Quantcast
Opinion

What others say: Let shooting victims sue gun makers

Comments

Return To Article
  • IanRod Provo, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:43 a.m.

    So what is next? Suing bars for drunk drivers? Suing fast food for heart attacks? Let's go after children's programming and video game manufacturers for that one as well. We can also get them for ADHD. Oh, no ... I am sorry, we need to sue the electronics manufacturers ....

    Come on people ... PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY has to play into it somewhere.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 25, 2013 5:21 p.m.

    Re: ". . . it's the same thing that gets gun makers off the hook. Huge "donations" to lawmakers who will pass any law if the price is right."

    So, in other words -- unenlightened liberal self-interest.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    June 25, 2013 4:08 p.m.

    Faced with the public nuisance suits, Smith & Wesson agreed to limit retail customers to no more than one gun within a two-week period and threatened dealers with cancellation of their contracts if "a disproportionate number" of crimes were committed with guns they sold. S&W also began installing safely locks on its weapons. That last bit is particularly important because the Consumer Product Safety Commission is forbidden from regulating firearms.

    The report, released by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, pulled data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and found that 16,485 guns left the inventories of nearly 4,500 licensed gun manufacturers throughout the country without a record of them ever being sold.

    In 2004 Congress passed the Tiahrt amendment – named for its sponsor then-Rep. Todd Tiaht which prohibits the ATF from requiring gun manufacturers to track their inventory.

    Automakers might be forced to pay millions of dollars to crash victims even when the driver engaged in stupid or reckless behavior, under the theory that manufacturers are in the best position to possess information about such risks and redesign their products to reduce t

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 25, 2013 2:22 p.m.

    To "Truthseeker" you should be honest as to why the tobacco companies were sued. They were sued because of negligence on their part. They claimed that smoking wasn't as hazardous as it really is. Gun manufacturers are completely honest that misuse of their product can kill people. The gun manufacturers would only be liable if their guns were exploding, or if they did not provide adequate warnings with their product. Last time I checked, when you buy a gun part of the little booklet that comes with it tells you to be aware of your target so that you don't kill anybody.

    Can you give us an example of how gun manufacturers are negligent, are a nuisance, or have unfair trade practices?

    But you still have not addressed the core issue. Why sue the manufacturer when their product worked perfectly and the only laws broken were by people using the gun in a way that the manufacturer said not to?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    June 25, 2013 12:32 p.m.

    "So, why not brewers, distillers, and distributors of alcohol? What lets them off the liberal hook?"

    Procura, it's the same thing that gets gun makers off the hook. Huge "donations" to lawmakers who will pass any law if the price is right.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    June 25, 2013 11:25 a.m.

    In November 1998, the attorneys general of 46 states entered into a settlement with five tobacco companies promising up to $206 billion over the next 26 years in compensation for costs associated with smoking-related diseases. The tobacco cases were unusual, if not unique, because they involved liability for products that did function as intended, but with damaging outcomes.
    On a similar notion, some cities and counties filed lawsuits against gun manufacturers to recover public costs associated with gun violence. In addition to product liability, these suits are based on theories of negligence, nuisance, and unfair and deceptive trade practices.

    Gun manufacturers have consistently opposed laws that would provide oversight on the sale of guns.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 25, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    Re: "Gunmakers have the responsibility to see that vendors/gun dealers who sell their weapons do so in a lawful manner."

    So, why not brewers, distillers, and distributors of alcohol? What lets them off the liberal hook?

    Unenlightened liberal self-interest, maybe?

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    June 25, 2013 9:37 a.m.

    Just this past week, in a sad situation a person was killed with a golf club. Many murders are committed with items other than guns. There is a great difference between being allowed to bring suit than having the courts allow rewards for nonsense suits. The reference to the 2.5 million dollars in suing the gun manufacturer does not tell us if it was a judicial reward or a settlement for ending a frivolous law suit. Such is the nature of consumer injury law suits. More money is garnered from settlements out of court than actual liability being settled in court.

