I'm posting this in General Discussion because this issue is in the news.

[JDPriestly]

Why Manufacturers are not Liable for Killings by Most of the Guns They Manufacture.

Guns can be used for good purposes, like hunting, protecting livestock or your home, yourself, or your family under certain unusual circumstances. In the right environments and in the right hands, stored and maintained safely, guns are not dangerous. If your family settled in the Midwest or West in the early days of this country, you can be sure that they had guns, that they hunted, and in some cases, some of our ancestors may have been smiths and made guns and/or ammunition. Check your family history. Guns are part of the American winning of the West. And yes, Native Americans used guns too.

Obviously, very few of us really need guns to hunt or protect our homes. Most of us live in cities, and the police protect us and we aren't allowed to kill the raccoons or birds in our backyards. City ordinances prohibit that for good reasons.

Fact is, if you eliminate guns made only to kill people and not for other purposes (which Bernie is suggesting that we do), guns are not intrinsically dangerous.. They are dangerous when they are improperly used to kill or intimidate people.

I won't go into the situations in which they may or should not be used because they are numerous and that does not have to do with the topic I am discussing: the liability of gun manufacturers for their products.

Gun Manufacturers and General Rules about Product Liability in Our Society

We don't make the manufacturers of sleeping pills liable for the deaths their pills cause when taken in quantities that the manufacturers warn against. In fact, manufacturers are in general not liable for damages their products cause if the person using the product did not heed the warnings on the product. If they could be liable in our courts for damages caused if someone drinks bleach or lye or even too much alcohol, the cost of those damages would have to be incorporated into the cost of the item to the consumer. Most people read the directions before using things that are dangerous or rely on what they were taught as children: the knives we use in our kitchens every day, for example, can be a deadly weapon. But we do not impose liability on the manufacturer of kitchen knives if someone grabs one in a fight and uses it to injure or kill someone else.

We require manufacturers to warn against the injuries their products can cause. That is especially true of poisons used to get rid of animal pests (roaches anyone -- mice???), medications and household cleaning materials.

Read the labels on the products you buy, especially the medications, very carefully. That is how the law and the manufacturers protect you against damages that the medications can cause.

There is a difference between a manufacturer who is irresponsible and does not warn users about potential dangers of a product that is useful for the purposes for which it is intended and a manufacturer that produces a product with known dangers, dangers that every three-year-old learns about on the playground, products like guns.

Everybody knows guns are dangerous. The manufacturer knows that. The buyers of guns know that. Young kids know that. The manufacturers of guns that can be used and normally are used safely are not responsible for the injuries caused by guns used unsafely.

We in the public bear the responsibility to use or choose not to use things like guns, bleach, roach poison, hey, boric acid (kills ants but can be poisonous), sleeping pills, pain medications, knives, fireworks (don't touch them myself), matches, gas stoves, electric blankets, cigarettes (manufacturers liable because they did not admit or warn about the dangers of their products) and many, many other products. Buyer, beware!

OK, if you agree with me, read no further. But if you don't, here are some more things to think about:

We would not have many useful medications and products if we made manufacturers liable for damages caused when their products are used in ways that they warn are unsafe.

Your car is a good example.

The manufacturer is liable if the car design causes it to tip over under certain conditions associated with normal use. But the manufacturer is not liable if someone buys the manufacturer's car, drives it drunk and then kills himself and others because he is driving drunk.

The misuse of guns is not the fault of the gun manufacturers. That's why they should not be liable for the misuse of guns other than the guns made specifically to kill people.

We could outlaw guns made specifically to kill people and penalize not only the manufacturers and sellers of such guns but anyone who possesses an unauthorized gun of that sort.

I strongly agree with Bernie's stance on guns and on product liability.

It is as usual, a thoughtful, rational approach

It's OK to register gun owners as far as I am concerned although I don't think it will change much because even criminals probably know people who can legitimately buy and possess guns and will steal the guns if they really want to use them.

I personally strongly oppose open-carry in towns and cities. We have police forces to keep the peace, and if we officers could be pretty sure that none of us were carrying weapons when they stop us for suspicion of transgressions ranging from traffic violations to murder, we would all be safer. No open carry in cities. Not necessary and very dangerous.

