|
JeffersonClay posted:It's not a bad precedent and the vast majority of products are held to the standard guns are exempted from. If you sell a baseball bat to a vendor who then sells the bat to someone who says they're going to use it to beat their parents to death, you don't hold the original seller responsible. If the lawsuit passed that would be the case for guns, and from there the precedent could be expanded to other products. Rockopolis posted:Sorry, did I gently caress up my writing again? Or did I read you wrong. That's fair, I guess I misread you. Yeah, what you're saying is that they're not actually useful for self-defense, which is true. You typically dont want to escalate violence if you can help it, and if the violence is at a point where people are firing guns the last thing you want to do is pop up with a gun and make yourself a target.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 12:55 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:
Read the section you bolded again quote:"Congress has rarely acted to bar the adoption by courts of particular theories of liability against a particular class of potential defendants, especially when that form of liability has not yet been recognized by the courts," he said. Translation: Congress got hyperactive and passed a law invalidating a "form of liability has not yet been recognized by the courts," i.e., a speculative liability, not an actual one. Which is what I said. Congress did not overturn some established form of products liability. Congress blocked a new experimental theory in products liability. You can't therefore really claim that the gun industry has a special protection, because they're protected against something no other industry has been hit with. If someone tried to sue car manufacturers because some cars will be misused, then maybe, because then gun manufacturers would have an immunity car manufacturers didn't. The only real argument I can see is that it's possible the costs of the lawsuits could have driven some gun manufacturers out of business before the merits of the cases were decided, and Congress did forestall that possibility. So yeah in that sense the law made a difference. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Oct 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:If you sell a baseball bat to a vendor who then sells the bat to someone who says they're going to use it to beat their parents to death, you don't hold the original seller responsible. If the lawsuit passed that would be the case for guns, and from there the precedent could be expanded to other products. You actually do if the store is a retail affiliate of the manufacturer and are aware that 95% of the bats you sell are used to beat parents to death and you open a store next to the playground for easy access by children. The people arguing against this seem to have no clue how liability lawsuits work and they would never defend a corporations right to legal immunity from consumers in any other industry. It just seems like some people are stuck in "Bernie-san can do no wrong, so this must have actually been a great thing!" Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Oct 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Bernie likes guns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Read the section you bolded again The law stopped ALL potential forms of non-malicious and non-premeditated liability and eliminated the liability for negligence. It did not JUST remove speculative liability. That is the part that makes it extraordinary and expansive beyond what any other class of industry has.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Truthout published an interview that's a nice companion to their earlier work about the success of MASK in reducing gun violence. It meanders over some of the racist implications of gun control enforcement and the practicalities of reducing violence in at-risk communities (along with the potential value in being up front with "ban all guns" to put pressure on the overton window): http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/42171-to-reduce-gun-violence-let-us-first-address-systemic-injustices The article posted:Particularly, there are a lot of us who have very sophisticated politics about things like policing, about things like misogynistic violence, about things like violence perpetrated against sexual and gender minorities. The trick is to understand that the phenomenon and the landscape of gun violence is an organic continuation of the broader landscape of other kinds of violence in this country, and just because guns are in the mix doesn't mean that we should suddenly endorse carceral solutions that we wouldn't for other things. The trick is to not fall into the trap of that immediate desire for a knee-jerk response.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
quote:Look at that loving explanation for why gun manufacturers needed a special legal immunity that no other industry has. It's almost like voting for a special giveaway because the lobbyists really want it is a trrrible way to legislate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:This is, again, not an issue of the commerce clause and you don't seem to understand the difference between consumer liability laws and lawsuits between two states. i've never said gun manufacturers having legal immunity in some cases is good. i said the case against that gun shop was idiotic
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Currently, if you are a bartender or restaurant and you serve someone 16 shots and watch them leave to go to their car or they die of alcohol poisoning, then you are liable. Is this "insane" or should a business have the right to sell someone 16 shots of whiskey because they asked for it and they "aren't responsible" for what happens next?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Currently, if you are a bartender or restaurant and you serve someone 16 shots and watch them leave to go to their car or they die of alcohol poisoning, then you are liable. no because you can be relatively certain that they are a danger to themselves and others and there are drinking and driving laws on the books the same doesn't really apply to gun purchases. a person can buy a boatload of guns and not be an immediate threat to themselves or others (although it's suspicious and i think it would be a good idea to block that kind of poo poo via legislation)
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no because you can be relatively certain that they are a danger to themselves and others and there are drinking and driving laws on the books In the lawsuit we have been discussing for pages, the situation was: - Manufacturer opens a retail store right on the CT/NY border and supplies it with "Saturday Night Specials" AKA cheap disposable handguns. - Manufacturer says that they don't keep records of police requests about their guns, so they had no idea that over 90% of them were used for crimes and they just picked that location "randomly." - After being made aware of the fact that over 90% of their sales of a certain gun were being used in crimes, the manufacturer decided to actually increase the stock of this gun because it was "one of the best-sellers at this location." Do you think the gun manufacturer had a reasonable assumption about what those guns were being used for and acted appropriately with that information? Follow up: Do you think that people should be barred from even having the opportunity to bring a case to court? If it is ridiculous, then the judge would throw it out. Is tort reform the answer for all of our other industries and corporations? Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Oct 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:In the lawsuit we have been discussing for pages, the situation was: 90% of their guns were used? or 90% of the guns used in crimes in were sourced from that store? quote:Follow up: Do you think that people should be barred from even having the opportunity to bring a case to court? If it is ridiculous, then the judge would throw it out. Is tort reform the answer for all of our other industries and corporations? i already answered this. NO. i think barring people from suing is bad i said that idiot lawsuits like this one should be thrown out