    By the logic of suing gun manufactures, we can see the next law suits against the manufactures of the golf industry, the makers of baseball bats, and then again the knife manufactures. They should be held responsible for the safe and legal handling of their products and the prevention of them getting into the hands of criminals. You do realize the purpose of a knife is made for is to cut, penetrate or kill. Yes kill, that is why they are stuck on the end of military rifles.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 25, 2013 9:14 a.m.

    To "Truthseeker" you want the gun manufacturers to enforce the law??! What sense does that make? Do the makers of cold medicines make sure that the grocery store sells them in accordance with the law?

    What about car dealers, do the manufacturers make sure that everything the car dealers do is legal?

    You seem to have an agenda against gun manufacturers, and want to make it so difficult on them that it would drive them out of business.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    June 25, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    Mike Richards, "swallowness?????"

    Have gun makers and dealers been bribing Swallow too? I thought it was only the electronic guys and multi-level marketers. That guy must have been busier than we originally thought he was.

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    June 25, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    I'm a liberal and I think that's a terrible idea.

    Sue them if it malfunctions but not for being shot. Extreme nonsense positions do nobody any good.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    June 25, 2013 8:28 a.m.

    Gunmakers have the responsibility to see that vendors/gun dealers who sell their weapons do so in a lawful manner.

    If gunmakers are selling their weapons to dealers whose business practices result in a large percentage of guns being used in crimes, then gunmakers should stop supplying that particular dealer.

    Guns are designed specifically to kill and maim. Any analogy to cars or anything else is nonsense.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 25, 2013 8:05 a.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" you are not quite looking at it right. Lets look at it in terms of a chain saw. Lets say that somebody loses it, pulls out a chain saw and starts hacking on people. Should those that were injured be able to sue the chain saw manufacturer?

    I liked cjb's example of fat people. If I eat too may "Grandma's Cookies" get fat or get lots of cavities, can I sue the maker of "Grandma's Cookies" for producing an item that has caused me harm?

    To "one old man" you are wrong, you can sue the gun dealer if they illegally sold a gun to a person. See "Mississippi pawnshop sued in Chicago cop's death" in the Chicago Tribune. What logical sense does it make to sue a gun manufacturer because their product worked correctly?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 25, 2013 7:38 a.m.

    Can you imagine the swallowness of the argument to sue gun manufacturers? Can a criminal sue the manufacturer of firearms when a policeman uses that firearm to protect himself or the public?

    We have the right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves from lawlessness whether that lawlessness is from the criminal element or whether it is from an out of control government. The people set the rules in America, not the government.

    Gun manufacturers can be sued if their firearms do not perform as expected. If a "gun" explodes, the user or his family can sue the manufacturer.

    Some ill-informed and misguided people would turn that around. They would sue car manufacturers if a car was used in the commission of a crime. They would sue drug companies if someone misused medication. They would sue the agency whose responsibility it is to provide water from the resevoirs if someone drowned in their swimming pool.

    It's time to grow up. It's time to stop looking for ways to overturn the Constitution.

  • Mainly Me Werribee, 00
    June 24, 2013 9:42 p.m.

    This is stupid! If this happens, then anyone who makes alcoholic beverages, cars, power tools, or anything will be open to a law suit.

    Why don't we hold the criminal accountable, not the inanimate object that was used as a weapon?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    June 24, 2013 9:25 p.m.

    Procura is only partially correct. Let's edit his post to make it true.

    Under Utah's (and our nation's) current lax gun laws, people are not allowed to sue the gun dealers, gun makers, and gun show organizers, whose untold billions in blood money finances the propaganda campaigns that encourage the plague of guns and ammunition that is responsible for firearms' death and misery tolls.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 24, 2013 5:18 p.m.

    1conservative

    WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

    What a goofy idea.

