HitsRus;1756952 wrote:What I found almost shocking is the acceptance of main stream politicians and media, that there is even a consideration of debate over whether gun manufacturers should be held "responsible" for people who misuse their product.... Analogous to holding car companies and dealers responsible for deaths due to drunk driving. SMH.
What I find shocking is how people act like this is completely absurd when they are seemingly unaware of the various theories of products liability that affect all sorts of other goods. You seem to think the only theory of liability is negligence and that people are saying manufacturers should have joint liability for said negligence when that is not the case.
The argument is that gun manufacturers should be liable for the damages under a different theory of liability as other types of merchants are in different instances.
For example car companies
are subject to liability for design defects that harm people and one such theory of design defects is that manufacturers should be liable for products that are inherently dangerous.
For example, if a drunk driver or a mad man drives a car into a school bus and kills a lot of children - and it just so happens that the car was designed with, say, dynamite in the engine to ensure that it could be an efficient killing machine, the car manufacturer could still be partly liable for this inherently dangerous design.
These sorts of have theories have been applied against guns for a long, long time like every other product.
For example, back in 1816 in Dixon v. Bell a gun owner was held liable when his 12 year old servant pointed a gun at 13 year old with the intent to "pretend" to shoot her but the gun was loaded. The reasoning was because dangerous products like guns create special duties.
And, some scholars have argued that firearms should fall within the inherently dangerous design doctrine which might justify liability for the manufacturers in addition to their customer custodians of firearms.
This sort of tort system of enforcement for civil wrongs is said to be justified under traditional libertarian doctrine because it induces the marketplace to solve the problem itself. And, that is why products liability plays a much bigger role in the more market-oriented United States than in other countries. But I suppose it is unsurprising that rightists do not favor policies that cohere with their own doctrines. Just look at many of them endorse Trump who is as much of a hardcore trade protectionist as Bernie Sanders.
It is like there is no genuine ideological coherence that defines conservatism in the United States anymore except "Oppose the Democrats and Obama even when they do things like pass Free Trade Deals!" Take the irony of the National Review arguing that Denmark is NOT Socialist despite universal healthcare and paid leave, etc. Well no crap! You are the ones calling Bernie a socialist for wanting the same thing!
With that being said, a system modeled after something like Workers Comp wherein Firearm Manufacturers bear some of the cost of the harms inflicted on society by their products without having mass torts that would put them under like the lawsuits against Abestos manufacturing industry did for those companies. Frankly, I think that is a reasonable way forward without undue burdens on second amendment rights.
Many anti-gun folks would probably prefer mass torts so they could put gun manufacturers under but I would rather we have a Workers Comp type system that would put in place a structure that would create incentives for the market itself and firearm enthusiasts to become motivated to solve the problems in away that coheres with their values.
If the chamber of commerce could make the deal on workers comp as opposed to being sued all the time maybe the gun lobby would accept gun violence comp versus being sued or (eventually having the industry shut down in its entire when the U.S. becomes California in 10 years).
