Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > The Round Table
Reload this Page Suing Gun Makers

Notices
For all updates, view the main page.

The Round Table Have a seat at the Round Table for in-depth discussions, extended or serious conversations, and current events. From world news to talks on life, growing up, relationships, and issues in society, this is the place to be. Come be a knight.



Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1    
Old October 23rd, 2013 (10:55 AM).
Esper's Avatar
Esper Esper is offline
Silver Tier
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Posts: 7,743
Sorry for yet another America-centric gun topic, but this caught my attention and I wanted to see what kind of feedback and ideas it could generate.

A while back in the US there were a lot of cities attempting to sue gun manufacturers, but in 2005 a law put a stop to that. You can't legally sue a gun maker for what their guns do. But was that a good idea? The argument generally follows like this: Suing should be allowed because the manufacturers are creating a public danger. The counter argument is that the danger is in the hand of an individual, like a drunk driver with a car. A big point of contention is whether manufacturers do or don't do enough to make guns safe. So what responsibilities do the manufacturers of guns (or any potentially dangerous thing) have to making their products safe? Does the type of product determine what level of safety should be provided?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2    
Old October 23rd, 2013 (12:09 PM).
Kanzler's Avatar
Kanzler Kanzler is offline
naughty biscotti
Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Posts: 4,812
Guns are supposed to be a danger to the public, aren't they supposed to kill people? I can't see why gun manufacturers should be sued for making products that work as designed. You can't make a gun safe XD
Reply With Quote
  #3    
Old October 23rd, 2013 (01:03 PM).
Reecho's Avatar
Reecho Reecho is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Kentucky
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Hardy
Posts: 61
Guns are tools, tools turn into weapons when they are used to hurt another person. More deaths occur as a result of driving cars but there is less of an outcry about that because most people need their cars.
Reply With Quote
  #4    
Old October 23rd, 2013 (01:42 PM). Edited October 23rd, 2013 by goldengyarados.
goldengyarados's Avatar
goldengyarados goldengyarados is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Lax
Posts: 62
Quote originally posted by Reecho:
Guns are tools, tools turn into weapons when they are used to hurt another person. More deaths occur as a result of driving cars but there is less of an outcry about that because most people need their cars.
When I see this argument I lose all faith in humanity.

Guns are weapons, but for your sake we could call them tools of death, what difference does it make? The primary function of a car is transportation, sometimes things go wrong and people die, but that is the risk that you choose to take when you step into a car for convenience's sake. Houses are built for people to live in, but my roof may cave in tonight and crush me to death, again this is a risk that I chose to take. I could apply this same logic to a great deal of things, but I hope you get the point. With guns, the danger and primary function are the same thing, guns are made for killing. With guns you are creating a risk but gaining nothing in return.

I find it quite funny that Americans often go on about their right to bear arms, but are people not entitled to the right to not be shot down in their school by a lunatic with a firearm?
__________________
''Words'' - A person
Reply With Quote
  #5    
Old October 23rd, 2013 (02:12 PM).
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X Mr. X is offline
For Money
Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 2,370
It's happening to a lot of items. A lot of companies are lobbying to not be held accountable for when their product kills someone. The gun industry was one of the first to do this, and others are following.

The price of freedom is paid for by the blood of patriots. Gun supporters don't see the deaths of children as a travesty - They don't feel sadness for the children killed. They are just thankful that the price of freedom has been paid - Paid in the blood of children, or as they consider them, patriots.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
Reply With Quote
  #6    
Old October 23rd, 2013 (02:35 PM).
Kyrul's Avatar
Kyrul Kyrul is offline
Long Live The Note
Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Missouri
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Nature: Hasty
Posts: 833
I think it's a good that gun manufactures can't be sued. I wish they would do it for other types of manufactures as well. People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions anyways.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7    
Old October 23rd, 2013 (03:53 PM).
Reecho's Avatar
Reecho Reecho is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Kentucky
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Hardy
Posts: 61
I'm pro-gun. I feel that a shooting, any shooting is a terrible thing. Mr. X, you are applying a generalization where none is deserved. I don't think an argument is going to help either you or anyone else here right now. I would like to suggest than we both try to research each others veiwpoint and see if we think the same way afterwards. If either you or goldengyarados would like to debate further feel free to pm me.
Reply With Quote
  #8    
Old October 23rd, 2013 (04:23 PM).
Kanzler's Avatar
Kanzler Kanzler is offline
naughty biscotti
Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Posts: 4,812
We can debate here, it's what D&D is for after all