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Condiv posted:90% of their guns were used? or 90% of the guns used in crimes in were sourced from that store? 90% of the "Saturday Night Specials," AKA small-bore handguns that cost less than $60, sold from this specific store were used in crimes in NY over a period of 5 years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Condiv posted:
So you agree that this law was bad and that supporting it was a bad move?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:So you agree that this law was bad and that supporting it was a bad move? yeah. i have literally said as much. could you link to the lawsuit in question because i can't find anything on it despite looking
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
OTOH, no other industry has advocacy groups opposed to it who have an explicit intent to drive it out of business via nuisance lawsuits.Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:90% of the "Saturday Night Specials," AKA small-bore handguns that cost less than $60, sold from this specific store were used in crimes in NY over a period of 5 years. The problem here is that they haven't (as far as I know) identified any specific case where the store failed to do the due diligence expected of any gun store before a transaction. By your logic, it would be possible to sue any gun store in a high crime area out of business, because they can reasonably expect that their product will end up in the hands of criminals. Similarly, the logic that liability ought to attach to selling an otherwise lawful product that is popular with criminals falls apart when you apply it to any other situation. Everyone selling cheap digital scales or retail quantities of copper wool (or Oakland Raiders apparel) isn't responsible for the lovely people that make up their customer base.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:OTOH, no other industry has advocacy groups opposed to it who have an explicit intent to drive it out of business via nuisance lawsuits. Nuisance? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Oh no a business model that shouldn't exist might experience market pressure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Currently, if you are a bartender or restaurant and you serve someone 16 shots and watch them leave to go to their car or they die of alcohol poisoning, then you are liable. That's not the case though; the case is about holding Bacardi liable, not holding the local bar liable. And you're narrowing it down to just one single case, when the legislation was passed in response to a large number of disparate cases across multiple states, many of which were attempts to significantly expand products liability theories. The 2005 law did more than one thing. So far the worst thing you've said it did, (correct me if I'm putting this in the wrong terminology) was require a higher standard of proof for marketing liability of guns, rather than allow for statistical arguments etc . That's . . . not entirely crazy given that guns are inherently dangerous and the obvious counterargument is that gun manufacturers always know a certain percentage of their sales are going to be misused. If non-intentional misuse is allowed as a tort theory, you're functionally bankrupting the gun industry as a whole and shutting it down, which is a big enough decision that it should probably be a matter for the legislature, not the courts. As you describe the one single case, it sounds like it would be an allowable lawsuit even under the new standard under the 2005 law; again checking wikipedia, quote:Since the law's passage, there have been two cases taken to a jury trial for damages. In the first, a jury found in favor of a gun store in Alaska after a gun purchased by Jason Coday was used in a murder. The second resulted in a six million dollar verdict against Badger Guns after guns negligently sold there were used to shoot police officers.[15] How is the case you cite as the inspiration for the 2005 act different from the 2016 case where the PLCAA was found to not apply? Why would it apply to one but not the other? Honest question -- is it just a matter of having to prove intent? If so, why wouldn't the details you cite (site selection, prior warnings, etc.) be enough? Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Oct 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The problem here is that they haven't (as far as I know) identified any specific case where the store failed to do the due diligence expected of any gun store before a transaction. By your logic, it would be possible to sue any gun store in a high crime area out of business, because they can reasonably expect that their product will end up in the hands of criminals. Similarly, the logic that liability ought to attach to selling an otherwise lawful product that is popular with criminals falls apart when you apply it to any other situation. Everyone selling cheap digital scales or retail quantities of copper wool (or Oakland Raiders apparel) isn't responsible for the lovely people that make up their customer base. Its almost as if maybe if we had better enforcement of background checks and registrations, we could tackle this issue. It sure is a shame the NRA specifically lobbied to prevent such things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:OTOH, no other industry has advocacy groups opposed to it who have an explicit intent to drive it out of business via nuisance lawsuits. DR I understand you have no understanding of a universe outside what you personally are interested in, but you may recall a bit of an issue regarding smoking you may recall it as "the reason the NYPD choking a man to death in broad daylight was totally justified"
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
And yet, I have to rely on Smurfs to buy pseudo. If o buy a stockpile of pseudo, that's probable cause and I get arrested
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:And yet, I have to rely on Smurfs to buy pseudo. If o buy a stockpile of pseudo, that's probable cause and I get arrested the drug war should be ended tbh
