If by “subjective “ you mean “factual“ I agree. These are jury questions. The jury is the ultimate in conservative government.
Biden gets one right.
- Thread starter CO. Hoosier
- Start date
Basically I agree. But if the unintended use was foreseeable and even expected, the analysis changes. Once again, I think the Oxy litigation is an appropriate analogy.
I think the more apt comparisons are the drug and cigarette companies and their similar practices that were reigned in.
If it happens thousands of times per year for a generation, I suspect Ford would be sued.
Sort of but not really. The gun manufacturers aren’t immune from marketing claims
C'mon man. You ought to know, there are no "facts" anymore.
Your position is a bad one in this instance. That's a "fact".
No, that is the normal course. The guns are insurance as I said.
As a last resort.
Hyperbole. You were controlled on where you could go.
Nope but the option was there if they went further.
I think that point got past you with where I was going.
Absolutely agree. The gun manufacturer should not be liable for those that kill somebody by pistol-whipping them to death.
True, but very few are in the exact same way.
If your electric vehicle blows up every time the temperature gets above 102 degrees, you've got a case.
If one person accidentally runs a red light, you do not.
they do, and car companies put in air bags, they put in backup cameras, they put in devices to note if you are going over the line, warn you if you are drowsy, apply brakes if you don't. Some of that has been mandated, some went in before mandates ever appeared.
The purpose of guns and cars is vastly different. What social utility does an Ar serve? I could write a book on cars. We regulate the hell out of cars as well. Regulating certain guns is simply common sense policy
I actually read a paper around Christmas time that dealt with engineering ethics with regards to car design, specifically reviewing the case of the Pinto. It dealt with the history of how car manufacturers started to become more liable for design flaws. Up through the '60's, cars were meant to be fast and look good. Safety was a fairly minor concern. Car companies held the general opinion that accidents were the result of bad drivers, not due to designs flaws.
It was in the early '70's that started to change, mostly due to government mandates that came about from one court case that someone was able to bring against a car manufacturer (IIRC, it was in California, don't recall the car model).
The article also looked at the Pinto specifically and how it had its bad rap of "exploding" due to rear end collisions. Turns out that Ralph Nader essentially lied in a news article about how many deaths were occurring from Pintos and rear end collisions. Looking at the data years later, the Pinto actually was middle-of-the-road with regards to deaths from rear end collisions (compared to equivalent cars of the time with similar designs like the Gremlin, etc.), but by then, the damage had already been done, sales plummeted, and the government somewhat forced the Pinto to go through a recall / redesign.
It was in the early '70's that started to change, mostly due to government mandates that came about from one court case that someone was able to bring against a car manufacturer (IIRC, it was in California, don't recall the car model).
The article also looked at the Pinto specifically and how it had its bad rap of "exploding" due to rear end collisions. Turns out that Ralph Nader essentially lied in a news article about how many deaths were occurring from Pintos and rear end collisions. Looking at the data years later, the Pinto actually was middle-of-the-road with regards to deaths from rear end collisions (compared to equivalent cars of the time with similar designs like the Gremlin, etc.), but by then, the damage had already been done, sales plummeted, and the government somewhat forced the Pinto to go through a recall / redesign.
Last edited:
The pinto is the genesis of modern tort law. It had a design defect that made the car dangerous. Ford knew of the defect but it’s bean counters determined that it was cheaper to pay out wrongful death lawsuits than fix the defect
What other consumer product has its own amendment? If something like this would happen there will be a sucessful challenge using the Bruen decision test.
The only thing regulating guns further will do is drive the market underground. If anyone thinks they will ever successfully regulate or ban guns away they are insane. You underestimate the resourcefullness and ingenuity of the people who now how to run the machines that manufacture them.
The only thing regulating guns further will do is drive the market underground. If anyone thinks they will ever successfully regulate or ban guns away they are insane. You underestimate the resourcefullness and ingenuity of the people who now how to run the machines that manufacture them.
If design flaws are the standard then guns won't be subject since they work as designed. It's the individual who is responsible for how they are used.
You sure "common sense" still exists? Common sense isn't so common anymore, it seems.
This will be nothing more than the 1st step in "taking" the guns. Seems common sensical that isn't something most should want.
I don’t hear anyone calling for all guns. What I hear is recalcitrance from my party.
Yes, the article went into the specifics of that.
It didn't exactly go down like that though. There was alot of uproar about "The Pinto Memo" which is what most lawyers pointed to as being the proof that they acted negligently. However, it was more of a study that Ford had to put together because the government had recently mandated that car manufacturers create those cost estimates.
It was a fairly long article that I read as part my engineering training requirements, so I had to pay money for it. The link is to the article with some summary information.
Engineering Ethics: The Ford Pinto Exploding Fuel Tank - PDHengineer Course ET-1038
The Ford Pinto scandal is now part of the lore of American culture. The Pinto was a subcompact car manufactured by the Ford Motor Company for the model year
www.pdhengineer.com
I was more of bringing that information to the table based upon the evolution of car manufacturers being liable. For that industry, it wasn't so much that cars had defects, just that they were not designed as safe as they could be.
