Hillary Clinton’s Views On Liability

“Clinton has unveiled new gun control laws in the wake of the deadly Oregon school shooting.
 
She proposes abolishing legislation that protects gun makers and dealers from being sued by shooting victims.”
 
See Hillary Clinton wants gun firms liable for shootings – BBC News
So, a manufacturer of firearms designs, builds, distributes and sells them by the thousands. Ms Clinton wants everyone who is injured by some evildoer using one of those firearms to sue the maker. Come on. Has she ever read the documentation firearms makers ship with new firearms? Before you even get to know how to load or to fire the firearm, you read pages of warnings like not pointing the thing at anything you don’t want to shoot, not allowing any dirt into the barrel or action, how to clean the thing, etc. It’s all lawyer-proof stuff designed to protect proper businesses from being sued successfully in court by anyone, user or bystander or victim.

The reason USA has laws on the books explicitly protecting businesses from such suits is because gun-haters were goading victims into suing businesses out of existence. Clinton knows that will be the case again if those laws are stricken. Further, tens of thousands of victims are killed using firearms annually and many more are injured. How many court-cases does she think the legal system can manage? Is she willing to let murderers go free because the courts are waiting decades before a murderer gets to trial? Is she willing to fill the prisons with people awaiting trial on top of those already there for drugs? USA already has the most incarcerated population on the planet. She wants more to pile up because she hates firearms?

Further, there are hundreds of millions of firearms in USA. Many are very old, made long before the lawyers got involved. Is she going to allow businesses to be sued for a product they made decades ago because a burglar stole it, sold it to a hitman and it was used in a crime? What court of appeal would approve retroactivity? Even if the courts could deal with these matters, there will be no effect except more lawyers would be paid to attack and to defend firearms makers. This is not about improving public safety but about lying to the electorate. Let’s hope they won’t be fooled.

Unfortunately, with the GOP perhaps endorsing Trump, Clinton may be given a free ride. Clinton is somewhat more rational than Trump but they are both crazy. Fortunately, Clinton is running to rule the executive not the legislative branch of government. She probably can’t make her wish come true even if the Democrats take the congress.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in firearms. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Hillary Clinton’s Views On Liability

  1. oiaohm says:

    ram Australia has a lot of examples of no command and control left and having to operate makeshift. The major bush fire at Canberra the command and control center was gone in the first half an hour consumed by the fire. This is only a very fairly recent example of no more command and control. There have been cases of command and control losing power due to fire. The large floods also saw broken command and control here.

    Yes Australian emergency services and mil put a huge focus on the individual because they presume Command and Control could be disabled or destroyed or breached(or manned by a idiot) so individual must me able to make correct judgment calls and assemble hacked together command and control if required.

  2. ram says:

    oiaohm made some good points. Australia also handles policing and firefighting differently than the US. Australia puts far more responsibility on the guys in the field and much less emphasis on obeying command structures blindly.

  3. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson to be correct I agree that the rules forbiding arms makers from being sued in the USA need to be relaxed. There is a issue effecting Australia here. There are case of USA arms makers shipping weapons into Australia to people without gun licenses. If you cannot get conformation that someone is a license firearms holder the firearm rules here says you arrange up that you send the firearms to the local police station and have them collected from there.

    Remember in most USA states its illegal for a minor to buy a firearm. Yet minors have bought arms on-line and done school yard shootings. Due to current laws in the USA the supplier cannot be sued over this. Why they get to use a don’t ask, don’t tell so don’t know so not liable. When with a firearm it should be ask if not satisfied use conforming supply route like a dealer/police station.

    In my eyes a firearms supplier/manufacturer should be sue-able by victims in cases where they are proven not to have performed correct due care on the supply lines. Now of they did correct due care and someone still shot someone they should be off the hook. The problem here is USA arms makers are off the hook even when they have not done correct due care.

    dougman
    I hold Hillary responsible Benghazi, she should be in prison.
    I totally do not agree. In fact Hillary should not be taking responsibility. Instead the ones who gave the orders and carried out the orders should be facing war crimes charges. So that a proper explanation of how this disaster happen comes out. Due to this happening on a international battle field how it happened should be published to hopefully prevent it from happening again.

    I will give an example from the first Gulf War. USA command and control almost got bombed by Australian Aircraft due to very bad miss handling and it shows the fault in USA handling.

    Australian process.
    Aircraft gets order to bomb target.
    The crew member in charge of dropping bomb checks target against civilian/key infrastructure map(important because the where and angle you drop bomb on target might cause other issues. Also command and control could be breached.
    If it possible visual inspection of target checking for key markings like museums and hospitals and active weapons fire and matching description.
    Now at this point if it passed that everything is in order bomb the heck out of it.

