No.

I'm glad we had this talk.

Failure to protect is the charge. Shouldn't they be suing The President, FBI, State and Local LEOs as well. It was a school. Tragedy. Move on.

Exactly, Czech…

Abge, press three buttons on your computer and look it up. I'm ashamed to give this Yahoo article because it is simply too hard not to defame the editor for his crappy… well, editing. And the writer for not knowing grammar. And the readers for not noticing.

If it's brought by a family, how is it a criminal case?

It's not… my bad.

I'm all for this kind of lawsuit, but it should be against suppliers of weapons and linked to insurance liability policies. When companies can lose dollar they will ensure all necessary checks are done ( I'm not suggesting it was an issue in this case)

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005) gives gun manufacturers/suppliers immunity from civil actions for crimes committed with their products.

Unbelievable, that act needs repealing. I'm not pretending it will be a solution, but it will help limit arms without affecting the 2nd amendment

No, it doesn't. It's people who think like you that make our society so litigious. Why not go after bow manufacturers and cutlery makers and *gasp* automobile manufacturers for the deaths that resulted in the use of their tools. No, manufacturers of goods need to be protected from frivolous lawsuits and yes, suing the maker of a gun is frivolous. The company didn't pull the trigger. Are you also going to sue the manufacturer of the specific bullet (or bullets) that entered you loved one? It's complete and utter bullshit to even entertain the idea that someone can be held liable for another person's *actions*.

Maniac, you cant sue Tyson if you are assaulted by someone with chicken wings either... Only difference is the item used.

Wow... I agree with Draug. World is ending; mayans were right

Suing a manufacturer isn't frivolous at all, they are always going on about how guns are used for hunting or protecting life and property. Fine, if they are used in that manner they have nothing to worry about. But they make weapons and can control who those weapons get sold to. If every gun is sold with liability insurance the insurance company will try to ensure only responsible owners own guns. Some will slip through and some responsible gun owners will have their guns stolen despite their best efforts to prevent it, but the overall effect will have a positive effect on gun control without violating the 2nd amendment. Again, I'm not saying its perfect, but it could improve the situation as it stands.

PS - the arguement about chicken wings and knife is completely bogus. One does not have to support abortion at 9 months to support it at 28 weeks. It is possible to allow tobacco and alcohol without legalising drugs.

The argument it totally valid. Suing a product manufacturer for the misuse of its product by an individual or group is nonsense. The manufacturer cannot guarantee that the product won't eventually get into the hands of the "wrong" person and be misused.

Instead of bullets, let's say the attacker used IEDs. Would AT&T, iPhone and the Chinese manufactures be liable because it was their product that caused the damage? Pick the product that has been used in committing violence and see if that manufacturer is liable. Singling out guns is because of an INDIVIDUAL'S act is stupid. Unless, you have an agenda.

BTW, the jet fuel that caused the Twin Towers support structures to melt and thus weakened the structure to the point of collapse were not sued. Without the fuel, not fire, no melt, no structural failure.

@the Czech - laws and policies can be formed on a rational basis without extending the same rational to cover every circumstance. Just because the allies fought Germany doesn't mean they have to go to war against every country that invades another. Just because male circumcision is allowed doesn't mean that parents can cut other parts of their children off.

A policy can be decided on the expected end result regardless of ideology or dogma.

If you feel compelling gunmakers to only sell guns with liability insurance won't help the situation, that's a valid response. Saying such a policy can't be considered because chicken wing manufactures could end up being sued is just plain silly.

@Maniac - Suing a manufacturer for a persons actions is frivolous. They do *not* control who it is sold to (dealers do that) and even the dealers don't control who might steal those guns. You are simply wrong and thank God the majority of this country sees people like you as extremist nut jobs.

You can sue a gun manufacturer or Tyson. The difference is that your suit against the gun manufacturer is guaranteed to fail by statute, whereas you theoretically could succeed against Tyson.

