Quote: So you concede you have no legal theory for your position? Is that the cause of your appeal to emotion? Or can't you distinguish between civil and criminal liability? Where did you go to law school?
When of the things you learn in law school is the concept that not every loss or injury can, or should, result in a successful lawsuit.
For example. In order to have a succesful lawsuit you need:
An injury or loss.
A person who proximately caused that loss.
A basis for liability (such as an intentional act or negligence).
Standing to sue.
You've established a loss, to wit, money spent on gunshot wounds. You might have even alleged a basis for liability.
However, you have not extablished who was the proximate (that is, the direct, as opposed to indirect) cause of the less.
If someone is shot, isn't the loss caused by the person who pulled the trigger? Most people would think so.
Furthermore, you still have to be able to demonstrate that the state has standing to sue the gun manufacturer. While it may be true that the state pays for medical in some gunshot cases, there is no evidence they do in all gunshot cases. In addition, there is the question of whether the state can, or should, be able to recoup a loss when it only suffered an ancillary loss that it would be required to compensate for in any medical situation.
If anything, the appeal to emotion is from "your" side of the camp: the whole concept of "there's been an injury so SOMEONE must be at fault" is much more an appeal to emotion than a sober application of existing law to the facts of the case.
