Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Lawrence O'Donnell on Product Liability and Gun Manufacturers

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


  1. 1. All of those lawsuits that he praises were against products that did something they were not intended or designed to do.

    2. Very few guns suffer mechanical failures.

    3. This testimony shows that Glock understands logic better than Beretta.

    4. Has O'Donnell ever tried to change out magazines? He apparently doesn't realize how easy that is.

    5. Typical for O'Donnell, this was yet another whining screed about how terrible it is for people to be free.

  2. The video wouldn't load past 1 min. 10 sec. for me, so I don't know all of Larry's points, but I'll ask you, Mike:

    What grounds are there for a product liability lawsuit against gun manufacturers?

    The whole push to sue gun makers in the 90's was an example of shifting responsibility from criminals for their misuse of guns and from negligent users, and transferring this liability to the manufacturer.

    If a person uses a very dangerous item, like a chainsaw, to murder someone, the manufacturer is not held liable. Neither are they held liable if the person is injured by misusing the chainsaw or using it in a negligent manner.

    Why should guns have been treated differently under the law?

    If you want to sue someone who makes a gun that can fire if bumped, dropped, or if it just left cocked for a short time, you probably have a case and can get around the shield law. Otherwise, if you're just trying to force gun makers to restrict access to their products by suing them for things no other manufacturer could be held liable for, you're misusing the court system.

  3. Ooh--"the American weapons of death industry" (or should I have put that in all caps). I'm truly amazed this little pansy manages to remember to breathe without someone constantly reminding him.