The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

[martin48]

Accidents will happen

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...t-dead-brother

Anyway, it's not the guns it's the people

[trish]

If the three-year-old had a gun too, this wouldn't have happened.

[broncofan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protec...ce_in_Arms_Act

Trish's post brings up an issue I think I discussed a while back. Guns are treated differently from just about every other item of commerce and gun manufacturers are given special immunity from suit. I am not saying that under normal principles of tort law and strict liability gun manufacturers would be found liable every time there is a massacre. But why should they not be subject to suit like every other manufacturer and defend the design of their products against claims they could be made more safely? When a manufacturer is liable for the harm its product causes, it is forced to internalize the damage it does and encouraged to make safer, less dangerous products.

In the absence of this law, states would have jurisdiction over the tort liability of gun manufacturers. So why do Republicans, who are generally states' rights advocates want to prevent that? The 2nd amendment does not even come close to mandating that manufacturers of guns cannot be sued without a special shield of protection.

[broncofan]

And I realize there is something different about guns in that the harm they do is often part of the design. But under strict liability, a jury can consider whether a particular design has any utility. It would not prevent gun manufacturers from making weapons that are absolute perfect tools of mass murder, but a jury would be able to decide whether that particular design, for instance spraying a million bullets per second, creates a risk to the public that a gun manufacturer should have to compensate victims for. Or whether a gun should have better safety features to prevent the user from accidental harm. In the latter case, it's a bit easier than holding them liable for something the gun was designed to do.

Anyway, whether they would be held liable or not there is no reason to provide them a layer of immunity nobody else has when it forestalls the normal development of designs that are more compatible for their intended use.

[fred41]

I disagree on this point though. Gun manufacturers are liable for defective weapons...and are also liable for illegal sales they are directly responsible for (at least according to the wiki page). Making them liable beyond that seems like another end run around a legislative body for not creating a law some people want. Refrigerators are safer now because the gov't passed a law stating they should be.

[fred41]

...perhaps I should have used the word 'regulation' instead instead of 'law' in that last sentence.

[broncofan]

I don't remember strict liability law that well so I might be wrong but this is my best recollection. It used to be that there was a caveat in strict liability law stating that a product was only be defective if it did not do what is was intended to do, not because of inherent problems with the type of product. Then I believe design defect began to be defined by balancing the risk and utility of a particular design and considering whether there was a feasible alternative design. This method does not rule out the possibility that a product did not malfunction but was still legally defective because it was so dangerous that its harm far exceeded its potential utility. This definition sort of reflects strict liability's origins as a means of requiring companies to pay for the damage wrought by their products regardless of fault. This only has the effect of outlawing a particular design if in the long run it causes significantly more harm than good, in which case the company is bankrupted.

A gun that is fired at another human being has one lawful purpose which is self-defense. Most of the time the difference between a gun fired at an innocent person and one fired at an assailant is human intention. But what if a gun is designed that is better at waging war against humanity than for defense? The gun manufacturer can still operate and stay in business if the illegal use of its product is relatively rare. But if the product proves in the long-run to be more viable for criminal ventures than lawful activity, the company is bankrupted. Strict liability provides gun companies with an incentive to design guns that people will not choose for shooting sprees.

But I understand and agree with your critique to a large extent. It does seem like an end-run around the legislature as you say, but the system provides an economic testing ground for product design.

[fred41]

But what if a gun is designed that is better at waging war against humanity than for defense? The gun manufacturer can still operate and stay in business if the illegal use of its product is relatively rare. But if the product proves in the long-run to be more viable for criminal ventures than lawful activity, the company is bankrupted.

..but weapons like that already exist...that's why we should regulate them (such as an assault weapons type ban), because they're clearly created for warfare...it's just that we can't get the government to do that on a federal level.

...personally, though an assault weapons ban makes sense, I think it would be even better to throw some solid regulations against handguns...like how about common sense laws such as proficiency and safety courses...and prove you at least have a gun safe in the house, etc.

[fred41]

....but the system provides an economic testing ground for product design.

Hmm, perhaps smart triggers at some point. Don't know if that's really feasible...or desirable - if it goes wrong - you could wind up dead, in which case your family can sue, but still...

[fred41]

Actually we should have smart triggers by now...hell, I can open my phone with a print. They say the only reason we don't have them is because the NRA will intimidate stores not to carry them because that will activate New Jersey's 'child proof gun law'.