Although holding gun manufacturers getting sued for their guns killing people is ridiculous. They should be sued if their weapons don't work as advertised Suing the manufacturer is barking up the wrong tree. Might as well have legislation restricting access to guns and rounding them up, like most other developed and developing countries.
Reply With Quote
  #9    
Old October 23rd, 2013 (04:34 PM).
Silais's Avatar
Silais Silais is offline
Princess of the Law
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Gender: Female
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 290
Is it legal or to sue cigarette and tobacco companies?These products also kill people; the only difference is they do it slowly.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #10    
Old October 23rd, 2013 (04:37 PM).
Kanzler's Avatar
Kanzler Kanzler is offline
naughty biscotti
Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Posts: 4,812
What's the basis of suing though? Sorry for killing you? These products are supposed to hurt you. And besides, it's common knowledge that these things kill. They even have those graphic displays now, if it wasn't clear enough beforehand. People know what they're going into. If you can sue a company of making something that hurts people when it's working properly, then you might as well ban the whole thing.
Reply With Quote
  #11    
Old October 23rd, 2013 (05:26 PM).
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X Mr. X is offline
For Money
Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 2,370
The reason for lawsuits in a lot of cases is the denial of harm.

We've seen it with paint in the 50's (lead based paint, the more educated people knew it was harmful but the company making it denied all the studies that showed it was, and launched what would at that time be considered a media blitz both against the studies and promoting the use of lead based paints), we've seen it with cigarettes (Again, same thing - Company denied it was harmful, launched media blitz in defense of their product), and now with guns.

And speaking of cancer and guns - Saying that more guns will put a end to mass shootings is the same as saying more cigarettes will put a end to lung cancer. Educated people know it to be compete ********, but most people are sheep and will follow whoever shouts the loudest. In this case, the gun corporations, thanks to their money, shout loud enough to overpower the screams of fear given by those killed, and the cries of sorrow given by their families.

I have no issue with people owning guns, but really? We need tougher background checks. And as for military style weapons? If you want to use military style weapons, you should be required to serve a few years in the military.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
Reply With Quote
  #12    
Old October 23rd, 2013 (05:34 PM).
Kanzler's Avatar
Kanzler Kanzler is offline
naughty biscotti
Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Posts: 4,812
Aren't we all on the same page that guns are supposed to kill people though? Take it back or sue if it's not doing its job, but surely there's no false advertising going on? Gun manufacturers aren't withholding information about how deadly guns are.
Reply With Quote
  #13    
Old October 23rd, 2013 (08:27 PM).
CoffeeDrink's Avatar
CoffeeDrink CoffeeDrink is offline
GET WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Lootin' Your Poké's
Gender: Male
Nature: Bold
Posts: 1,111
Quote originally posted by Mr. X:
I have no issue with people owning guns, but really? We need tougher background checks. And as for military style weapons? If you want to use military style weapons, you should be required to serve a few years in the military.
Question, koff~

Would you rather we restrict handguns or 'military style' weapons? Your answer will account for the validity of this statement, koffi~
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #14    
Old October 23rd, 2013 (11:47 PM).
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X Mr. X is offline
For Money
Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 2,370
Quote originally posted by CoffeeDrink:
Question, koff~

Would you rather we restrict handguns or 'military style' weapons? Your answer will account for the validity of this statement, koffi~
Like their are different certifications and restrictions for driving different types of vehicles, the same should be for guns. Basically, different weapons need different regulations.

That said, any weapon designed with the appearance of a currently in use military weapon should require military service to be able to purchase. I consider this more in respect of the troops then I do as a form of gun control though.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
Reply With Quote
  #15    
Old October 24th, 2013 (04:36 AM).
goldengyarados's Avatar
goldengyarados goldengyarados is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Lax
Posts: 62
In response to op though, guns are very good at doing what they were made to do. I don't think gun manufacturers are claiming otherwise, so you can't really sue them.
__________________
''Words'' - A person
Reply With Quote
  #16    
Old October 24th, 2013 (09:51 AM).
Esper's Avatar
Esper Esper is offline
Silver Tier
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Posts: 7,743
I think the basis would be that the makers aren't doing enough to make their products safe.

