for hunting for that matter.

You need rifles and shotguns for hunting.

Well it's a good thing that here in the US we have a bill of rights and not needs. While I do agree that keeping guns out of the hands of what society would consider "crazy people" should be a thing. How would a government be able to do such a thing? What qualifies as crazy? There are a lot of things that people say and do now days that some people consider crazy while others think is completely normal. Where would the line be drawn when it comes to identifying people who are mentally unfit to own a firearm?

[Ysh]

Firearm suicide rate will go down if there will be less firearm? How shocking.

I think that if I want to die and have not a gun, I will find some other way.

Other forms of suicide are less lethal on average and many people who are suicidal do tend to recover over time if they don't die. Suicidal thoughts tend to be a phase rather than a state of being.

I guess it will be good for those people then. Not a compelling reason to hurt me for their weakness, I think.

Every person who wants to buy a gun should be subjected to a mental health check.
Also, why are assault gun like weapons for sale? You dont need half automatic rifles or fully automatic rifles for hunting.
You do not need hand guns or pistols for hunting for that matter.

You need rifles and shotguns for hunting.

Well it's a good thing that here in the US we have a bill of rights and not needs. While I do agree that keeping guns out of the hands of what society would consider "crazy people" should be a thing. How would a government be able to do such a thing? What qualifies as crazy? There are a lot of things that people say and do now days that some people consider crazy while others think is completely normal. Where would the line be drawn when it comes to identifying people who are mentally unfit to own a firearm?

Do not worry citizen, Uncle Sam is knowing best for you.