So, can surviving families....

[WiffenPoof]

...from 9/11 sue Boeing for wrongful death? How is this different from holding gun manufacturers responsible for how their guns are used?

-Paige

[HERVEPA]

1. The purpose of guns is to shoot, the purpose of planes is not to run into buildings

Hard to understand?

[Agschmid]

3. Apparently.

[aikoaiko]

6. All the more reason one should be able to sue Boeing for 9/11.

They either knew or should have known that their planes could been used to kill thousands.

[msongs]

2. the purpose of a gun is to kill people kill people kill people. the airplane was diverted from its

purpose which is to transport people NOT kill them.

[HERVEPA]

4. Stop making sense

[Recursion]

5. So the times this worked was in the early 1990s with the "ring of fire" gunmakers

Who were deliberately flooding certain markets with incredibly cheap mass-produced handguns with the full knowledge (and, it was proven, deliberate intention) of those guns finding their way onto the black market. They ended up being subject to civil liability and were eventually shut down.

I believe a theory that was going to be tried before the immunity law was similar, but against Armalite (makers of the AR-15) for advertisements with phrases like "You just got your Man Card back" and a picture of an AR. Just like with the handguns, it's not that the product per se was illegal, but that the marketing of that product (the plaintiffs would have alleged) could be shown to have been done with the intention of encouraging illegal uses of the product.

I think the Armalite suit would have been a bigger stretch than the ring of fire suits, but we'll never know now...