Cars didn't always have seat belts or airbags or all the newfangled devices that are supposed to make them safer to be in, but they have them now because we wouldn't accept cars that don't have them. Cars without these safety features still did their "intended" jobs "as advertised." (Although I think there's a interesting discussion to be made about intent vs. actual use.)

It's not about whether it's doing its intended purpose. If I ran Cage-Free Shark Diving Tours and people died I'd be doing what I said my service would be doing, but that's not exactly safe.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #17    
Old October 24th, 2013 (09:56 AM).
Kanzler's Avatar
Kanzler Kanzler is offline
naughty biscotti
Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Posts: 4,812
Quote originally posted by Scarf:
I think the basis would be that the makers aren't doing enough to make their products safe.
Just exactly what does this entail? It's all about the person behind the gun, which is why removing all supplies of such weapon is what I advocate. It's pointless to go around these legal detours imo, they don't get to the heart of the problem and instead waste the time and energy of all of us.

Quote originally posted by Scarf:
It's not about whether it's doing its intended purpose. If I ran Cage-Free Shark Diving Tours and people died I'd be doing what I said my service would be doing, but that's not exactly safe.
Usually there are waiver forms that absolve you of that liability. I think there's a similar contract between gun manufacturers and buyers - if you go about committing murder, what happens to you and Bubba in prison is of no concern to me.
Reply With Quote
  #18    
Old October 24th, 2013 (05:22 PM).
CoffeeDrink's Avatar
CoffeeDrink CoffeeDrink is offline
GET WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Lootin' Your Poké's
Gender: Male
Nature: Bold
Posts: 1,111
Quote originally posted by Mr. X:
Like their are different certifications and restrictions for driving different types of vehicles, the same should be for guns. Basically, different weapons need different regulations.

That said, any weapon designed with the appearance of a currently in use military weapon should require military service to be able to purchase. I consider this more in respect of the troops then I do as a form of gun control though.
Military, koff~

Keep in mind that just because something looks more dangerous (bears/tigers) doesn't mean it is. I own a small .22 handgun. I can fit this gun on virtually anywhere on my person. There is a reason long rifles are used less often to commit crimes. They're big, loud, suspicious and not very easy to hide.

In addition, the damage ratio of differing calibers in rifles and handguns leads me to believe I would rather be shot at with a rifle than a .45 caliber handgun or a .44 magnum ("the most powerful handgun in the world, blow your head clean off. . .") at the same range. Regardless, handguns and rifles function the same way (bullets), it all goes down to how easy it is to hide. Just because they look far more dangerous does not mean they are.

Also, a person with a handgun is far more mobile, so they can run and jump and ditch their gun in a sewer because it fits. Try shoving an AR-15 down the sewer and you'll find it won't go. Creating different licences for different weapons would cause a rift in the system we already have in place. Fully automatic firearms are always illegal, thus no laws put in place will restrict criminals from modifying weapons or owning explosives, etc. There is a reason why Arizona laws state you must have open carry. If you can see the weapon, it becomes less of a threat. Think of two knights, and one has an invisible sword (a fun hypothetical to break the drones and groans). The first knight lunges with his invisible sword and the second knight, unaware of said sword, dies because he cannot perceive the threat. Ask any officer whether they'd like to know if the person they're talking to has a weapon or not. All of the officers would say yes, they would like to know what they're up against, koffi~
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #19    
Old October 24th, 2013 (07:51 PM).
Team Fail's Avatar
Team Fail Team Fail is offline
fun in the sun
Platinum Tier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Brave
Posts: 10,527
Suing gun makers for killing people makes about as much sense as suing gaming companies for making products that make people lazy. They're only being used in their intended ways, but caution must be used with both products, because they can be abused easily. It'll never happen in today's world.
__________________
Pair 1 Pair 2 Twitter Alt 1 Alt 2 PHO Image Source Avatar Source

"On my business card, I am a corporate president.
In my mind, I am a game developer.
But in my heart, I am a gamer."

- Satoru Iwata, 1959 - 2015
Reply With Quote
Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links

You may also like.. (Beta)
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25

Forum Jump


All times are UTC -8. The time now is 11:56 PM.