You can build a car to be the equivalent of a tank, even to the point where it could take a head-on collision and the occupants would be almost completely safe, but the trade off is that the car would be 3x as expensive to build and 4x as expensive to fuel due to the extra weight.
Car manufacturers have to find the middle ground / trade-off of safety versus operation, that sadly, does involve taking on certain liability risks that they may have to pay for in lawsuits.
That is exaqctly what they said when they made the very 1st gun law.... 19,999 later.... No we are not saying take your guns at all.. ... ...
But this is a good little exercise that we go over about every 6 months. Lather rinse repeat.
Oh yea wise guy? All they have to do is follow the Chicago and NY gun laws it will all be ok........ Oh wait a minute... Disregard.
Yes, the article went into the specifics of that.
It didn't exactly go down like that though. There was alot of uproar about "The Pinto Memo" which is what most lawyers pointed to as being the proof that they acted negligently. However, it was more of a study that Ford had to put together because the government had recently mandated that car manufacturers create those cost estimates.
It was a fairly long article that I read as part my engineering training requirements, so I had to pay money for it. The link is to the article with some summary information.
Engineering Ethics: The Ford Pinto Exploding Fuel Tank - PDHengineer Course ET-1038
The Ford Pinto scandal is now part of the lore of American culture. The Pinto was a subcompact car manufactured by the Ford Motor Company for the model year
That stuff is hard bc engineers will say difft things. Interesting. I did ford explorer rollover cases for years. The two door model. People knew something was wrong but what exactly was a moving target. The tires. The wheelbase. The roof. P lawyers would have a string of wins then randomly lose then the defense would go on a run. MadnessYes, the article went into the specifics of that.
It didn't exactly go down like that though. There was alot of uproar about "The Pinto Memo" which is what most lawyers pointed to as being the proof that they acted negligently. However, it was more of a study that Ford had to put together because the government had recently mandated that car manufacturers create those cost estimates.
It was a fairly long article that I read as part my engineering training requirements, so I had to pay money for it. The link is to the article with some summary information.
Engineering Ethics: The Ford Pinto Exploding Fuel Tank - PDHengineer Course ET-1038
The Ford Pinto scandal is now part of the lore of American culture. The Pinto was a subcompact car manufactured by the Ford Motor Company for the model year
No it’s the recalcitrance of the margins. I wouldn’t support a complete ban on guns. But I would AR. I suspect most reasonable people would. The problem is the margins have lost common sense and refuse to cooperate and compromise. Let’s get rid of cops. We must have assault rifles
My favorite is the Simpson’s episode where he buys a canyonaro. The marketing song is pure gold. Instant fires under the hood well that’s a matter for the courts canyonaro
Pistols will be mentioned next. This is simply the 1st step.
You're being naive, imo. Maybe intentionally so.
It occurred to me reading this thread that I’ve never seen a gun ad.
Co, can you show me an example of a gun ad that markets in a reckless or irresponsible manner?
Co, can you show me an example of a gun ad that markets in a reckless or irresponsible manner?
I don't know how that determination could be made. Any gun can kill. How do you determine which one has 'social utility' or is 'ultr-hazardous' - that could apply to any of them.
I don't even see any specific guns advertised or marketed to the public. How is that an issue today?
I’m a moderate. I don’t want unnecessarily dangerous weapons that can wipe out 25 people in seconds. If my old goat dad feels better with a handgun I want him to be able to have one.
Bullshit. No liquor manufacturer is held responsible for their product being misused.
All the lawyers would love for gun manufacturers to be responsible for every violent act committed by their product.Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States, -- Noah Webster
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. -- Justice Joseph Storey
The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. -- James Madison (the math has obviously changed on this but not the underlying principle)
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. -- 2nd Amendment to the Constitution
Semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines are already the compromise based on what the founders believed the guns were for. "You don't need to worry about the government, this is just silly..." Well the current President has indicated that if there was a "disagreement" between the government and its citizenry that F15's, F16's, and nuclear weapons would be on the table. They send law enforcement with AR15's to arrest Dads who committed the crime of protecting their children from whacked out people in front of abortion clinics. DHS has 70,000 armed personnel, DOJ has another 69,000. Our benevolent government collects information on us like the CCP does its citizens:
The US Is Openly Stockpiling Dirt on All Its Citizens
A newly declassified report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence reveals that the federal government is buying troves of data about Americans.www.wired.com
The guns are the only insurance policy we have against our government. The Europeans don't have them and they rely on their government's largesse in the rights they are able to express. It is why most of them do not have the rights that we have w.r.t. the first amendment. The government just locked us all up in our homes for a year based on faulty information they knowingly lied to us about. And that was with us all armed to the teeth.
"We broke society with all of our little revolutions, particularly since the mid 60's. We have created a society of self absorbed, irresponsible sociopaths and therefore we must outlaw things that were foundational to this country because of our need to control our creations" -- The Left.
And they did that. So make gun manufacturers put a warning on their product. Duh.
Similar threads
