Gavin Newsome: signed a bill that will allow victims of gun violence to sue the makers of these deadly weapons & hold them accountable

[CreepyMcCreeperson]

Can you sue the cigarette company if you get lung cancer from second hand smoke?

 

[↓R↑LYB]

Why would the gun manufacturer or distributor be liable if they did not break any laws? Did they make the person commit the crime?
If they produced and distributed the firearm legally what is the reason for a shooting victim to sue? This crap appeals to motion not logic.

I'll ask again, where in this bill does it absolve blame from the person who decided to use the gun unlawfully?

 

[saturn7]

I'll ask again, where in this bill does it absolve blame from the person who decided to use the gun unlawfully?

The bill doesn't. It is still not a good bill.

Now answer my questions about how this bill even makes sense if these companies broke no Federal or State laws?

 

[skylove4]

Remington and Bushmaster got sued by the families of the Sandy Hook victims.
Which to me is unfair. They make firearms. They didn't tell that dude to go on a murder spree. But I know the families needed someone else to blame since the killer committed suicide.

No unfair would be if Dodge was sued because someone used a charger or challenger to run into a crowd of people and kill them because cars aren’t meant to harm. Guns are meant for one thing, especially assault rifles and that’s lethal force. They should totally be held responsible

 

[Json]

"Assault weapons" aka select fire weapons are already federally restricted. What the politicians call "assault weapons" are guns with features on them that politicians don't like. Things like machine guns or any type of automatic weapon is not sold in gun stores.

Of course a company liable if they sell an unsafe product. That is not the case here.

i think it is. Baby powder is safe. The problem is once J and J discovered their product could cause cancer they continued to sell it while hiding the information. Same thing with the opioid crisis.

Guns by themselves can be used for protection or hunting animal etc. The gun manufacturer paid Congress to stop funding research into gun violence so they could sell more weapons and remove the ban.

We aren’t seeing stories about over hunting of deer or bears with these guns. Cause that’s not what they are being used for. So instead of restrictions on capacity or functions, they used the lack of research to play ignorant about what was going on until we had so many school shootings you didn’t need research to notice what was going on.

 

[↓R↑LYB]

The bill doesn't. It is still not a good bill.

Now answer my questions about how this bill even makes sense if these companies broke no Federal or State laws?

I never made any claims about the bill being a good bill or making sense

I was just wondering why you said the shooters were never blamed for their unlawful actions.

Especially since you brought up Sandy Hook as an example then later admitted that Adam Lanza was blamed for his crimes.

 

[saturn7]

No unfair would be if Dodge was sued because someone used a charger or challenger to run into a crowd of people and kill them because cars aren’t meant to harm. Guns are meant for one thing, especially assault rifles and that’s lethal force. They should totally be held responsible

How when firearms are legal. Firearm manufacturing is legal. How are they liable if they did not break any laws?



Yall can't be serious with this type of reasoning. Just find someone to blame so you feel better.