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Nuisance?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:If you sell a baseball bat to a vendor who then sells the bat to someone who says they're going to use it to beat their parents to death, you don't hold the original seller responsible. If the lawsuit passed that would be the case for guns, and from there the precedent could be expanded to other products. If the bat manufacturer was supplying bat vendors who were strategically located to be as close as possible to areas where bats were being used to comit thousands of murders, I would have no problem holding the bat manufacturer responsible for the easily predictable misuse of their product. If a rat poison manufacturer was supplying rat poison vendors who were strategically located next to areas where rat poison was being used in thousands of murders, I'd have no problem holding rat poison manufacturers responsible. Holding corporations responsible for the consequences of the predictable misuse of their product is not a bad or dangerous precedent. Also: JeffersonClay posted:The best part about gun chat is the outliers who'd normally be posting about guillotines and siezing the means of production who suddenly become deeply concerned with constitutional rights, legal precedent and the efficacy of government regulation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
yeah, my, uh stockpile of smurfberries. probable cause and the drug war. gently caress that
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I would be hard pressed to classify "suing a company on the grounds that handguns ought to work the way 13 year olds think handguns work" (Adames v. Beretta) as anything but. The child in that case removed the magazine from his father's service weapon, then, thinking it safe, pointed it at his friend and pulled the trigger, violating two major rules of firearm safety. No on e is talking about not taking a clip out they were talking about a gun shop setting up shop right outside of an jurisdiction that outlawed gun shops and selling guns with practices that were negligent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I would be hard pressed to classify "suing a company on the grounds that handguns ought to work the way 13 year olds think handguns work" (Adames v. Beretta) as anything but. The child in that case removed the magazine from his father's service weapon, then, thinking it safe, pointed it at his friend and pulled the trigger, violating two major rules of firearm safety.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
oh well, The Major Rules of Gun Safety. case closed
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
If someone points a gun at another person and pulls the trigger, and the gun goes off and kills the person it was pointed at, I fail to see how the manufacturer should be liable rather than the person who pointed the gun at someone else and pulled the trigger. Magazine disconnects are a technological solution to an ignorance/training problem. It is not the industry's responsibility to make guns operate in the way that people who are primarily exposed to them through popular entertainment expect them to.Ze Pollack posted:DR I understand you have no understanding of a universe outside what you personally are interested in, but you may recall a bit of an issue regarding smoking CommieGIR posted:Its almost as if maybe if we had better enforcement of background checks and registrations, we could tackle this issue. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Oct 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
I like how dead reckonen's ~sum total of opinion~ on literally any subject goes no farther than determining whether or not the law was technically broken
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
The poll tax legislation mentions no specific race and Alabama is implementing the law exactly as written. How can it be racist if that is the case?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:I like how dead reckonen's ~sum total of opinion~ on literally any subject goes no farther than determining whether or not the law was technically broken I'm sure this is only true when convenient for him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The poll tax legislation mentions no specific race and Alabama is implementing the law exactly as written. "Alright prove you can read by telling me what this (Chinese) newspaper says" - Alabama poll worker. "It reads 'this n isn't voting today'" - POC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:I like how dead reckonen's ~sum total of opinion~ on literally any subject goes no farther than determining whether or not the law was technically broken
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If the bat manufacturer was supplying bat vendors who were strategically located to be as close as possible to areas where bats were being used to comit thousands of murders, I would have no problem holding the bat manufacturer responsible for the easily predictable misuse of their product. Political power comes out the barrel of a gun, comrade. Seriously though how would those examples differ from the 2016 case where the act in question was found inapplicable? If you've got all this evidence that the manufacturer was intentionally trying to conspire to sell guns for use in crimes, why aren't you filing criminal charges against these hypothetical rat poison salesmen Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Oct 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:When the question is whether or not someone should suffer penalties imposed by the government under color of law, then yes, I think the most important (and really only) question is whether on not the law has been broken, with whether or not the law should be changed going forward being a more interesting secondary question. I don't trust and am uninterested in moral intuitions. Why do you think the knife, poison, automobile, airline, and explosives industries in America haven't collapsed?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
imo, the most important gun control at the moment is getting guns out of the hands of cops
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Why do you think the knife, poison, automobile, airline, and explosives industries in America haven't collapsed? Well, a lot of reasons, but as relevant to this context, that there isn't so much intentional misuse of their products to the point that there are large numbers of lawsuits about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 12:55 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Political power comes out the barrel of a gun, comrade. Those situations were specific incidents of pre-meditation in the sale. - Woman's family calls gun shop and says that she is mentally unstable, provides proof that she has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, and tells them that she is coming to buy a gun to hurt someone. - Gun shop sells her a rifle anyway because she cleared the instant background check and followed the law. - She immediately murders her father with that weapon. The CT gun store is immune because there is no direct proof that they had foreknowledge of specific incidents. - The manufacturer said that they choose that retail location "randomly." - Even though 90% of their gun sales of a certain type were used in crimes, they upped the amount they were selling because "about 10% aren't used in crimes and they are our best-sellers, so we decided to sell more. We also dump our records every year, so we can't keep track of it. It was all coincidence and you can't prove otherwise."
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:51
|
|