    So, if, while using my circular saw I "misuse" my saw and take off a slice of my finger; I should get to sue the manufacturer?

    A gun is a tool, nothing more.

    Lets face it, some people hate and/or have a fear of guns. They probably need professional help to address those fears.
    1:58 p.m. June 24, 2013

    ===========

    The makers of "tools" are sued all the time.
    Why do you think there are now blade guards and brakes on skill saws?
    [because people like to pay more money for their "tools?]

    And as for a gun being nothing more than a "tool",
    The day I believe that will be the day a madman attacks and kills 26 school children with a circular saw.

    Let's face it, you are wrong.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 24, 2013 4:57 p.m.

    Re: "They can sue a bar who serves to much Alcohol."

    Yeah -- but the gist of this article is that people should be able to sue gun manufacturers.

    Under Utah's current lax dram-shop laws, people are not allowed to sue the brewers, distillers, and distributors, whose untold billions in blood money finances the propaganda campaigns that encourage the consumption that is responsible for alcohol's death and misery tolls.

    C'mon liberals -- are you concerned about our lives and health, or not?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    June 24, 2013 4:20 p.m.

    They can sue a bar who serves to much Alcohol.
    They've sued bands for kids committing suicide after a listen.

  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    June 24, 2013 3:17 p.m.

    @1conservative Take a moment and think about your statement a bit more. "A gun is a tool, nothing more." A tool who's intention is to fire projectiles at high velocities to create a destructive effect, to either destroy an object, or kill a living being. When used properly a fire arm is intended to kill. The gun companies should not deserve any special laws protecting them liability. The same logic can be used to protect the Tabacco industry, their product is designed to kill, we don't provide liability protection to the Tobacco industry do we?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 24, 2013 2:59 p.m.

    Re: "I believe that with rights come responsibilities."

    So, you must also believe we should tighten Utah's lax dram-shop laws and permit lawsuits against those responsible for the carnage on Utah's highways -- the "hospitality" industry, including brewers, distillers, and distributors of alcoholic beverages, huh?

    Alcohol-related crimes, accidents, and disease cause WAY more death, destruction, and misery in Utah -- and every other state, for that matter -- than do guns.

    As a test of liberals' real level of commitment to our safety, let's see whether they demand similar accountability of the more cynical and dangerous "hospitality" industry.

    Liberals?

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    June 24, 2013 2:39 p.m.

    Yes why not, but only if people who get in a car accident can sue automakers, and fat people can sue grocery stores. gun makers shouldn't be any different. If anything they should be more protected because the right to keep guns is a constitutional right.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 24, 2013 2:36 p.m.

    What a moron.

    Do we sue the car companies when somebody is killed because of driver negligence? Do we sue lawn mower companies every time a finger tip is clipped off? What about drunk drivers that kill somebody, do we sue the alchohol manufacturers, or do we sue the bar that sold alchohol irresponsibly and the driver?

    Suing the gun manufacturers makes no sense. Their product worked perfectly. The problem is that the owner was not using their gun in a responsible way.

    It is this mentality that has given us parents suing schools because their kids failed too many classes to graduate.

    To "FreedomFighter41" many of the gun companies are actually quite small, and are not "billion dollar" companies.

  • 1conservative WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    June 24, 2013 1:58 p.m.

    What a goofy idea.

    So, if, while using my circular saw I "misuse" my saw and take off a slice of my finger; I should get to sue the manufacturer?

    A gun is a tool, nothing more.

    Lets face it, some people hate and/or have a fear of guns. They probably need professional help to address those fears.

  • FreedomFighter41 Orem, UT
    June 24, 2013 1:44 p.m.

    Brilliant idea!

    Let the poor and middle-class, who are already struggling to pay the bills, waste their money suing gigantic billion dollar companies and their armies of lawyers!

    sigh

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 24, 2013 1:41 p.m.

    That's right - sue them into submission!
    Like any other consumer product.

    Necessity is the Mother of Invention.