7 ms·

It seems like a really bizarre case from a European perspective. If one concluded that the theatre was liable for the actions of a gun carrying lunatic wouldn't

by rmchugh 10y ago

It seems like a really bizarre case from a European perspective. If one concluded that the theatre was liable for the actions of a gun carrying lunatic wouldn't the same apply for all service providers acting in public space? Concerts, bars, cafés etc would all be expected to prepare for terrorist-style shooting incidents. Whatever about the excessive cost of such preparations (which would be passed on to the consumer), the effect on public consciousness by constantly rubbing up against militarised zones would be horrible.

sneak 10y ago
Try going to a concert or sporting event in that country sometime. It's totally ridiculous.
lostlogin 10y ago
It would be a problem that was largely solved if gun manufacturers held any liability - a far better target than the cinema. The protection of lawful commerce in arms act protects them.
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  Gun manufacturers do hold liability - for defects in their products, for negligence, for breaking the law in the course of selling their products, etc.
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    Yes, but a fully functional assault rifle killing dozens when sold to someone whom is badly mentally ill - no liability? For example, liability could extend to the sales process rather than be held by the individual store. http://everytown.org/press/new-fbi-data-shows-mental-health-records-in-background-check-system-tripled-since-release-of-fatal-gaps-report-pressed-states-to-submit-records-of-prohibited-gun-purchasers/ http://everytown.org/press/new-fbi-data-shows-mental-health-...
    - MrMember 10y ago
      How does it follow to hold manufacturers responsible for that crime? They legally manufactured a rifle. That rifle was legally sold to a distributor. That distributor legally sold the rifle to a retail store. That store legally sold the rifle to the shooter. How could it be argued that the manufacturer acted negligently?
      - lostlogin 10y ago
        Would it surprise you if someone with an assault AR-15 shot 5 people dead in the next few weeks? How is it ok it keeps happening and the manufacturer keeps profitting but not having any responsibility? Someone is bound to bring up cars, an a counter example. Cars are needed. Are AR-15s?
        LyndsySimon 10y ago
        > assault AR-15 You're making up terms. > How is it ok it keeps happening and the manufacturer keeps profitting but not having any responsibility? How do you expect to "hold someone responsible" for something over which they have no control? > Cars are needed. Are AR-15s? This is your opinion.
- icebraining 10y ago
  Liability for what? Not seeing the future? Either you allow the sale of guns or you don't; if you do, blaming the manufacturers afterwards is just hypocrisy, and makes no more sense than making Renault liable for the Nice attack.
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    "Either you allow the sale of guns or you don't". No, it isn't all or nothing. When the problem occurs repeatedly and regularly it's probably time to try and solve it. I don't pretend to know how exactly to do this, but it isn't as though other countries haven't had problems and tried things to solve them.
    - jsight 10y ago
      Making gun makers liable for all gun crime is exactly a "either you allow them to be manufactured or you don't" kind of policy. Saying that you want a solution is very different from saying that you want that solution.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  Many more people are killed with kitchen knives than guns should IKEA be held responsible because the Fjord 13" chef knife was used in a murder?
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    This is exactly how the discourse usually goes. If people acknowledge there is a problem it might get solved, otherwise it won't. If knife attacks are a problem, yes, look at fixing that too.
    - jsight 10y ago
      He didn't ask if we should "look at fixing that", he asked if IKEA should be liable.
      - lostlogin 10y ago
        Is this about comparing products that also kill people, or about discussing ways of reducing gun deaths?
        icebraining 10y ago
        It's about your proposal of making gun manufacturers liable.
        lostlogin 10y ago
        So strike down my idea, yes its imperfect, but its hard to argue that it wouldn't decrease gun deaths. Whats your suggestion? Keep on keeping on? That's not working all that well.
        icebraining 10y ago
        My suggestion would be to avoid the hypocrisy and impose a massive sales tax on gun sales, which is what that rule would indirectly create.
- unclenoriega 10y ago
  I'm not against gun control measures, but I've never understood this argument. Maybe I'm missing something, but is there another industry where we hold manufacturers liable for a properly functioning, legal product? If there is something they can do to make guns safer, just require it. If there isn't, it just makes more sense to ban gun sales than to make gun manufacturers liable for gun crimes. The automobile industry seems like a good parallel. Manufacturers can be liable for manufacturing defects, and seat belts and such are required. There are more advanced safety features available, but as far as I am aware, a manufacturer can't be held liable for injury simply for not including them. Perhaps it's just an end-run around the 2nd amendment. That's the only way this policy has ever made any sense to me.
  - niftich 10y ago
    In the US, the tobacco industry was litigated against both by states and by private individuals until the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement [1] of 1998. Interestingly, a widow of a smoker suing the tobacco companies is the plot of the 1996 John Grisham novel 'The Runaway Jury'. When it was made into a movie in 2003, the script was adapted to a widow suing gunmakers after a workplace shooting. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agre...
    - unclenoriega 10y ago
      Perhaps I'm mistaken, but isn't the premise of this litigation that tobacco companies engaged in marketing and other campaigns to hide or muddy the waters around the negative effects of smoking? I don't think that applies to gun manufacturers, whose product is designed to kill and marketed as such.
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    Are you aware of the history of the car seatbelt in the US? The industry was against them and it was strongly opposed for quite a long time. http://blog.esurance.com/seat-belt-history/ http://blog.esurance.com/seat-belt-history/

by rmchugh 10y ago

sneak 10y ago

Try going to a concert or sporting event in that country sometime. It's totally ridiculous.

lostlogin 10y ago

It would be a problem that was largely solved if gun manufacturers held any liability - a far better target than the cinema. The protection of lawful commerce in arms act protects them.

