Quote: magicjay said: What about injury to a third party? The state, for example winds up paying the costs of medical care for gunshot victims. Doesn't the theory of negligence enter into the issue?
Again, using your logic.
Drunk drivers kill or maim thousands each year. Including themselves. The state often winds up paying the costs for those victims.
It is reasonably forseeable that a car will be used to main or kill people in that manner.
The car manufacturers could, but do not, install interlock devices on each and every car sold in America. Those devices require the operator to blow into a tube in order to confirm there is no alcohol on his or her breath prior to activating the ignition.
So why don't the states sue the car manufacturers for not installing interlocks on all cars?
Answer: to date, we recognize, rightly so, that the person at fault is the drunk driver, not the car manufacturer. We do not, to date, attempt to shift the blame to the manufacturer.
Suing the gun manufacturer is nothing more than searching for the proverbial "deep pocket," the company that has a lot of money, regardless of who was actually at fault. It is greed, pure and simple, on behalf of the trial lawyers and politicians who are trying to balance their budgets.
