Don't let them off the Hook.

[Chas]

The ones they should be suing are the health care providers who failed to deal with Adam Lanza's mental illness.

True, along with the state legislators who made the rules that someone with an identified psychological disorder could legally own firearms.
[/quote]

No, not true. Adam Lanza owned no guns. He stole his mother's guns.

[Minimalist]

Sadly in this case Chas is correct. In 2005 congress passed - and Dubya the fuckhead signed -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_...n_Arms_Act

The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products.

So they have been given legal immunity by scumbag politicians who were doubtlessly bribed by the NRA to do so.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Guns are bad. Get rid of them.

No thanks. I live far out in the country, about 25 miles from the nearest sherriff's substation, and though I have no real worries about crime, I live in an area with coyotes and wild hogs.

Not everyone lives in your circumstances. Why should you then want them to live as you do?

[Chas]

Sadly in this case Chas is correct. In 2005 congress passed - and Dubya the fuckhead signed -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_...n_Arms_Act

The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products.

So they have been given legal immunity by scumbag politicians who were doubtlessly bribed by the NRA to do so.

Are auto manufacturers liable for injuries caused by anything other than product defects? Nope.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Also:

New York attorney Robert Fellows says the bar is high.

"If you can prove that a manufacturer knew in some way that the gun would end up the hands of a proscribed purchaser, someone who shouldn't have the gun, you might be able to show liability. But it is going to be very difficult," he said.

That will be virtually impossible to demonstrate.

[Nope]

Wouldn't smart guns prevent some mass shootings? The NRA is against smart guns but I have never understood why.

[Minimalist]

Cars have other, legitimate, uses, Chas. Guns exist to fire bullets. Manufacturing and selling a weapon like that for "civilian" commerce we should reasonably expect to see one end up in the wrong hands eventually.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Wouldn't smart guns prevent some mass shootings? The NRA is against smart guns but I have never understood why.

This is my preferred solution to the issue.

[Minimalist]

Wouldn't smart guns prevent some mass shootings? The NRA is against smart guns but I have never understood why.

Not if the gun owner isn't as smart as the gun.

[The Grand Nudger]

Pointing the finger at a gun manufacturer -does- let someone off the hook. Approaching this issue in this manner is ludicrous. The manufacturer is being used as a scapegoat for peoples dissatisfaction with government....what, the fuck....? You don't have to like someone(or some company), or agree with what they do - to see that requesting that they be flayed for our government (and societies) incompetence is a very poor road to go down. What an endless list of shills we might point to if we wanted to avoid internalizing our failures in such a manner.

(and who thinks that it wouldn't be incredibly convenient for pro-gun lobbies to feed any given manufacturer to the flames if it salvages or otherwise does not hinder their legal platform? "Dirty corporate fuckers, it's their fault, not the fault of a gun, Murica! Cold dead fingers and shit!". I don't know..... if you let a gun lobby pick a battle for you they'd probably pick this one, nothing but positive outcomes can be generated from this - from their pov)