If A legally sells a gun to B, and B uses that gun to shoot C, should A be held accountable?
This is something in Clinton's gun-control idea that doesn't make sense. If there was no negligence by the manufacturer, and it was sold legally, why sue the manufacturer?
I agree. Clinton tries to portray herself as coming from the left on guns, but to me this just seems like coming from the stupid on guns. Maybe a Clinton supporter could clarify...
@VeritasSOH, care to say something?
@veritasSOH (see if you see it now).
To be honest, I don't know 100% what HRC's position on this is.
But this is my opinion: gun manufacturers should have the same general liability for gross negligence that very other industry--from toy makers to drug manufacturers--have to abide by.
It's my understanding that gun manufacturers are exempt from those laws unlike any other industry. I don't agree with that. I think that's Hillary/Sandy Hook families position. But I'm not sure.
Obviously the gun maker didn't shoot those kids, but if there was gross negligence on their part when it came to selling those weapons, why shouldn't they be held responsible? Just like drug manufacturers are responsible for their negligence?
I also know Bernie voted against he Brady Bill 5 times and the NRA helped get him elected. That's a clear contrast with Clinton.
@veritasSOH So you agree that legal gundealers shouldn't be held responsible, only those who sell immorally or illegally? In that infamous NY Daily News interview, Bernie said, "I do believe that gun manufacturers and gun dealers should be able to be sued when they should know that guns are going into the hands of wrong people. ... So I think there are grounds for those suits, but not if you sell me a legal product." Now HRC and the Daily News are trying to shame him and pretend he doesn't sufficiently care about Sandy Hook victims. How is this other than a complete cheap shot against Sanders?
I don't think that's accurate. No one is saying Sanders doesn't care about those little kids. I think the Clinton camp is saying is that the gun lobby shouldn't get special exemptions that no one else gets. They shouldn't get special protections. They shouldn't get to buy off enough lawmakers to get their own loopholes. Sen. Sanders, by his voting record, disagrees.
I can't say that I care too much about this issue though. I care a lot more that Sanders voted against the Brady Bill FIVE TIMES. That's indefensible.
If A sells a car to B, and B drives drunk, crashes, and kills C. Should A be held accountable?
Just the gun sellers who sell illegally.
As long as they have followed proper gun sale protocol, no.
That would be the legally part.
Many try to paint Sen. Sanders' views on gun control as "too moderate" or "not progressive." I would counter that any approach that holds legal dealers accountable is authoritarian extremism.