But Bernie was right to vote against laws that would make gun manufacturers liable for products that are safe when used correctly. Assault weapons, that is weapons manufacturef for the express purpose of killing people? Their manufacture, sale or possession should be illegal, I agree.

[Live and Learn]

1. I agree with him too and I absolutely abhor guns. nt

[djean111]

2. Very well and clearly stated.

And I hope this explains, to the "Bernie is a gun nut" contingent, why their constant drip and ooze of "Bernie made a bad, bad vote" memes never get anything but ridicule here at DU.

Although I suspect they know that, they are just having fun. The alternative is insulting to them, methinks. No comprehension.

[Duckhunter935]

3. A great read, well stated

[beevul]

4. "weapons manufacturef for the express purpose of killing people" is subjective.

"weapons manufacturef for the express purpose of killing people" is subjective.

[JDPriestly]

6. That is something that could, for instance, be determined in a court or in a congressional hearing.

It is subjective only if there is no evidence that objectively requires the conclusion that it can be defined in an objective way. I don't know enough specifically about weapons to determine which are manufactured only to kill people and which are not.

I assume that fencing swords are made so as not to be lethal when used as intended.

But I understand that here may be guns that are lethal if used as intended. There are guns that have no purpose other than to kill people. That is something that could be determined based on the presentation of evidence supporting the argument that the weapon is only for killing people and evidence challenging that argument.

I'm not an expert on that topic, but it should be explored.

[ancianita]

9. Gun laws and court cases have a long history. Here's one overview.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States

[JDPriestly]

15. Very interesting. Thanks. I am not a gun fan, not at all.

But I just think the criticism of Bernie on his vote against making gun manufacturers liable for the damages their guns MIGHT cause and do cause when used improperly is unfounded. That's not the way our system works.

A lot of people don't understand this.

I had an allergy to a medication I was taking, a prescribed medication. I had a very bad skin condition due to that medication. The medication is healthy for people who don't have an allergy to it. It is a useful product, but bad for me.

It's not the fault of the product that I am allergic to it. It would not be right to take it off the market either by legislation or indirectly by a court decision just because it can be harmful if it normally is not harmful.

People need to stop and think about the many products we use that can be very harmful if used improperly. We don't want to stop manufacturers from producing them.

I understand perfectly the anger about the mass killings. But it is a problem in our society. In many other countries, guns are commonly owned and hunting is a favored sport yet they don't have the frequent mass killings we have. Hey! Glocks, a popular American gun, are produced by an Austrian manufacturer. Austria is a mountainous country llike Switzerland in which hunting is a popular pastime and a way of obtaining food. They don't have the repeated mass murders that we have.

We have a cultural problem.

[EX500rider]

11. "There are guns that have no purpose other than to kill people"

I disagree....all guns are designed to propel a slug down the barrel at various velocities.
How deadly they are is entirely up to what the person firing it aims it at.
A .22 short cal pistol fired directly at your face at short range is much more dangerous then a "assault" rifle used at the gun range.

[beevul]

13. I'm thinking not.

All civilian legal non-shotgun firearms are designed to do the same thing:

To accurately fire a round of the users choosing, from a magazine of the users choosing, at a target of the users choosing. There are sights on the firearm designed to aid in that process, which have no special design making them intended for people, even to the point of being a scoped firearm.

Any 'determination' would seem to me to be ignorant of the 'users choosing' part of it.

[aikoaiko]

19. My reading of Miller is that the 2nd Amdt protects firearms intended to be used to kill people

Miller was caught with a saw-off shotgun and arrested under the new National Firearms Act which required registration and a tax to own such a firearm. He died before his Supreme Court date, but somehow the case was heard and decided. Had Miller been able to show that his firearm (a shotgun less than 18 inches) was used in military service such as trench warfare (trench shotgun), that provision of the NFA struck down.

From the Miller:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power --

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

Almost all basic firearm designs were designed for or were used in military service for the purpose of killing people.

