Quote:

PenWing said:
Quote:

magicjay said:
Quote:

PenWing said:
Um...how is the manufacturer negligent? Seriously, take me through this, step by step. Talking about guns here, nothing else.



Negligence Claims :

In a negligence claim a plaintiff must show that a manufacturer, seller, wholesaler or other party involved in the distributive chain or group had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the process of manufacturing or selling a product and failed to fulfill that duty, resulting in injury to the plaintiff. Negligence consists of doing something that a person of ordinary prudence would not do under the same or similar circumstances or failing to do something that a person of ordinary prudence would do under the same or similar circumstances. This can take the form of negligence in drawing up or reviewing plans for a product, negligence in maintaining the machines that make the component parts of the product, negligence in failure to anticipate probable uses of the product, negligence in failure to inspect or test the product adequately, negligence in issuing no warnings or instructions or inadequate warnings or instructions, negligence in releasing the product into the stream of commerce, or any other aspect of the manufacturing or distribution process where due care is not used.



I am not going to read that. I am not a lawyer, and I don't want to be handed text book definitions from some law book. I want it spelled out in simple English.

Please, explain to me, in your own words, how the manufacturer is negligent? This definition, if I understand it correctly, means I can sue Ford Motor Company if someone injures my person by running me over while I'm walking on the sidewalk. I see slippery slope, and I know that's not what the law wants here.



So you're telling me that a concise and accurate answer to your question is insufficient. So, let's see if I can simplify it for you. A person of normal intelligence and wisdom should be able to forsee the consequinces of their actions. Gun violence is a forseeable consequence of manufacturing and selling firearms. That renders the maker and sellar negligent.

Besides the immeadiate victims of gun violence, third parties are also injured. My argument is for the taxpayers of the states which bare the cost through Medicaid of the consequences of gun violence. I don't argue to ban gun sales. Merely to hold financially responsible the negligent parties, makers and sellars, for past damage to taxpayers, who are third party victims. Further, that in the future makers and sellars of a hazardous product indemnify the taxpayers against future loss. That is they have a duty to provide insuance against loss to future victims. In my narrow argument only third party victims the taxpayers would gain relief.

For your Hummer analogy, the driver has a responsibilty to carry liability insurance as a requirement of licensure, at least in California. Another requirement is a sound mind. The states' granting of the driver a licence relieves automakers from liability to the states. The automakers are actually an excellant case in point. Why do you think we have all the safety features on cars today that have greatly reduced mortality and injury of passengers?

The arms makers can sell bazookas to geeky middle school boys in puberty if they want. They simply must pay for the consequinces to society of such commerce.

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.