Quote: the G-man said: PenWing makes an interesting argument. Using jay's logic, the state that is trying to sue the manufacturer is also liable. The state issues licenses to people who either (a) use the guns to kill people; or (b) allow their guns to be lost or stolen and then used to kill people. If the manufacturer is negligent then state is also. And if the state is also liable why shouldn't they have to pick up the tab for gun violence?
Shame on you! I guess we won't have to worry about the G-man getting a Supreme Court appointment anytime soon. How much of illegal gun violence is committed by licensed gun owners? Not very if what the NRA tells us is true. The gun trade is certainly entitled to file a counter suit and see what the courts decide.
No one is seeking to take your guns away. My position is really about economics. Gun violence is a negative external cost of the commerce in firearms. I seek to place that cost back in the market where it belongs. The result would be that firearms would be more expensive, including their true cost. Guns would bear a price reflective of their risks with the insurance industry enforcing standards by way of the market.
I'll wager Robert Bork would sign on to that logic. It represents a free market solution to a societal problem. Privatisation if you will. Consumers of gun products, not taxpayers, will bear the cost of gun violence.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."John Stuart MillAmerica is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.Oscar WildeHe who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
