Rachel Maddow: Cigarettes kill, guns kill--but gun makers protected from responsibility

[AndyA]

I thought this was an interesting comparison. The cigarette makers were held liable for their product, paying huge fines and buying ads encouraging people to stop smoking, yet gun makers are protected by law against such things.

This segment aired on The Rachel Maddow Show Thursday, March 7, 2013.

[link:http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/#51093805|

[pipoman]

1. Simple

Cigarette manufacturers knew for decades that their product is dangerous and deadly yet hid this information, denied knowing of it, fabricated studies, and added chemicals which they knew made their product even more dangerous.

Gun manufacturers have always acknowledged their product can be dangerous, been proactive in educating their consumers the dangers and funded firearms safety programs. They have hid nothing of the dangers of their product.

Why do you suppose that (aside from manufacturer defect which gun makers aren't shielded from either) auto manufacturers shouldn't be sued every time a drunk driver kills someone with one of their products? This is a much more accurate comparison..the tobacco comparison is ridiculous.

[AndyA]

2. We don't really know that the gun makers aren't hiding facts

It's possible they know that having a gun in the home greatly increases the chances of it being used to harm someone in the home. There are statistics that show this to be true, but it may be much worse than anyone knows.

I think the interesting distinction is the legislation that protects gun makers specifically.

Eventually, it will all come out. It always does.

[pipoman]

3. I have never heard of a gun manufacturer

denying any of that, or falsifying studies, or any such thing. No, it is a stupid, nonsensical comparison. If tobacco manufacturers had always warned of the danger of their products there would have been no product liability wins, just as there haven't been for decades now because of warnings..all of the successful product liability cases hinged entirely on the manufacturers handling of the facts, lying, collusion, and corruption of the makers claims. I still have the box and papers for a revolver manufactured in the 1950's, there are at least 10 warnings and papers included with the gun outlining the dangers of it, recommending firearms safety, and spelling out how to safely use their product. If they can be liable, so can motorcycle makers, car makers, sports equipment makers, swimming pool manufacturers, etc., etc. There are many, many rules about standing to make liability claims within the federal court system, this is just one such rule. No rule exists barring suits based on manufacturer defect.

[AndyA]

4. This has nothing to do with manufacturing defects

The cigarette issue wasn't due to cigarettes exploding in people's mouths and setting them on fire.

Cigarettes are harmful to people. So are guns. Why is the gun industry protected from lawsuits related to the use of their product?

The gun makers have the NRA to shield them, and the NRA has spent a great deal of money to protect the gun industry.

http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2013/02/04/main_line_times/news/doc510fd23f51597650306924.txt

Why, singularly, is this protection offered only for gun manufacturers?

Just because we haven't heard of a gun manufacturer falsifying studies or lying about the facts doesn't mean they haven't.

[pipoman]

5. I didn't say it did..

it had everything to do with cigarette makers false claims about their product...false claims which they knew were false and chose to lie about..again, if cigarette makers had always warned of the danger of their products, there would have never been a successful civil liability suit against them...every one was based entirely on lies of the makers..further, there is no safe way to use tobacco, firearms injuries are always based on someone misusing the product, or using it in a way they knew would harm someone unlawfully..

Motorcycles are harmful to people, one is far more likely to suffer a motorcycle injury or death if they own a motorcycle, same with swimming pools which kill in the neighborhood of 10 times as many kids accidentally than guns do..same with autos, same with sports, same with bicycles, same with many, many consumer items which if used unsafely could or would result in injury or death.

Again, this is nothing more than a 'standing' issue before the courts. there are many of these. Cases of all sorts, particularly product liability, are packed with 'standing' challenges...many cases are dismissed daily for lack of legal standing...many include misuse of the product in question..if not, why isn't Chrysler sued every time someone in a Chrysler negligently kills someone?

[AndyA]

6. You mentioned manufacturing defects in your previous post

The difference in all the examples you cited is that all of those other products are designed and manufactured for purposes other than killing people. Guns have one purpose: to kill.

Why is the gun manufacturing industry uniquely shielded from liability in civil suits?

They manufacture and sell a product designed to kill people. It serves no other purpose. They have represented that guns make you safer, which isn't necessarily true, they can also put you in more danger. Advertising has promoted guns for children (seven years old). We are told by the NRA that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun, yet the NRA headquarters building doesn't permit "good guys" with guns.

Just because we aren't yet aware of false claims and facts, doesn't mean they aren't there. We really don't know that we aren't being lied to.

Car makers, swimming pool manufacturers, etc., are all subject to civil suits due to the products they make. Gun manufacturers aren't. If they've been so honest and open with warnings and facts, what are they worried about, and if so, why do they have protection when others don't?

Guns are designed to do one thing: kill. They are unique in their design and purpose. If Chrysler designed and marketed a car whose sole purpose was to kill people, I wonder how long they'd be able to sell that model...

[pipoman]

7. Wrong

They are produced for one purpose...to send a projectile out the barrel. They are used for killing....not all killing is a bad thing. They are also used extensively recreationally, competitively, and defensively. The 'they are only used to kill people' meme is as foolish as people who actually believe such nonsense. Near 300 million in private hands against the 60 or 70 k used in crimes annually disproves your claim.

Get to work and prove false claims and you may have something. Others have tried to no avail, but you can certainly try for yourself. 'Maybe someone mighta' isn't recognized by any court I have heard of.

"Car makers, swimming pool manufacturers, etc., are all subject to civil suits due to the products they make."

No they aren't, they are only subject to product liability claims if associated with a manufacturer defect. Misuse by a subsequent owner isn't recognized by the court as valid standing for victims of the misuse. This is no different...

[Taitertots]

8. It is simply a non-sense comparison

Cigarette makers knew they were selling an addictive product can't be used safely while actively lying about it dangers.

Guns can be used safely. The gun makers haven't been lying to the American people about the danger.

Gun makers are protected from being attacked with doomed to fail lawsuits by ideologues that want to shut them down because they can't legislate them out of business.