LyndsySimon 10y ago
Gun manufacturers do hold liability - for defects in their products, for negligence, for breaking the law in the course of selling their products, etc.
- lostlogin 10y ago
  Yes, but a fully functional assault rifle killing dozens when sold to someone whom is badly mentally ill - no liability? For example, liability could extend to the sales process rather than be held by the individual store. http://everytown.org/press/new-fbi-data-shows-mental-health-records-in-background-check-system-tripled-since-release-of-fatal-gaps-report-pressed-states-to-submit-records-of-prohibited-gun-purchasers/ http://everytown.org/press/new-fbi-data-shows-mental-health-...
  - MrMember 10y ago
    How does it follow to hold manufacturers responsible for that crime? They legally manufactured a rifle. That rifle was legally sold to a distributor. That distributor legally sold the rifle to a retail store. That store legally sold the rifle to the shooter. How could it be argued that the manufacturer acted negligently?
    - lostlogin 10y ago
      Would it surprise you if someone with an assault AR-15 shot 5 people dead in the next few weeks? How is it ok it keeps happening and the manufacturer keeps profitting but not having any responsibility? Someone is bound to bring up cars, an a counter example. Cars are needed. Are AR-15s?
      - LyndsySimon 10y ago
        > assault AR-15 You're making up terms. > How is it ok it keeps happening and the manufacturer keeps profitting but not having any responsibility? How do you expect to "hold someone responsible" for something over which they have no control? > Cars are needed. Are AR-15s? This is your opinion.
icebraining 10y ago
Liability for what? Not seeing the future? Either you allow the sale of guns or you don't; if you do, blaming the manufacturers afterwards is just hypocrisy, and makes no more sense than making Renault liable for the Nice attack.
- lostlogin 10y ago
  "Either you allow the sale of guns or you don't". No, it isn't all or nothing. When the problem occurs repeatedly and regularly it's probably time to try and solve it. I don't pretend to know how exactly to do this, but it isn't as though other countries haven't had problems and tried things to solve them.
  - jsight 10y ago
    Making gun makers liable for all gun crime is exactly a "either you allow them to be manufactured or you don't" kind of policy. Saying that you want a solution is very different from saying that you want that solution.
dogma1138 10y ago
Many more people are killed with kitchen knives than guns should IKEA be held responsible because the Fjord 13" chef knife was used in a murder?
- lostlogin 10y ago
  This is exactly how the discourse usually goes. If people acknowledge there is a problem it might get solved, otherwise it won't. If knife attacks are a problem, yes, look at fixing that too.
  - jsight 10y ago
    He didn't ask if we should "look at fixing that", he asked if IKEA should be liable.
    - lostlogin 10y ago
      Is this about comparing products that also kill people, or about discussing ways of reducing gun deaths?
      - icebraining 10y ago
        It's about your proposal of making gun manufacturers liable.
        lostlogin 10y ago
        So strike down my idea, yes its imperfect, but its hard to argue that it wouldn't decrease gun deaths. Whats your suggestion? Keep on keeping on? That's not working all that well.
        icebraining 10y ago
        My suggestion would be to avoid the hypocrisy and impose a massive sales tax on gun sales, which is what that rule would indirectly create.
unclenoriega 10y ago
I'm not against gun control measures, but I've never understood this argument. Maybe I'm missing something, but is there another industry where we hold manufacturers liable for a properly functioning, legal product? If there is something they can do to make guns safer, just require it. If there isn't, it just makes more sense to ban gun sales than to make gun manufacturers liable for gun crimes. The automobile industry seems like a good parallel. Manufacturers can be liable for manufacturing defects, and seat belts and such are required. There are more advanced safety features available, but as far as I am aware, a manufacturer can't be held liable for injury simply for not including them. Perhaps it's just an end-run around the 2nd amendment. That's the only way this policy has ever made any sense to me.
- niftich 10y ago
  In the US, the tobacco industry was litigated against both by states and by private individuals until the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement [1] of 1998. Interestingly, a widow of a smoker suing the tobacco companies is the plot of the 1996 John Grisham novel 'The Runaway Jury'. When it was made into a movie in 2003, the script was adapted to a widow suing gunmakers after a workplace shooting. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agre...
  - unclenoriega 10y ago
    Perhaps I'm mistaken, but isn't the premise of this litigation that tobacco companies engaged in marketing and other campaigns to hide or muddy the waters around the negative effects of smoking? I don't think that applies to gun manufacturers, whose product is designed to kill and marketed as such.
- lostlogin 10y ago
  Are you aware of the history of the car seatbelt in the US? The industry was against them and it was strongly opposed for quite a long time. http://blog.esurance.com/seat-belt-history/ http://blog.esurance.com/seat-belt-history/