RateItAll: The Opinion Network

Why should gun manufacturers be immune from lawsuits? I don't like Hillary but I'd love for someone to explain this one to me. From what I can tell, she seems to support putting them on equal footing with just about every other company doing business in the U.S., in this regard.

I agree with her. Why should gun manufacturers have special protections from basic common law causes of action that the rest of us don't have? What about marble manufacturers? Shouldn't lawsuits be banned against them too? Popsicle manufacturers? Slam poetry participants? How about we all get protected from lawsuits filed on the second tuesday of the month?

Nice one, considering that at least a couple gun manufactures have operations in her fake state (I won't call her a New Yorker). Way to look out for your constituents.

I don't rate the vote on this one issue as high on the list of disqualifiers for holding office. I'm intrigued and to some extent amused by the running exchange between gmanod and Eschew. The comment that all responsible gunowners are potential psychos is true, as is the thesis that everyone in the world is a potential psycho. Owning a gun is not prima facie evidence of psychotic tendencies, any more than having a crucifix displayed in one's home is evidence of religious fanaticism.

Cigarette manufacturers do not literally kill people either, but they are responsible for their products. Remember a psycho criminal with a gun only gains that status upon using it toward that end, before that the person was one of your responsible gun owners. All responsible gun owners are potential psychos- as if wanting to own some of the damn things wasn't a pretty big tip off. UPDATE: Absolutely not Eschew, you see the primary purpose of a car is not to end a human life or at the very least damage it badly. When cars cause death it is as an accident while they are performing their primary function, which is non-violebt/non-lethal in nature. When guns cause harm it is in the process of performing their primary function, the one for which you own the product. If people bought cars to injure others in accidents then it would be an apt analogy, as it stands it is not. UPDATEII: First off why you buy a gun or a car are irrelevant. I was commenting on the reason it's made. You can use almost anything as a weapon and do harm with it, but, relavent to law suits against gun manufactures, guns are manufactured to do exactly what they do. Whatever I might choose to do with my car, Honda still made it to be driven. Secondly, I am not calling you a psycho, I am commenting on what I see as a purely temporal distinction between responsible gun owners and psycho/criminals in the eyes of the NRA. When facing heat for crime or after people go nuts with a gun at work the NRA responds that it represents responsible gun owners and responsible gun owners don't do such things, but anyone who buys a gun is a responsible gun owner until they do something anti-social with it. That, to me, seems like a useless distinction. I do consider people who buy assault weapons or other guns better suited to a battlefield to be close to the edge. Thirdly, your gun doesn't deter burglars. Something can only deter a crime if the person who is contemplating committing that crime knows that there will be a certain result. If every house had a gun then yours would be a deterrent as much as everyone elses. But as it stands either one of two thigs is true: the would be criminal will assume that you have a gun and move on -in which case the gun was useless because its presence was immaterial- or the criminal will break in, in which case your gun wasn't a deterrent because the guy broke in. In neither case is the gun an effective deterrent. Besides your much more likely to shoot someone who is supposed to be in the house then you are to ever come across a situation where you confront a burglar in your house and have access to your gun.

FURTHER UPDATE: OK, what if I bought the gun to deter burglars and the car to run over people with. Does that change anything. In your view, I'm not entitled to be equally (legally) prepared to protect my home and family. The crook always gets the advantage, he can always get a gun, and I get characterized as a psycho. How come? UPDATE: gmand, given the number of deaths caused by auto crashes each year, are all car owners also potential psychos, as if wanting to own one wasn't a pretty big tip-off? ORIGINAL COMMENT 1/9/05: And a major Remington plant is in her state. Thanks for helping NY hang on to its eroding manufacturing base, hypocrite. Oh, standing on principle, I see.

Gun manufacturers do not kill people, mudering thugs do. How about we try to keep them in jail instead of trying to bankrurpt business? Oops, I forgot she a commie.