And Maniac, it's called a "slippery slope" for a reason. If we allow one manufacturer to be sued for consumer's actions with their goods, then we *must* allow all of them to be sued or it will be declared unfair protection and a violation of the constitution and interstate commerce. Outlawing the manufacture is different from opening up some manufacturers to civil liability for actions beyond their control. We can outlaw drugs, but we cannot hold Jack Daniel's liable because someone got drunk on their whiskey and killed someone. We may as well be suing the manufacturer of the car that drove the killer to Sandy Hook or the gasoline producer whose fuel was in the tank or the paving company that built the road. It isn't right and should *not* be done.

Draugnar - 'extremist nut job' really? Govts can properly insist that people who drive cars carry insurance - an injured party doesn't have to prove mechanical fault or driver error etc to claim against the insurance. The privilege of driving a car comes with a caveat that one must get insured. Motor manufacturers know this but still make cars and still try to make a profit. If gun owners were also required to insure their guns, the industry will maintain proper thresholds for responsible owners and maybe insist on good gun security. I have said before I'm against guns, but accept that the US 2nd amendment will not be altered. All I'm exploring is a solution that can resolve some of the problems, calling me a nut job for making an arguement is beneath you. Play the ball, not the man.

I have no problem with the owners of guns being required to carry liability insurance. I'm talking about your argument to repeal the protection gun *manufacturers* have.

But on the insurance issue. If your car is stolen, neither you nor your insurance company is liable for any damage the thief does with it. Should be the same with a gun. the two literally could mirror each other (auto and weapon insurances) and I would be perfectly fine with it.

Not the slippery slope arguement again! But ok let's reverse it, allowing people to buy guns means logically we have to allow them to own nuclear weapons therefore we shouldn't allow them to own guns! It is perfectly possible to frame laws that enforce gun owners buying insurance without making the makers of spaghetti hoops liable for staining the dining room carpet.

No, a gun must be kept in a safe place while a car has to be vulnerable at times. A gun is also a much more dangerous object. They are not equivalent despite was drag says

you want a gun? Make sure no one is able to kill with it. That should be the message

I'm happy with gun insurance mirroring auto insurance too, I'd prob press for tighter controls insofar as the insurer remains liable if the gun was not secured as stated in the policy ie if gun was stolen from unlocked car when policy stated gun should be kept in locked gun cabinet when not in use, but such things ar details. If you and I can agree on basic premise that gun insurance mirrors auto insurance I think we have done well considering we come from the diverse positions.

and gun registration that needs to be renewed yearly and paid for by gun owners

Good idea Santa - maybe in time each gun will be test fired and ballistics data recorded on a database

Maniac - Enough with the insurance. I *agree* with that. what part don't you get? As far as guns versus nuclear weapons - that is not the argument here. We are not arguing outlawing products unfairly. Nuclear weapons and functioning tanks and armed jet fighters should be outlawed just as hard drugs are outlawed, but luckily they are out of the financial reach of the typical loon who might try using them and trying to steal them takes a little more effort than breaking into someone's house.

Santa - My car is parked in my garage. My gun is locked in a gun case. And my liquor is locked up in the liquor cabinet behind the bar. I have an alarm. If someone breaks into my house and grabs all of them and absconds with them before the cops arrive, you are saying only the gun manufacturer should be held liable when that thief then gets liquored up, robs a jewelry store, shooting the salesperson and manager, and then uses the car as a getaway vehicle? Maybe without the liquor he *stole* from me he wouldn't have had the courage. Maybe without the car he *stole* from me, he wouldn't have had the wheels. And maybe without the *gun* he stole from me, he wouldn't have tried. All three were stolen from one household. All three were secured within the household. All three were used in the commission of the crime.

Require gun owners to have liability insurance. Not a problem. We require car owners to do the same. But unless you are going to hold the manufaturers of all goods used in the commission of a crime liable for the actions of someone who, more than likely stole the goods, you are putting undue penalties on one industry just because you don't like them. It's all or nothing.

And a car is a much more dangerous object. A gun is not dangerous at all without bullets and is only as dangerous as the number of rounds it has. Fill a car with gas and drive through a shopping mall and you can kill a hell of a lot more people before the cops manage to bring you down and quite possibly get away in the car without *ever* coming down.