On 5/5/2012 12:00 PM, gonjah wrote:
On 5/5/2012 11:54 AM, Home Guy wrote:
gonjah wrote:

Should we outlaw cars too harry?
Can consumers sue gun companies for product liability / defective
product reasons like they can for cars or other consumer products?

If an old lady can sue McDonalds because she burned herself when she
spilled a hot coffee, then why can't a home owner sue Smith& Wesson or
Colt because their product did not have enough built-in safety
mechanisms to prevent accidental injury or death?

If normal consumer product tort and liability laws applied to gun
companies as they do to all other consumer product companies, there
would be a much different gun situation in the US. Guns would be more
expensive and much safer to handle when exposed to children for example.

And anyone injured or killed by a stolen or lost gun (a gun that was not
reported to the police as being lost or stolen) should be able to sue
the last registered owner for negligence and wrongful death.

Insurance companies would or could include additional premiums for
homeowners that have or maintain dangerous products in their house that
can kill or injure others or be stolen and used to injure or kill others
- most specifically firearms.

If you want to make it so that it's your right to own a gun - fine.

If you want to own a company that makes or sells guns - fine.

If your gun injures or kills someone (regardless who pulled the trigger)
then some degree of responsibility should be aimed at you, and your ass
should be able to be sued for (at least) monentary damages.

You have to carry liability and property damage insurance to own/operate
a car.

The same should also apply to firearms.

This is moving the goal posts IMO. Good arguments, but not the root
issue of the right to bear arms.

Harry wants to law guns. Not practical here and will never happen anyway.

"outlaw"