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?
good point G-geezer! I would say the state is actually more liable from that argument. And in the event that they issued a licence to someone where they had evidence to suggest they were not fit to have one then I would say they would actually be properly liable. But I would imagine that is pretty unlikely. I hate the compensation culture. Passing the buck bullshit.
Why are you so anxious to pay for the costs of gun violence? The commercial interests reep the rewards, shall they not carry the costs?
