Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Mr.Vicchio · Jul 29, 2005, 10:34 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164078,00.html

Quote:

WASHINGTON — The Senate voted Friday to shield firearms manufacturers, dealers and importers from lawsuits brought by victims of gun crimes (search), a measure opponents said had been ordered up by the gun lobby.

The 65-31 vote passed a bill that supporters said protects the industry from financial disaster and bankruptcy caused by damage lawsuits.

"This bill says go after the criminal, don't go after the law-abiding gun manufacturer or the law-abiding gun seller," said bill sponsor Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho.

But Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and other opponents said the gun industry needs no such special protection. "This bill has one motivation — payback by the Bush administration and the Republican leadership of the Congress to the powerful special interest of the National Rifle Association," he said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164078,00.html

Finally, an end to the stupidity of blaming the wrong people for gun crimes!

Compugasm · Jul 29, 2005, 11:03 pm

What if i could somehow blame two industries for eachother? Like, could i get a gun and shoot Ronald McDonald?

PatrickHenry · Jul 30, 2005, 12:25 am

Why is it the Senate's business to say who can't be sued for what?

I think the essence of the vote is in the closing paragraphs of your source, Vicchio:

Quote:

The gun industry gave 88 percent of its campaign contributions, or $1.2 million, to Republicans in the 2004 election cycle. Gun control advocates, meanwhile, gave 98 percent of their contributions, or $93,700, to Democrats during that election, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Mr.Vicchio · Jul 30, 2005, 12:43 am

Why should anyone be liable for the actions of others?

PH, lets say you made a legal product, but some criminals were using that product to kill people, and others were improperly using it and hurting/killing others. Should you be liable if the product works as intended, but is improperly used?

PatrickHenry · Jul 30, 2005, 01:12 am

Quote:

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio

Should you be liable if the product works as intended, but is improperly used?

Vicchio, I am not in favor of such liability suits. I think they are meritless. But what the Senate is proposing is creating special protections for a class of products. I say let the juries decide what is culpable.

Zeebadee · Jul 30, 2005, 01:37 am

Quote:

Quote by: PatrickHenry

Vicchio, I am not in favor of such liability suits. I think they are meritless. But what the Senate is proposing is creating special protections for a class of products. I say let the juries decide what is culpable.

Juries have proven themselves unable to hold individuals accountable for their own actions.

PatrickHenry · Jul 30, 2005, 02:16 am

Then what good are juries? (irony)

Should we have various classes of protected people and products?

Mr.Vicchio · Jul 30, 2005, 08:12 am

I see it as a step in the right direction towards tort reform. The less jackpot lawsuits are out there, the better. This just stops the most asnine of them all.

Guns are designed to fire high velocity bits of metal.

The maker cannot be held accountable for what someone else does with that. If they didn't protect gun makers... car makers could be next in line...

Milton Bradley · Jul 30, 2005, 11:09 am

If ammunition manufacturing were outsourced, how would we procure ammunition were there a real threat?

This might be one industry that requires a measure of protection from liability lawsuits.

Jul 30, 2005, 12:43 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,031	Why should anyone be liable for the actions of others? PH, lets say you made a legal product, but some criminals were using that product to kill people, and others were improperly using it and hurting/killing others. Should you be liable if the product works as intended, but is improperly used? Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

Jul 30, 2005, 02:16 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,435	Then what good are juries? (irony) Should we have various classes of protected people and products? "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Jul 30, 2005, 08:12 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,031	I see it as a step in the right direction towards tort reform. The less jackpot lawsuits are out there, the better. This just stops the most asnine of them all. Guns are designed to fire high velocity bits of metal. The maker cannot be held accountable for what someone else does with that. If they didn't protect gun makers... car makers could be next in line... Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

Jul 30, 2005, 11:09 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
Milton Bradley Not Machine Washable Location: Ohio Province, Rep. of Comerica Posts: 7,091	If ammunition manufacturing were outsourced, how would we procure ammunition were there a real threat? This might be one industry that requires a measure of protection from liability lawsuits. Liberalism - The philosophy for the person only a Nanny State could love. Economic -5.25 Libertarian/Authoritarian -3.90

Jul 29, 2005, 11:03 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Compugasm Son of X51 Location: San Diego Posts: 3,419	What if i could somehow blame two industries for eachother? Like, could i get a gun and shoot Ronald McDonald?