    What happened in the gulf war is the target given by USA command in control did not pass. So Australian Aircraft refused to bomb due to the fact by Australian Mil operation rules they would be held liable. Then USA command and control ordered them to bomb any how. This is breach of Australian command and control trigger the aircraft to in act breached command and control process what triggers bomb the command and control because it breached. Worse it triggers all Australian aircraft to switch to airborne command and control so the closest Australian aircraft to the USA command and control changes course to bomb it. This was only just defused in time it was under 30 seconds to USA command in control being blown up. Since that day Australian fighter only take commands from Australian controllers on ground. That case was also bomb a hospital. So USA command and control has not improved since the first gulf war.

    Now lets look at USA process and this is why the first thing new aircraft from the USA to Australia require electronic alterations.
    Command and control sends order to bomb target to aircraft. If the selected bomb on the aircraft is GPS guided the target information goes straight to bomb pilot is giving flight path. Bomb drops self this has to be modified out once an Aircraft is converted for Australian usage because the flight crew are required to be responsible for all weapons on the aircraft.

    For lazer guided and unguided drop the aircraft crew are not required to perform any target conformation.

    So USA Mil Liability is all wrong. The person giving you orders has the Liability not the person firing the weapon when its Aircraft by USA Mil.

    A battle field is a dynamic place. So what was a correct target 1 hour ago could in fact be over run by friendlies and is now not a target as well. USA high friendly fire rate is also due to invalid policies.

    You need the last person in charge of a weapon before is fired to take responsibility to confirm the target is valid. If you don’t you will have repeating cases of bad/out of date intelligence causing fatalities.

    Of course is another problem to extend the flight time of fighter crews the USA has been willing to use drugs the effect logical reasoning. So you have drugs creating flying aggressive idiots. Yes some of the drugs used are illegal on USA streets.

    We need the USA Mil to take responsibility to perform their actions correctly by UN rules. Yes UN rules do state person with weapon should be in charge of it. USA fighter aircraft do not conform to UN rules. Russian, French(Euro made fighter jets) and Australian modified fighter aircraft do conform to UN rules. UN rules about weapons is to reduce civilian and solider deaths. Question was the latest mess caused by where USA fighter aircraft don’t conform to UN rules. Does the USA need to import Australian modification kits in volume or make there own copy of it?

    Its the point of view that its opp 1 percent of the time we get this wrong its not a problem is a worry. So USA mil is not fixing the 1 percent problem.

  4. dougman says:

    This consulate and embassy should have been closed long before this happened, as there was no secure government to normalize relations with and Ambassador Stevens had been BEGGING for more security, not only did they deny his request, but they REMOVED additional security personnel!!

    http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/DEI-to-BHO-10-19-2012-attachments.pdf

  5. dougman wrote, “I hold Hillary responsible Benghazi, she should be in prison.”

    You mean she was there that night firing the RPGs and mortars?

    Her ambassador was clearly “off the reservation”. He holds a lot of responsibility. I hold the US military responsible for not having the right tools within range. An AC-130 or a warthog could have made a big difference. Where were they? It’s not State’s responsibility to wage war.

  6. dougman says:

    M$ disallows class-action lawsuits. Even if the OS is the problem, tough luck chump.

    I hold Hillary responsible Benghazi, she should be in prison.
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/transcript-hillary-clinton-takes-responsibility-benghazi-attack-article-1.1246025

  7. kurkosdr says:

    What M$’s EULA says is I can’t sue them for selling me a gun that backfires every single time.

    Why shouldn’t they? There are no real customer protection laws for software and every other company does it (FOSS software sold for money included, and proprietary software too of course).

    For example, let’s assume that a company advertises that their game does saving, then game fails to save because of a known bug. You get no refunds or a 2-year warranty, you have to sit with the broken software in your hands and beg for a patch sometime in the future. Android vendors shipping devices with old versions of Android containing the stagefright bug, aka a defect known to the vendor? No problem, keep doing that vendor. Your app or OS crashes on a reproducible bug? Yup, that’s a known defect, but it’s software so you have no warranties or any other consumer rights, sit with the broken software your paid us for and beg for a patch someday.

    So… how is the MS EULA different from the above exactly?

  8. JD says:

    @Loser
    What M$’s EULA says is I can’t sue them for selling me a gun that backfires every single time.

  9. DrLoser says:

    I take it that, on the very same principle, you are totally in favour of the various Microsoft EULAs, then .

Leave a Reply