I think once we got into the 20th century, I think the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment had become inconvenient.

[deathrind]

5. I agree.

But the manufacture is not the same as the dealer/seller who should absolutely be held accountable if they sell a gun thru dubious practices just to make the sell and there are such dealers out there. It is no different than holding the bar and bartender liable for selling that last drink to a person who causes a fatal car crash.

[jehop61]

7. Perhaps

But did you ever stop to think that most of us would never take the time or effort to write a 20 paragraph tome supporting a gun? They aren't important enough nor part of our lives enough to dwell on trying to convince anyone. As for me guns=bad.

[JDPriestly]

10. I'm not supporting a gun. I hate them.

I'm just explaining why we don't make gun manufacturers liable for the guns they produce if those guns have good as well as bad uses.

Guns are simply a product.

My mother was quite a gardener. But when the deer population in her town grew to the point that she had five deer routinely feeding on her vegetables and other plants, she who was a pacifist all her life, was grateful for the hunters in her area who had guns and could keep the deer population under control. Nothing against deer, but five of them feeding on your flowers is a bit of a problem. And guns are probably safer than poison for taking care fo a deer population that has no predators to thin it.

Guns have positive as well as negative uses.

[pnwmom]

8. The bill he helped pass, the PLCAA, also exempted gun SELLERS

from liability lawsuits due to negligently allowing guns to get in the hands of people who, by law, aren't allowed to have them.

What is your excuse for exempting SELLERS from liability lawsuits?

[JDPriestly]

12. Bernie supports gun registration and other limitations on gun sales I believe.

I agree with his views on the liability of manufacturers of guns.

Bernie did not get to choose to vote for certain provisions in the bill and not vote for others.

[pnwmom]

20. He could have voted against the PLCC and written his own bill. He DID have that choice.

[JDPriestly]

21. ancianita posted a link to the Wikipedia article on the gun legislation that has been passed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States

It's quite interesting and pretty comprehensive.

[branford]

16. If a seller continues a sale to someone who failed a NICS background check,

such seller will receive no protections under the PLCAA. Similarly, if knowingly engaged in a straw purchase, immunity would not apply.

The NICS system exits for a reason, and FFL's cannot and should not be expected to be lawyers, psychologists, criminologists and the police.

As long as firearms are a constitutionally protected and legal consumer product, with clearly defined and readily ascertainable criteria to prohibit their purchase (as done with the NICS checks), the PLCAA regime is entirely reasonable, appropriate, and simply reinforces commons standards of product liability law (which gun control advocates horribly abused in an attempt to bankrupt the firearm industry with frivolous lawsuits).

[GGJohn]

18. BS.

The law does not protect a seller who allows a gun to be sold to a prohibited person.
They can be arrested and prosecuted for that.

[hunter]

14. It's the culture of gun love that's dangerous.

I really don't have problems with people who see guns as utilitarian tools, guns as boring as a screwdriver or a kitchen knife.

But people who sees guns as a security blanket or any other kind of fetish object are twisted.

I think anyone who desires guns for anything more than the most utilitarian reasons is not qualified to own one, "shooting range" hobbyists and cops included.

As a society we have to deal with this as we do drunk driving. We take the keys, and even the cars, away from drunk driving fools, and we should take the guns away from gun fetishists. It doesn't have to be the law either -- family, friends, and community can take it on as their own responsibility.

[JDPriestly]

17. I am amazed at the fact that when I was a child, nearly everyone outside my family smoked.

We didn't. My mother would not have an ash tray in her house.

Nowadays in California, few people smoke.

It took a change in our culture to achieve that remarkable progress in our culture.

A pretty good percentage of people who smoke will die younger than they would if they didn't smoke. That message reached a lot of young people.

Ending the crisis in the misuse of guns (and domestic violence and accidental killings are big problems and not just the dramatic mass murders) requires a campaign of education and information.

Americans are frightened, scared, and that is why they buy so many guns. That's my opinion. We live emotionally and often socially isolated lives. We think others are more dangerous than they really are. We need to work on the culture of distrust in our society. I don't know how to do that, but we need to.