How To Make The Gun Industry Pay
BY Herschel Smith
7 years ago
Imagine this: You’re in a church, or a school, or a concert, or a movie theater, and you hear gunshots. The next thing you know, you wake up in a hospital bed. You learn that you’re a survivor of a mass shooting, and that doctors spent hours removing bullets from your body. Soon, you’ll discover that the health care you’ve received so far will cost you thousands of dollars out of pocket, and that you’ve incurred injuries that will require pricey lifetime treatment. You then hear the details of the shooting. The gun that nearly killed you was an assault weapon marketed to civilians for its military-grade performance, it was designed to shoot many people in a brief amount of time, and its manufacturer supplied the weapon to a dealer notorious for selling firearms illegally.
Under centuries-old theories of liability, you should be allowed to sue both the manufacturer and the dealer for torts like negligence and public nuisance. You could then use that money to pay your medical bills. If you are hurt by a car or a prescription drug, after all, you are typically allowed to sue for damages. But thanks to a law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, you have no legal remedy if you are hurt by a gun.
The author is lying to you. There is a great gulf between a lawsuit for negligent manufacturing of a structure, system or component and the malicious use of said component. For example, someone can sue a drunk driver, a sleepy driver, or someone who hits you with a baseball bat in the head (if the state doesn’t prosecute you for a felony, the victim can sue in civil court for damages plus awards). No one sues the manufacturer of a baseball bat because a person who buys it decides to hit someone else in the head. That’s all this law is preventing, i.e., the misuse of tort law.
Of course, it’s no surprise that a write for Slate lies to make his point. Hey, I also cited Phillip Carter when he wrote for Slate not too many days ago. Hey Philip – how does it feel to have gone on record having written for a worthless rag like Slate? Does it embarrass you? Don’t you feel that you’re above that?
On November 8, 2017 at 1:43 pm, Pat Hines said:
Just another Sodomite attempting to disarm Christians.
I’m not having any, thanks.
On November 8, 2017 at 1:50 pm, moe mensale said:
“…and its manufacturer supplied the weapon to a dealer notorious for selling firearms illegally.”
Don’t you just hate it when the ATF allows these notorious dealers to keep selling firearms illegally? I know I do.
On November 10, 2017 at 9:54 pm, Chuck said:
Are these people calling for suits against Home Depot or the truck manufacturer for the NYC attack?
On November 12, 2017 at 9:58 am, Ned said:
First, Slate was giving tactical advice. Now they’re giving legal advice along with their political advice.
I’ll ask my pet Unicorn if I should take that into consideration.